Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pottinger's cats (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 22 January 2013 (→I changed citation related to "organic production and food quality"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Organic food was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 15, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Horticulture and Gardening Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WP:MEDRS

Why are the sources for this article measured along Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Organic food is, as the name says, food, not a medicin. The Banner _talk 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources used for medical information, in any article, is governed by WP:MEDRS ("specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article"). Since the section you are adding the information to the "Nutritional value and taste" section is obviously health related, so sources used in this section need to meet WP:MEDRS. The source you want to use, published here has multiple problems. The journal is not MEDLINE indexed, which is a huge red flag for medical journals. The journal's stated scope is "the areas of cell biology, plant pathology and physiology, genetics, classical botany, and ecology, to practical agricultural applications"; it specifically is not a journal that published medical information. Using a journal that is out of its stated scope to rebut information from journals that are in medical journals is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not very likely that an agricultural journal will be indexed by a medical index. So it is blatent nonsense.

Secondly, Medline is an American index. This agricultural journal is from the United Kingdom. To my opinion. you try to hijack this article by focusing on the medical side of it, instead of the food side of it. The Banner _talk 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Food and drink of your stance and hope to get some input of them. The Banner _talk 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It's inevitable that an article on organic food will touch on health - since nutrition (or avoiding consumption of pesticides &c) is often perceived to be an advantage of organic food. It's reasonable to expect a MEDRS for that kind of content, especially due to the neutrality problems in this area (there are lots of lower-quality sources making very dubious claims). Outside that - say, content about farming techniques or the economic side - then of course we don't need a MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So you lock out loads of scientific sources, even agricultural science, as soon as it contains health claims? That you need reliable sources, true. That there is a load of garbage disguised als articles, true. But starting to measure ONLY along the lines of a notorious difficult accessible medical index, makes no sense. That gives undue weight to the medical side of the article. The Banner _talk 11:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest looking at the papers that cite the one you added. One review says: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods", Huber, Machteld (1 November 2012). "The challenge of evaluating health effects of organic food; operationalisation of a dynamic concept of health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 92 (14): 2766–2773. doi:10.1002/jsfa.5563. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). It comments that your study "reported differences in nutrient levels without assessing the statistical significance of those differences or weighting outcomes by sample size". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments to The Banner: 1) Pubmed is an international indexing, not an American one (as would be clear to anyone who searched the index for journals with the word "British" in the title - hundreds of results come up). 2) We should be using medical journals for medical information, and agricultural journals for agricultural information. I would have the same objection if someone tried to use the The New England Journal of Medicine or BMJ for purely agricultural info. Yobol (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that food quality and food nutrition is an agricultural concern, not exclusively a medical one. The Banner _talk 14:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

factorfizzle.com appears to be self-published, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on a second look it did not seem to be very reliable. But the part I added was based on a university study by an agricultural department. Not so likely to be included in een medical index, but, as far as I can tell, not an unreliable source, certainly not in its field of expertise. The Banner _talk 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS is not required for an article such as this one, which is within the scope of WIkiProject Agriculture. WP:RS is all that is needed; peer-reviewed journals are fine, university published sources are fine. Limiting source material to MEDRS would unnecessarily restrict reliable information on this topic. It makes about as much sense as requiring a MEDRS source for citing info on the death of John Lennon 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect to discussion of health-related aspects of organic food or any topic, WP:MEDRS must govern. As the lede to that policy states: "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The discussion of the health benefits, or lack thereof, in this article is very important -- belief in health benefits is a reason for buying organic food. (a reason, not the only one). Discussion of health benefits clearly falls under WP:MEDRS. And the key thing in WP:MEDRS, from my viewpoint, is the emphasis on using secondary sources (reviews) instead of primary sources (single studies), to state the scientific consensus whatever it may be, and however definite or indefinite it may be -- and especially in cases where the consensus is "we don't know for certain yet", stating that ambiguity honestly and clearly. Too often editors want to make definite factual statements on these issues, when definite factual statements are not supportable, and too often editors rely on single studies to try to make definite statements. If people want to believe that organic food is more/less/as healthy than non-organic, that's all fine and good, and the article should probably have a section on "perception of organic food". But when describing facts about health benefits of organic food or lack thereof in wikipedia - or at least the scientific consensus on what we know and what we don't, then WP:MEDRS must govern. It is exactly for this kind of thing that WP:MEDRS was created -- to help ensure that discussion of health claims in wiki articles is sound. That's what I think, anyway.Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Wrong policy. MEDRS is not applicable here, as this isn't a medical article. Belchfire-TALK 16:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy says "biomedical information in all types of articles". Whether people who eat organic food are healthier for doing so or not, is biomedical information. Most importantly, we want the article to be great, to withstand the scrutiny of a person from any side of the debate on this. I looked over some of this thread that last night... There seems to be some misunderstandings about what kind of journal can be used under WP:MEDRS. Toxicology is a very important medical science. You find individual toxicology studies all over the place -- in ag journals, for instance. You also find individual nutrition studies all over the place. The journal type is not the focus of WP:MEDRS -- the focus is on stating the scientific consensus, based on the best secondary sources one can find; primary (individual) studies are to be used only with care. If there is an awesome review of the state-of-science in a reputable ag journal, that is arguably fine under WP:MEDRS. I hope that helps. To those who celebrate it, merry christmas; to all - have a great day. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree and thank you. I am having organic prime rib dinner today. Merry Xmas. TFD (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no "biomedical" information in this article. This isn't a medical topic, and this isn't a medical article. Pretending otherwise is simply a smokescreen to give cover to a misapplication of policy that favors POV-pushing. Belchfire-TALK 04:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

See the lead, "scientific evidence has not shown a consistent and significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety nutritional value...." Also the section Organic food#Health and safety. Nutrition and toxicology are medical issues. TFD (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but those are not medical claims. This article is about food; it's not about drugs or medical treatment. Belchfire-TALK 05:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You could argue over nutritional value, but food safety is most definately a medical claim. AIRcorn (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

While the nutritional analysis of food is not medical, whether or not a food is a good source of nutrition is. TFD (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nutricion isn't medicine. It's science, but not medicine. There's a difference. Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Medicine is both an art (the practice of medicine) and a science (the study of medicine). See also: clinical nutrition and medical nutrition therapy. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but here the nutritional value is more used as food labelling. The Banner _talk 11:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've thought this argument through. Sourcing guidelines for WP:MEDRS are what all of our topics should aspire to regardless of subject matter. Food labeling refers to organic certification. Any argument for such food labeling has implicit arguments for human health attached. This is academic. Instead of fighting against WP:MEDRS, you should embrace it. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment and a question.
1) Comment: In the US, the dietary supplement industry has exploded over the past twenty years. (This may be true worldwide, but I can't speak with any confidence about wellness trends outside the US). From a report on the dietary supplement industry in the US: "wellness has become an important trend among Americans, with consumers showing ever greater interest in a more holistic approach to their health.... Healthy consumers use supplements to decrease their risk of heart disease, boost their immune systems, prevent vision loss, build strong bones, or prevent birth defects. Less healthy or ill consumers turn to supplements as an alternative to traditional medical treatments, to either complement prescription drugs they may be taking or substitute supplements for prescription drugs they either cannot afford or do not trust." (http://naturalproductsfoundation.org/clientuploads/NPF%20-%20Economic%20Impact%20Study.pdf) And my strong sense is that people have turned to organic foods for the much the same reason - to be more well, and to avoid perceived risk to their health from food that is produced by Big Ag. This notion of "wellness" is just hugely important here in the US. It is important commercially, with companies that play in the dietary supplement (or as they sometimes like to call it, "nutraceutical") space, as well as "functional food" space; the exercise industry, etc... and "advisors" like Dr Oz et al selling whole lines of goods and themselves. The medical community is also plugged into this -- doctors, insurance companies, employers, etc are all doing what they can to promote healthy habits and behaviors and doing what they can to discourage unhealthy ones - increasingly, the practice of medicine is focused not only on diagnosing and treating disease, but on preventing disease and improving health. The medical establishment takes this stuff seriously - the NIH has even paid for several, very expensive, clinical trials of dietary supplements (to see for instance, if anti-oxidants like Vitamin E can really prevent cancer). The commercial wellness industry, and the medical industry, are very well aligned in some aspects of the pursuit of wellness, and are uneasy allies in others. Well aligned -- quitting smoking, getting exercise, eating lots of fruits and veggies. In some ways they are not so well aligned... e.g the marketing of dietary supplements with dubious health claims, the fringes of the wellness industry that cast doubt on the whole enterprise of western science. But in any case, these "health and wellness claims" are all around us in the US, all the time. Consumers are awash in an ocean of them. And as I said above, perceptions about the "better for you"-ness of organic food - less risk of subtle poisoning from pesticide residue, fear of harm from GM food, perception that there is more nutrition in organic food than in Big Ag produce -- these are part of that much larger discussion about wellness, and are a big reason that people in the US buy organic food. And going back again to MEDRS: "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information." It is really important to me that Misplaced Pages state clearly what is known -- what the scientific consensus is - on health benefits of products/services that people consider and consume with regard to their health. Misplaced Pages should not repeat unsubstantiated marketing claims of any industry. It should give the scientific consensus on the health benefits/detriments of smoking, exercise, various food classes, various dietary supplements, various drugs, etc etc. And of organic food. People need good information on products/services related to their health and they come to Misplaced Pages for it. So that section of the article, not the whole article- should use MEDRS, which was written precisely to help editors write great content on health matters. That is why I care about this - people are awash in health claims and wikipedia is a place they come to, looking for reliable information. Banner and Belch, I don't understand why you keep referring to "the whole article." The policy very clearly states, "health-related content in any type of article". It doesn't get more clear than that. Which leads to my question.
2) Question: I apologize for asking this as I know I have come late to the party, but Banner and Belch and others in opposition, why are you, respectively, objecting to MEDRS? Banner I had a look at your talk page, and saw that you wrote, with respect to MEDRS: "Their stance to allow only reliable sources related to medicins in an article about food and agriculture it utter nonsense. Especially, because WP:MEDRS does not mention food. Those guys seem to close their eyes for reality and in the process produce a one-sided, POV-article. But no harm, I will work around it. The truth must be said and even Big Companies can be brought down." I really don't understand where you are coming from on this.. can you please explain? Real question, not rhetorical. I am not asking what your arguments are, but rather, why you are making them - where are you coming from? Banner, what do "big companies" have to do with applying MEDRS to the sections on health (nutrition, toxicity) of organic food? I am looking for something parallel to what I wrote above - I tried to say why I care about this. I hope it made sense and helped you understand where I am coming from. I look forward to hearing from you all. I would really like to understand. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with acces to

...this article? Could it be useful for the section about taste? The Banner _talk 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Full text is right here: link but it's a letter to the editor and can't be used for anything other than the writers' opinions. Zad68 01:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a pity. It looked interesting. The Banner _talk 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks this is in fact the article I am looking for. The Banner _talk 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't dig into it too deeply, but that looks like an interesting primary source study. On Misplaced Pages we are looking for secondary sources. It actually looks like an earlier version of that study (Peck's Masters thesis) was used by Smith-Spanger et al. in "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review." Can you find another secondary source that uses it? Zad68 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, secodary sources are preferred, not mandatory. The Banner _talk 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy at WP:PSTS says:

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

Both WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS have large sections titled "Respect secondary sources" that explains why passing over secondary sources and hand-choosing individual primary results will lead to bad articles. Because there are high-quality secondary sources that cover these topics and in fact reference the individual primary sources you are talking about, there is no reason to use the individual primary sources here. Zad68 15:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to explain that I had a short list of examples in mind... The Banner _talk 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Most peer-reviewed articles ARE primary sources if you want to be really strict about it. Seems to me we solve the problem by explaining the context; it is not SYNTH to say: "X studies in (year) and (year) have concluded Y and Z; however no meta-analysis of these studies has been conducted to date and studies Z and A reached the opposite conclusion; thus a consensus within the scientific community has yet to be reached."

It's not a matter of 'being strict about it,' all primary research journal articles are, by definition, WP:PRIMARY. Any journal article where somebody runs an experiment him/herself, collects data, and reports the findings is primary research. What we want in Misplaced Pages articles are the review articles and systematic reviews that pull the data from the primary research article results and summarize and analyze them, and provide context and evidence confidence evaluations. The review articles and systematic reviews are the secondary sources we need to be using. Zad68 20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: TRIP database... Zad68 20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me we solve the problem by explaining the context; primary sources are appropriate for their findings; it is not SYNTH to say: "X studies in (year) and (year) have concluded Y and Z; however no meta-analysis of these studies has been conducted to date and studies Z and A reached the opposite conclusion; thus a consensus within the scientific community has yet to be reached." Zad, let's take a totally unrelated example of, say, researchers finding the DNA code for the genes that cause a rare disease. Is it OK to say "researchers have located gene X? Or can we not say that because it's a primary source and some other researchers have yet to say "we reviewed the study and the guys who found gene X are right?" Montanabw 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be covered until it's covered in secondary sources. We shouldn't be adding our interpretations of primary research or its significance. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Montana, it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is failing to depend on independent expert reliable sources to do the selecting and evaluating of the primary sources for us by having us hand-picking certain primary studies to include, and excluding others. The solution is to use the secondary sources. Zad68 04:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements - non-controversial?

• Proposal one: Anyone object if we give all editors until a couple days after Xmas (or maybe a week) to fix or find new cites for all sources tagged "dead link" and if not fixed by then, we toss all material, whatever it says, that has a "dead link" source on it?? Montanabw 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Only when you add dodgy sources like this one to the kicklist: It's Official: Organic Really is BetterOnly WP:MEDRS allowed? This looks like a major blindspot (or double standard) The Banner _talk 21:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoting a posting on the website of the alternative medicine practitioner Joseph Mercola, that refers to an unnamed report mentioned in a newspaper article that is no longer available is unhelpful, since it does not meet rs for any articles. TFD (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dead links should not be removed merely because they are dead. See WP:LINKROT. Yobol (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. Not to be rude, but WP:LINKROT is only a how-to page, not a guideline or policy and also says nothing about removing deadlinks. So fix the dead links or see them kicked. The Banner _talk 08:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed what I can. It's a how to guide describing practice on Misplaced Pages. You don't get to ignore Misplaced Pages's practices just because you don't like them. If you don't like the page, get a consensus to change it, but you don't get to ignore it. See also WP:DEADREF. Yobol (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is just a manual, nothing to do with policy or guideline. You can throw in as many pagelinks as you want, as long as you refuse to take a sensible approach we will keep clashing. To avoid a further editwar over your POV-pushing, I have requested page protection again. The Banner _talk 12:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie?

Could you please stop adding nonsense to the text? I would say that a conclusion The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (, p. 11, left column, last paragraphis) is contrary to the statement in the text Reviews of the available body of scientific literature have not found that organic food is any safer or healthier than conventional foods. What you do is plain WP:SYNTH. The Banner _talk 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article for 10 days, which should give you a break over the Christmas period. How about you set up that RfC and then agree not to edit the article or the talk page for a week or so? — Mr. Stradivarius 17:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Another attempt for the RfC

Progress is by now totally zero, so let us try again. In basic I think we will create a lot of hassle and drama when we try to solve everything with one single RfC. As I have learned years ago, big problems do not exist, they are always clusters of small(er) problems. Without bothering about the exact formulation now, I think the following approach might be useful:

Step 1: General clean up and neutralisation of the whole article except the present chapter "Health and Safety"

Step 2: A RfC about the question "Does taste need WP:MEDRS sources or can it moved out of the chapter?"

Step 3: A RfC about the question "Does nutritional value need WP:MEDRS sources or can it moved out of the chapter?"

Step 4: A discussion about the split up of "Consumer safety" in more sections that can be dealed with separately. I think (no suggestions, just a line of thinking) of sections like "Perceived health effects", "Chemical residues", "Health and safety for growers and producers" and so on.

Step 5: A RfC about the question "The guideline WP:MEDRS allows exceptions on the general rule. Should Organic food avail of such an exception and allow non-MEDRS sources beside MEDRS-compliant sources?"

There is no ultimate need to do every step, every step taken is progress.

Peace on earth and let me hear what you think. The Banner _talk 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I think that the MEDRS guideline discussion may be a diversion. I have not seen anything that should be in the article that the guideline disallows. Whatever topic we edit about, we should not use old studies that have received no attention or newspaper reports about new studies that have not yet received any recognition. And certainly we cannot put in our own opinions. There is also nothing to stop us from reporting claims made by supporters of organic farming provided they have received notice and we are able to report the degree of acceptance of those claims. And no taste is not a MEDRS issue, but we still need reliable sources that are not just the opinions of isolated writers. TFD (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should you start searching for alternative sources knowing that Yobol and Wolfie will remove it as soon as possible when it does not meet their own personal standards? They use MEDRS as a policy, while it is only a guideline. They demand secondary sources, while these are only preferred. The latest incident was when Yobol was cherrypicking part of a conclusion to make it more negative than it in fact was. I really try to maintain good faith about them, but they make it seriously tough! The Banner _talk 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that we have a behavioral problem here with POV-pushing on the part of Wolfie and Yobol that no longer will AGF on Banner's perfectly reasonable edits. The "my way or the highway" attitude needs to go. I think the only way an RfC has any possibility of resolving anything is to present a clear alternative. So, to that end, Banner: My suggestion is that you create a sandbox off your talk page, feel free to send the link if you wish, and then insert the relevant text (or even the entire article) into it, then at your leisure, edit as you see fit, (I will also help, as can others you invite; it's YOUR sandbox) adding high quality sources and doing the cleanup work that is needed. Then we can basically present option A or option B to the RfC, allowing that both versions may yet be work. No sense banging our heads against the wall here. Montanabw 19:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good way forward; however, for someone like myself who is new to this discussion, I would like to be briefed on the passages in dispute, perhaps with a list of points followed by diffs. The Banner's focus on MEDRS is the wrong way to go. Whenever possible, we should demand the best sources available. On the other hand, there are serious conflicts of interest at work, and there is a close relationship between the companies responsible for conventional agriculture and the medical industry, sometimes resulting in propaganda efforts like this—a study by a team of clinicians outside their fields of expertise, allegedly funded by undisclosed agribusiness money from Cargill, cherry picked results, produced a straw man, and then proceeded to knock it down. This is a classic example of the manufactured uncertainty PR tactic, and it is not surprising that one of the key players from the now debunked uncertainty previously created by the tobacco companies, Ingram Olkin, was on Stanford's team. No surprise here, folks. Science is not immune from manipulation, but our judicious use of sources will in practice, eliminate bias and spin. On this point, MEDRS cannot eliminate reliably sourced criticism or counterarguments within their field of expertise. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see this Huffington-article refer to Kirstin Brandt and her report. Interesting, when I added this report it was shot down by the duo as a non-MEDRS source so unusable... The Banner _talk 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

When you read the talkpage, you can see that it are Yobol and Wolfie who regard MEDRS as the Holy Grail and follow it with complete tunnelvision. The Banner _talk 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Both of those lines of inquiry are unproductive. Let us focus only on contributions. What is the primary point of contention at this time? Please be specific and brief in your reply. I am only interested in solving problems not talking endlessly about the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the MEDRS guideline presents the restrictions that Viriditas believes. The Huffington Post article says that the press release for the Stanford study says, "Not included in the publicly-available abstract or press release was the fact that pesticide residues were found in 7 percent of organics and 38 percent of conventional foods." Since MEDRS says we should use the study not the press release, then that should not present a problem. Also, the article says that another review said that organic food had higher levels of omega-3. Again, MEDRS does not prevent us from reporting this other study. All MEDRS prevents us from doing is saying that the higher level of pesticide residue is unhealthy and the the higher level of omega-3 is healthy, because the scientific consensus does not support that claim. Also while policy does allow the use of primary sources, MEDRS does not pose any restrictions beyond what the policy does. In order to use primary sources for opinions, we need to establish in secondary sources that the opinions are significant.

As I explained above, Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis says that organic and conventionally raised meat differ in quality, nutrition and toxins. Yet it is used in the article to support the opposite claim. We also ignore that the book said organic food is fresher. An obvious problem with the tests is that it assumes organic farmers raise the same lower nutrition breeds of fruits and vegetables that were developed for intensive farming. While we cannot comment on that, nothing prevents us from presenting sources discussing whether the breeds actually grown by organic farmers are more or less nutritious.

I question too that we should be suspicious of reports that are industry funded. Industry often funds reports published outside the academic mainstream, for example with tobacco and global warming. But those reports do not meet MEDRS. But industry often funds studies that meet the standards of academic research.

TFD (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Meta analyses that controvert this article

The following meta analysis shows that the micronutrient content was more frequently reported to be higher for organic vegetables than conventional vegetables: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333

Interesting and seems great to use under MEDRS. However (and it is a big however) the article is behind a firewall -- not clear if the level of micronutrients in food from conventional ag is less than what we need, and unclear if the higher levels in organic food matter - what is the actual health impact here? (I really don't know) This is exactly where the rubber hits the road when it comes to describing compositional differences versus making actual health claims. Seems perfect for compositional differences (just chemistry) - not at all clear what this means for health.Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a RS is behind a pay wall, it is still a RS. It can be requested for review by other editors if necessary. All of the sources in this article could be behind pay walls, it wouldn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi V: agreed on the paywall thing. That was an aside, literally, i meant "it is unfortunate" - I was not trying to rule it out with that remark. You didn't address the more important point, which is, that the health impact is not clear.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in that point. I'm interested in addressing how we use sources at a meta level. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to see the report and compare it with the sources already used to see if more recent research has superseded it. The abstract says that 56% of the time organic food had higher levels of micronutrients, on average 5%, and that further research is required to determine the health effects. TFD (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gathering up the discussion of this as a source, can we agree on 3 conclusions: 1) it is an acceptable source, 2) to support claims about the chemical composition of organic food; and 3) it does not speak to health benefit of organic food.  ? Additional note -- the question of reliable source really has 2 parts - 1) is the source reliable; and 2) does it support the statement you want to make? I have been dealing with 2 and as well as 1. Sorry if that is getting ahead of the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following meta analysis noted that chronic exposure to organochlorine pesticide compounds may contribute to type 2 diabetes and thyroid diseases: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20677670

This is a secondary source, good under MEDRS. Too bad it is in Italian. Seems that key points of this article are aimed not at residues left on food, which one might eat, but rather, at health effects of organochlorines (not all pesticides) on ag workers. If there is a section in this article on benefits/harms of organic farming vs Big Ag farmnig on farm workers, this could be useful. A quick note - one of the reasons why glyphosphate has been so widely adopted is that it is buckets (unscientific measure I know) less toxic than organochlorines.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The language of a RS has no bearing on its status as a RS. All of the sources in this article could be written in Chinese, it wouldn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that is true, about the language. Really, I am not sure what wiki policy is on that. Will look. But again you didn't address the key point, which is that this article if about farming, not food. If there is a section on farming, great!Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the relevant policies is WP:NOENG, but I think you will find common sense just as helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, how healthy can food be when the production method kills of the one who grow it? Earlier in this discussion I have already suggested to creat sections "Safety for consumers" and "Safety for growers". I will suggest that now again! The Banner _talk 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gathering up the discussion of this as a source, can we agree on 3 conclusions: 1) it is an acceptable source but as per WP:NOENG, only if a) only the abstract is relied on, or b) the person who uses it provides an english translation of the relevant part (in a controverted article like this, I think English translation is essential, 2) to support claims about benefits to workers on organic farms compared to workers on BIgAg farms? (Banner your comment is rhetorically interesting but we cannot push a source farther than it goes) Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following meta analysis showed that occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of Parkinson's disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22698719

Misrepresentation in that it overstates the results. Conclusion is: "The present study provides some support for the hypothesis that occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of PD." Again, this is relevant to farm workers, not eaters of food with residual pesticides. Also, article is behind a paywall... "pesticides" is an incredibly broad class that includes, for instance, pesticides used in organic farming. The abstract does not make it clear whether the studies that were meta-analyzed included pesticides used in organic farming. If they did, how is this article relevant to the organic food article? Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is entirely relevant. The occupational exposure of farm workers to pesticides is entirely on topic. How we eat our food and how we produce our food is inseparable. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a section on farming, great! But you again miss the larger point that it is unclear from the abstract whether it includes pesticides used in organic farming.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The study is not about pesticides used in organic farming. The study is about the health risks of pesticides to farm workers. It is relevant to the health and safety of farm workers, which would be covered under this topic. However, I would expect it to be covered more widely in other secondary sources, and not for Misplaced Pages editors to cherry pick as they may. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not close to consensus here. Viriditas -- what i was trying to say is that the source does not make clear what pesticides it is analyzing. Pesticides are used on organic farms. Pesticides are used on BIgAg farms. We do not know what pesticides the article discusses. For all we know, it is 100% about pesticides used on organic farms. So I don't know what kind of statement you would use support using it.Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

By definition, organic food does not involve the use of synthetic pesticides.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

first, this is actually not true, said in such a blanket and general way. in many jurisdictions certain synthetic pesticides are allowed under certain conditions. Secondly, the abstract of the article does not specify whether it is analyzing synthetic or organic pesticides - it just says "pesticides". Importantly, rotenone is an organic pesticide used in organic farming and there is research linking rotenone to Parkinson's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16243845), which is the disease that is the subject of the source under question. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A recent meta analysis of 19 studies where rats were given GMO corn and soy established the organ damaging effects of these alterations: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

This study is by the Seralini lab and was widely discredited. Not mainstream science.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in reading about how it was discredited. In the future, provide links supporting your claims. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a serious section in the genetically modified food controversies article that discusses Seralini's studies and the responses to them. The links are there.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First, it is interesting how that "serious section" you refer to makes use of non-English sources, which I hopes settles the above issue. Second, the study was not "discredited", and the government/industry review panels in question emphasized uncertainty and called for further inquiries. Your characterization of the issue appears to be biased. Viriditas (talk)

I agree with you, Viriditas. For problems with the reception of the Seralini study, the following provides insight (this is not a source appropriate for wikipedia, but is sufficiently documented): http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294#_edn8

The underhanded politics mentioned in the above article are known to occur in this area - the following Guardian story based on a wikileaks leak shows the type of politics Monsanto, et al., resort to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-cropsPottinger's cats (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The most you can say of the report is that it said results were inconclusive, hence the authors called for further study. Tests on rats do not necessarily indicate how humans will react, so we would need a claim that in this case they did. And the fact that the report was dismissed by the scientific community means it is not useful to the article. (Globalresearch.ca is not a reliable source.) Also, it does not mention how this relates to organic food. TFD (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that whenever Globalresearch.ca gets cited to support a claim, there is reliable source which directly contradicts that claim. Nonetheless, the fact that globalresearch.ca says things that other sources don't (IE. Global warming is a myth, HAARP is a weapon, the Gaddafi and Milošević and Assad regimes are peaceful victims of NATO aggression, 9/11 was an inside job, H1N1 is a government plot to kill billions of people, &c) guarantees that people will try to cite it in controversial areas. Surely we're not relying on globalresearch.ca as an independent arbiter on controversial science issues? Every time it gets taken to WP:RSN, it gets rejected.

The Séralini study was discredited. Meanwhile Séralini has refused to release raw data and pretty much anybody who points out flaws in the methodology is dismissed as having no "right" to review the paper. And then there's the conflict of interest problems. Putting any weight on Séralini's view would be a serious failure of NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The article given, with sufficient documentation, deals with the source you gave to claim that the Séralini study was discredited, showing how conflicts of interest and other factors led to that decision. It directly deals with the issues you brought up. Globalresearch is not a mainstream source, however, many of its articles adequately controvert mainstream views. Many of its views on international politics are corroborated by the following from Gen. Wesley Clark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

Regarding Global Warming, US Navy records shows that arctic ice volume has increased 25% from 2008-2010: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/

Regarding other opinions, they defend their stance on 9/11 on their website, so I won't go into it. The opinion on weather warfare is commonly cited as a "fringe" idea, but it is discussed as a viable option by the former National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in "Between Two Ages", relevant excerpts of which are here: http://www.earthemperor.com/2008/11/18/between-two-ages-americas-role-in-the-technetronic-era-by-zbigniew-brzezinski/

It is also noted in military literature: http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

It is also noted in the following: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN

But the opinions of many writers are varying, and each article needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The article given about the Seralini study is totally relevant. The Guardian article cited below the article relevant to the Seralini study deals with Monsanto's actions and influence, and shows how it is rational to expect crony capitalism and undue influence in these cases.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The following overview corroborates the Seralini study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20011136

So does this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835

So does this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111655Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Genetically modified foods pose an immense environmental and health threat, because of horizontal gene transfer. Animal research published in 2003 in the journal of Environmental Biosafety Research showed that genetically modified lactic acid bacteria are capable of transferring recombinant genes sequences horizontally into a species of digestive tract bacteria that is found in humans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612415

Other animal research on orally ingested foreign DNA shows that it is not only capable of transferring to, and altering genetic information within the animal consuming it, but is also capable of affecting the genetics of the fetuses and newborn of pregnant mice who are fed it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819049Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Folks, can we please stay on topic? Global warming is not relevant here. Nor is horizontal gene transfer. The topic is the Seralini article. I tried to make the point that it is not a reliable source -- it was discredited by all the major regulatory agencies. When I say "discredited" I mean that the alarm bells it wants to ring, saying that "GM food is bad" were found to be not credible. With respect to the desire for more knowledge, everybody wants that -- Seralini is not alone in that. It is also pretty unclear to me what kind of statement you would want to use this article to support, in an article about Organic Food. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a better defense of the Seralini study: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer, http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14217-scientists-response-to-critics-of-seralinis-studyPottinger's cats (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is not the famous long term two year study, but a meta-analysis of other studies. Again, see this: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

Under "purpose", it states, "We reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80% of all environmental genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. We have also obtained the raw data of 90-day-long rat tests following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings."Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying these references. This is off target as this really has nothing to do with organic food, but let me respond anyway. The guardian article doesn't deal with the key criticism. Let me explain it. These sprague-dawley rats have a very high rate of cancer over their lifetime (which is about two years). When I say very high rate, I mean that 70-80% of them get cancer over the two years. In other words, give them normal rat food, and that is what happens. So if you are going to do a lifetime feeding study on these rats to look for some effect (which no one has ever done on these rats, because it is insane), you would have to use many many rats to get past the statistical "noise" - to get statistical power to say something meaningful. He used about a sixth to a tenth of the number he needed, so his results have no meaning. Along those lines, if something is toxic, there is usually a dose-response. A higher dose kills you faster, up to a plateau dose. But there was no clean dose-response curve in his studies. This makes sense, since there were not enough rats to be statistically meaningful. The results are too noisy to interpret. Now Seralini likes to say "I used the same kind of rats, and the same number of rats, as Monsanto used in its tox tests. If my results are no good, theirs are no good either." Such a childish argument! The difference is, that Monsanto and every other tox testing firm does tests for 2 months. There is much less statistical noise at 2 months, and so fewer rats give enough statistical power. The public doesn't understand that, nor the issues about statistical power at all. See what I mean? Seralini has an ax to grind. He is blowing smoke in the public's face, in a very nasty and cynical way. And this is why some have said that he designed the studies to have the outcome they did, so that he could say exactly those words (same kind, same number, as Monsanto). He is not doing objective science anymore, he is doing politics in scientific garb. And since he had a book and documentary movie coming out the same week as his big press conference, maybe he also is doing money-making in scientific garb. And this is really unfortunate because we need good science to guide policy; we do not need ideology dressed up in science blowing smoke in the public's face. There are similar issues with all his studies along these lines, of which there 4 or 5, if I remember rightly. The regulatory agencies have dutifully reviewed all his studies (such a huge waste of our tax dollars, but it had to be done) and found them all to be overblown in their conclusions.Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The meta-analysis deals with 90 day periods.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I write this long answer about the 2012 study and that is how you respond? Fooey.Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It addresses your point about statistical noise - so your arguments don't apply to this meta-analysis. Also, here are scanned reproductions of some of the Food & Drug Administration's internal memoranda about the hazards of genetically engineered foods that controvert your position: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.htmlPottinger's cats (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood me -- the problems with the 2011 paper are also with his statistical analysis. Not with the number of rats, per se. I will say more about the 2011 paper after you have given me the courtesy of responding with respect to the 2012 paper issues, which I took a long time to describe. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The GM Watch article notes, in the criticism, response section: "CRITICISM: The statistical analysis was flawed. Didn't use standard methods. A "statistical fishing trip".

RESPONSE: The statistical analysis was one of a number of valid methods that could have been used to evaluate a diverse set of data sets. An expert statistician was part of the research team and this was certainly not a "fishing trip". Significance in many liver and kidney parameters are shown and highlighted in the Tables 1 and 2.

CRITICISM: Strain of rats used Sprague-Dawley (SD) is prone to tumours

RESPONSE: SD rats have been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products. They were used in the 90-day feeding trial that was conducted by industry to evaluate the toxicity of NK603 GM maize as part of the application for approval within the EU. They were also used in the original glyphosate two-year toxicity studies conducted in 2002 for regulatory approval within the EU.

The industry standard for toxicity tests performed by industry for regulatory purposes is the international protocol set out by the OECD (Organisation for International Cooperation and Development). This says that long-term carcinogenicity studies should be performed with the same strain of rat as used in shorter mid-term experiments, because this allows effects seen in the shorter experiment to be tracked to see how they develop in the long-term experiment, without the confounding factor that would occur if a different strain of rat was employed. Therefore, based on the past use of SD rats in trials of GM food and glyphosate it was scientifically correct and consistent to use this strain in Prof Seralini's long-term study.

The rats that consumed NK603 GM maize and/or Roundup in Prof Seralini's trial had an incidence of tumours, which was not just significantly greater than the control rats but also also significantly greater than observed in previous studies of SD rats. The tumour incidence in the test groups in his study was overall around three times higher than that the normal rate observed in the Harlan Sprague Dawley rat strain he used, as reported in the literature (Brix et al., 2005) including in the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992).

Furthermore, the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts.

Just to illustrate the point by analogy. We know that a small proportion of people who never smoke get lung cancer. If you smoke, the rate/risk of getting lung cancer is about 12 times higher than if you don't smoke. The measurement is called a "relative risk". So, imagine that there is an ethnic group of people with a higher rate of naturally occurring lung cancer. We know that if people in that group smoke, their rate of lung cancer will still increase like everybody else."

Yes I read that response by Seralini. Look Potter, I took a long to time to write an explanation about the main problem with the 2012 study and asked you to respond to it. You did not respond to it. (Seralini does not respond to it either, in anything that he has written). I ask you again, will you please read what I wrote and respond to it? Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your main argument is "The difference is, that Monsanto and every other tox testing firm does tests for 2 months. There is much less statistical noise at 2 months, and so fewer rats give enough statistical power. The public doesn't understand that, nor the issues about statistical power at all. See what I mean?" Well, that is dealt with in the above commentary, which notes, "the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts." Also, my response to that was a direct response - The Meta-Analysis, which I initially cited, does not apply to your argument about statistical noise, as it deals with 90 day periods, and not a 2 year period.Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not my main argument. My main argument is that if you study animals that have a huge likelihood of getting cancer over the study period, you have to use a huge number of animals, and he used only 10. So anything he saw was not interpretatable - it is just noise. These so-called differences he sees are not statistically meaningful - they are just noise. You and Seralini both keep wanting to talk about Monsanto. The topic is the Seralini study and whether it is provides any information. Sure there is data but the data is not interpretable -- there is no information in it - it doesn't mean anything. These words "faster", "later", etc. are all interesting anecdotes but they are not information that anybody should rely on. It is like if you just start out dating and the first person you meet treats you like crap so you just give up on the whole effort to meet somebody. That is just not rational decision and all your friends would try to talk you out of that decision - one person is not everybody. This is really not a complicated point. It is just that people who believe that GM is bad will not look at it, simply. Somebody might do a valid study one day that shows that GM is bad for you. This is not that study. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you stated "So if you are going to do a lifetime feeding study on these rats to look for some effect (which no one has ever done on these rats, because it is insane), you would have to use many many rats to get past the statistical "noise" - to get statistical power to say something meaningful. He used about a sixth to a tenth of the number he needed, so his results have no meaning." Still, among test groups and control groups, there was a difference. The way he did this study may be problematic. Still, my advocacy is of the meta-analysis, and I do not see how it has similar problems. It seems to be entirely appropriate to cite.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

there is a difference in the data -- but the data cannot be interpreted -- we cannot draw any general conclusions from it. Like the bad first date thing. Do you understand that?Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In an email to me, a speaker for Seralini's institute noted "This is exactly the kind of stupid arguments since these people appear to forget that these kind of "normal" rats do not eat organic food but GMOs and numerous pesticide residues because the feed is not controlled like for our controls. Our controls develop 10-30% tumors along the essential part of the study, long term tests for drugs being always done and recommended on these rats, our treated rats 70-100% tumors (females). See attached and below." He then copied a press release, which is also located here: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14580-toxicity-confirmed-for-gmo-and-roundup-seralini-press-conference Seralini responded to many of the criticisms of his work, including some not brought up, here PMID 23146697Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out below that you responded. I didn't notice. I will ignore the insult from Seralini's "speaker". Thank you for pointing out the recent publication by Seralini responding to critics. I had not seen that. Neither the speaker nor Seralini actually addresses the point I made above, about the 'statistical need for more rats per arm. Seralini writes that the OECD regulations call for 10 per arm for tox studies, completely missing the point that those regs are designed for 2 month studies, not 2 year studies. So, point is not addressed. Not by him or his speaker. More importantly, not by you. Think, man! What is your response? Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also of relevance is the following UK Independent article on Monsanto banning GM foods from its staff canteen: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html

An out of date hoax (story dates from 1999; Monsanto has not been in the pharma business for years now). Disappointing lack of critical thought in trying to pass this off as a reliable source.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, a source documenting an event does not lose currency. What do you mean by "Monsanto has not been in the pharma business for years now"? Your misreading of our RS guideline and misstatement about Monsanto is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They sold their pharma business back in the early 2000s. The article at the link is posted as though the date is 2012 but if you take two seconds and google for infomation the hoax becomes clear.

Not very interesting even if true. So a caterer contracted to one Monsanto location did not serve GMO food. TFD (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A bit off topic for this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What does "they sold their pharma business back in 2000" mean in relation to the news article posted above? Could someone explain this for me? I am standing outside Montsanto right now and they are working hard on GM crops. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They sold their drug business in 2002, so they no longer own the location that served non-GMO food. GMO is not a drug or pharmaceutical, it is a food product. TFD (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that this point was part of Jytdog's currency argument. Nevertheless, an event doesn't lose currency, only study results do. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we agree that this source is outdated and irrelevant to an article about organic food? Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following Reuters article on the safety of the Roundup Herbicide is also of relevance: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224

Right, the "electron microscopic pathogen"... Not mainstream science.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but questions about the safety and efficacy of these herbicides has been addressed by mainstream science. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit speechless. This is like the "ionized water" thing.. crazy land.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how you get that from the above report or from my comment. You are, however, parroting Monsanto's press release. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that nature is fighting back against all tricks Monsanto is throwing at it (and Monsanto will loose at the end) but it needs a better base than this article! The Banner _talk 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of Monsanto's press release. I have come across this Reuters story before and I have the same reaction now that I had when I first read it. Some poor sod cannot get his research published in a legitimate journal so he writes a letter to the USDA and apparently brought the story to the press too. The idea of an "electron microscopic pathogen" is just so ludicrous-sounding. If the guy ever publishes it in a legit journal, let's see how the scientific community reacts. Heck maybe he wins a Nobel prize. But no, findings reported in a letter to the USDA and given to the press is a) certainly not science that is discussed in a secondary source (e.g a scientific article) and is not even a legit primary source (a scientific journal) - this is pretty much WP:SELFPUBLISH. And again, unclear what kind of statement you would want to use this source to support in any case.Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Following up on this, I did some more reading and found this: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1358.dangerous-glyphosate.html which says: "In an open letter, the President of the American Phytopathological Society (APS) made it clear that in this case Huber was not representing APS, and criticised the fact that the findings relating to the new pathogen had not been published in a scientific journal. There was no verifiable evidence available to support the claim. Scientists at Purdue University, where Huber lectured until he retired, also refuted his theories. Although they shared his general observation that glyphosate can make plants more susceptible to individual pathogens, they said that this fact had been known for some time and was also true of other herbicides. Glyphosate has, they say, been used on a large scale for more than 30 years and there are no indications of any general increase in plant diseases or associated yield losses as claimed by Huber."

Also, the journal Archives of Toxicology published a study showing that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450 times lower than what is normally used: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a primary source, not a secondary source. Under MEDRS it can still be used but judiciously. As above key point of this article is aimed not at residues left on food, which we might eat, but rather, at health effects of roundup on ag workers who spray it. If there is a section in this article on benefits/harms of organic farming vs Big Ag farmnig on farm workers, this could be useful.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This study is totally relevant to consumer safety. Farmers are exposed to much more of it, and the following studies are relevant to their exposure and the health effects of it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998747, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148884, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20818537, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15626647, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20012598, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283

This study also directly addresses your points: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21640371

The following environmental study is also of relevance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19697445Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, can we please stay on topic? Question here is the Koller VJ study in Arch Toxicol. 2012 May;86(5):805-13. called "Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells." The article does not speak to pesticide residues left on food; only on worker safety. To tie this to food residues you would have to violate WP:OR, I think. It seems to me that it can be used, judiciously, to support a cautious farm worker safety statement. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a source linking roundup ready crops to organic food. My understanding is that these crops are limited to corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa, and are mostly avoided through healthy eating choices. Individuals may choose to avoid products containing GMO crops without buying organic food. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

but Deuces, this article does not speak to food. It speaks to production of food - specifically, farm worker health. Farm workers on organic farms as well as BigAg farms are exposed to far higher concentrations of pesticide than consumers of the resulting food are. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you need a source that connects it to organic farming. Please read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Deueces, if by "you" you are referring to me, you would be missing my point. I have been arguing that this article, directed to toxicity of roundup to farm workers (it was known to be toxic anyway.. not clear what this article brings to the table exactly), doesn't speak to residues on food and it cannot be used that way -- I agree that using it that way would be WP:SYN - that is what I have been saying. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of farm workers would seem to be more relevant in the Organic farming article, than here. Yobol (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a constructive way forward. However, for round-up ready we would need a source that makes an explicit connection to organic foods. For example it should both explain the dangers of round-up ready pesticides and contain a statement such as, "x % of conventionally raised fruit and vegetables use round-up ready pesticides, while organic farms do not." TFD (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Having no read the comments and looking further into it, only the review study on micronutrients appears relevant to the article. Of course someone would have to obtain a copy, and we would have to determine that it has not been superseded by later sources that are used in the article. And it does not provide any comment on health issues. TFD (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

brief list of some allowed pesticides and herbicides?

Do you think it would be useful to briefly recapitulate the section on pesticides and herbicides in this article? Some of the discussion above is making me think that some of the editors (and therefore probably some readers) assume that no chemicals are used in organic production and this is not true. as the organic farming article says " Rotenone and pyrethrum are particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and can induce symptoms resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals." And folks in organic are worried about their use of copper and while they are trying to move away from it, it is still a mainstay. I don't like the blanket statement in the article that chemicals used in organic farming are as toxic as those used in BigAg farming - it needs modulation and as someone noted, a source. But it would help point up the conversation, I think, if we had a listing of the chemicals and their relative toxicites as measured by the EPA. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like OR. Also organic food is big argricultural; it's a highly valuable industry. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not if the list provides sources derived from certifying organisations. The Banner _talk 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn 't OR, Wolfie, just needs sources. Jytdog is right that a blanket statement like "it's just as toxic" is as blatently POV in tone and phrasing as anything on the other side. NPOV goes both ways. The issue for this article is, though, the issue of pesticide residues on the harvested food, so the relevance would be if rotenone/pyhrethrum residues are still on foods and what studies have been done on human health implications. Keep in mind, Wolfie, that there are, in essence, two "organic food" movements; one is somewhat "big agricultural" though much smaller than mass agribusiness, while the other is the world of the local farmer and small-scale producer. But for both, the relevant standards do need to be discussed, somewhere, either at the farming article or here. Montanabw 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a source that discusses organic farming and pesticides. The article on rotenone says it is being phased out and both articles say they are low risk and degrade quickly. Mentioning that they are allowed is fine, but you need to establish the degree of their use. TFD (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Deuce and Wolfie - Of course content has to be sourced. This page is truly polarized to a rather absurd extent. And I assume we are working on this page together - that is why I brought up the question. Wolfie, I just use the term "BigAg" because "conventional" seems a bit biased to me... no good term that I know of for what most farmers do today, that doesn't sound biased. The value of the "conventional ag" market dwarfs organic. "U.S. sales of organic products were $21.1 billion in 2008--over 3 percent of total food sales" (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx)... so just over 96% of all food sales are "conventional" ag. Since this page is so polarized, i will say the following -- if you have a look at my edit history, you will see that in past few months I have worked a lot on the genetically engineered crops/food/controversy/regulatory pages, as well as Monsanto's -- mostly getting rid of a lot of negative BS that anti-GMO forces had piled in, and trying to add high quality, well sourced information - keeping whatever of the original negative content I could find reliable sources for. The work has led me here. I have no bias one way or the other in all this except to include content that is scientifically well grounded and is stated in a NPOV way as per the 5 pillars. Some folks may consider the following a bias: I trust regulators and I don't accept (what i consider to be) conspiracy theories about dramatic regulatory capture of food regulatory agencies. Regualtors say that GM food on the market is as safe as non-GM food, and I have read their bases for saying that and find them reasonable. They say that the level of allowed pesticide residues on food is safe enough, and I have read their bases for saying that and I find them reasonable. I have read a boatload of the material regulators have produced and that they use, and I find it impressive - my sense is that a lot of people who are suspicious of regulators haven't done that. And I guess this work has led me to agree with that the slate article about anti-GM people being the "climate change deniers of the left" -- the amount of ignorance and - to the extent some of these same people are frustrated with actual climate-change-deniers ignoring the scientific consensus on global warming -- hypocrisy, has really surprised me; I have generally found the anti-GM folks to be disappointingly lazy, dogmatic thinkers (big generalization, i know, but i keep running into the same BS over and over). I also find that scientists tend to be horrible communicators. The world is messy. While we know a lot more about food and health than we used to and our analytical instrumentation has gotten incredibly powerful, there is a lot that we may never know about food and health, as designing meaningful clinical trials of food - and paying for them - is incredibly hard, and it is simply unethical to test the toxicity of things like pesticides on people, so that in particular will never happen, which means that thinking about things like pesticide residues is a matter of managing risk based on extrapolation - the risk cannot be eliminated by knowledge. And people in the ag industry (conventional and organic) are all trying to make money, feed the world, and manage risks in many different areas (economic, health, environment, etc) in many different ways. In my mind none of the players are "evil." I understand why people who farm and buy organic do it - they want lower risk to their health and to the environment. I get that. I buy little meat because factory livestock farming is ugly to me, on many levels. I get it. In any case, these articles must be nuanced, neutral, and well sourced. Food is important, and reliable information in Misplaced Pages about food is important. There, that was probably too much but that is where I am coming from. I am not on anybody's "side" here, in the fight you all have gotten into.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Small detail, Jytdog, but not all non-certified growers are conventional growers. There are a lot of small farmers that grow organically, without taking all the hassle of becoming certified. As a result, they are not allowed to sell their products as organic. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how big their market share is. The Banner _talk 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

additional studies to use?

OK, I did some research today and found the following that are not currently in the article. Both are reviews, and both were in pubmed. I can send these to anybody who wants them - email me at jytdog at gmail.com if you want either.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages Joel Forman, Janet Silverstein, COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION and COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Pediatrics 2012;130;e1406; originally published online October 22, 2012; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2579 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23090335

You can read the abstact. I read it and found the whole article and found it nuanced and useful with respect to health claims. The article discusses things like higher vitamin C and the other things you would expect. The body says: "Consumers believe that organic pro- duce is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, but the research to support that belief is not definitive." And the intro sums up the author's conclusions concisely: "In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease.... However, current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. Studies also have not demonstrated any detrimental or disease-promoting effects from an organic diet."Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It has only one citation, and not from a clinical perspective. Why use a paediatrics paper when we have clinical nutrition papers? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want clinical sources on food? The Banner _talk 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The body of the article makes it clear that we don't know, because it is very hard to eliminate confounders (food from the same species of plant, farmed the same way, has different nutritional value from place to place and from year to year, and also depends on how fresh it is; and studies of toxicity from pesticide residues are limited by "difficulties measuring past exposures and the lack of a positive temporal relationship between exposure and outcome." ( in other words, proviing cause and effect)Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2) J Agric Food Chem. 2012 May 9;60(18):4425-9. doi: 10.1021/jf205131q. Epub 2012 Mar 12. Pesticide residues in imported, organic, and "suspect" fruits and vegetables. Winter CK. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22335627

abstract says: Consumers are frequently urged to avoid imported foods as well as specific fruits and vegetables due to health concerns from pesticide residues and are often encouraged to choose organic fruits and vegetables rather than conventional forms. Studies have demonstrated that while organic fruits and vegetables have lower levels of pesticide residues than do conventional fruits and vegetables, pesticide residues are still frequently detected on organic fruits and vegetables; typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance. Similarly, research does not demonstrate that imported fruits and vegetables pose greater risks from pesticide residues than do domestic fruits and vegetables or that specific fruits and vegetables singled out as being the most highly contaminated by pesticides should be avoided in their conventional forms.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncited, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Another nice excuse to block a possible positive article. Congratulations, Wolfie, for saying your traditional no without using that word. The Banner _talk 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Positive? have you read the abstract? "typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance." It agrees with the MEDRS sources. It doesn't disagree with them. what exactly is a positive result? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I said "possibly positive". And please stop creaquoten, the full sentence is "Studies have demonstrated that while organic fruits and vegetables have lower levels of pesticide residues than do conventional fruits and vegetables, pesticide residues are still frequently detected on organic fruits and vegetables; typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance." The Banner _talk 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are we going with respect to health claims?

WIth respect to health claims for crops, I think there are two main issues:
1) Are differences in nutrients and antinutrients between organic foods and conventional foods clinically meaningful? Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
2) Are differences in pesticide residues between organic foods and conventional foods clinically meaningful?Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

By "clinically meaningful" I mean that we can measure some outcome in people, generally speaking (nothing works the same in everybody).Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the scientific articles I have read, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "we do not know" I suggest that we pose these two questions at the start of the health section, and state that the answers are not known, and say why. This is really important. Then we can talk about measurable differences in various nutrients/antinutrients and in pesticide levels, butthen at the end we should again make it clear that we do know, scientifically, if those differences matter. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that acceptable to you all?Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You would make me happy when you can ask a question before the two mentioned above. And that is the question: "Are there significant differences in nutrients, antinutrients and pesticide residues between organic foods and conventional foods?" without any medical claim whatsoever. Only when there is a significant difference, is is sensible to ask the question if that is also clinically meaningful. Question 1 can be answered by all reliable sources. Question 2 and 3 by MEDRS-approved sources. The Banner _talk 03:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that chemical analysis, without drawing health claims (just description) does not need MEDRS. The suggestion is interesting to separate it from health claims. Would you please say why you want to do it that way? I was thinking of couching the chemical description within the health claims, because the reason people care about nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticides is health. So I am interested in why you want to separate it. (It is a real question - please remember that I am not part of the past dispute!)Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The first reason is that chemical analyses is a rather neutral way of showing differences between the two growing systems. The second reason is that, in my perception, chemical analyses will be wider available than in medical sources alone. Think about publications of Teagasc, Agricultural Colleges and so on. Most of them will be in easy reach of WP:RS, many will even reach WP:SCIRS. Third reason is that it takes our readers serious and that we believe that they can decide for themselves when we present them neutral and reliable information. The Banner _talk 06:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! With respect to the sourcing thing, it doesn't matter where the chemical information is, non-MEDRS sources are fine. It is only content (actual sentences) that directly makes health claims that needs MEDRS - we don't have to quarantine by sectioning, if that is what you are concerned about. The other thing I think you are saying, when you write "they can decide for themselves" is that you ~perhaps~ don't want the scientific consensus to influence people's decisions about their health? If so that is kind of.. I don't know...kind of anti-science-y. Which I don't understand. It is especially strange to me, since science's answer is "we don't know" which means that there is no recommendation one way or the other. I don't mean to be offensive, I am just trying to have the conversation on the surface instead of glancingly. All that said, I think organizationally it works to have a section on chemical differences and then a section on health impact. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"kind of anti-science-y" is not the reason behind it. It is more "anti MEDRS-stranglehold". I have strong the impression that two editors due to their personal believes, misused WP:MEDRS to prevent anything positive in the article. Exactly the same is happening at Organic milk (and is locked too). The Banner _talk 14:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have agreed to the organization you suggest, so I don't want to get too tangled in this. But this seems to be right in the heart of where the past troubles came from. To clarify my stance, the reason for the MEDRS standard, is to ensure that health-related information is based on the best science we can find - that is why MEDRS is more stringent. It is very very clear to me under the various Source policies that descriptions of chemical differences between organic and conventional food will not be subject to MEDRS and I would be very surprised if anybody would say that. It is only content that connects those differences to their relevance to health, that will require MEDRS. I realize that the past was painful but let's move forward and not look backward. I have sent a message to each of Yobol and Wolfie asking them to comment on this so we can lay it to rest. (wolfie seems to be taking a wiki-break so may not respond soon)Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Banner let's be sure we are on the same page. We can have a section on chemical differences supported by plain old RS, but it will not make health claims. That is what you are I are agreeing to here?Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I have in mind. The Banner _talk 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Great! Hopefully we can gain consensus around this as a way forward.Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To use an analogy, orange juice has more vitamin C and more sugar than lemon juice. Yet people who drink lemon juice typically add more sugar than is present in orange juice. Can we report that? Yes. Can we say that one is healthier than the other? No. TFD (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, it would be enough to just report that "orange juice has more vitamin C and more sugar than lemon juice". The Banner _talk 08:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Chemical differences aren't covered by MEDRS? Please ... What if we had sources saying food X contains arsenic or some toxin. It's a chemical, but it's pretty damn obvious that it requires MEDRS level sourcing. Basically, it will be implying that it has clinical relevance without saying it; it's putting text into an article and hoping readers arrive at the conclusion that it's relevant for health. We already have highly cited, fully MEDRS compliant sources in this section which you can work from to expand the section. You have proposed no specific sources, but rather want agreement a priori on something vague that you have decided you expect you will see when you go get sources. To comment on: "Based on the scientific articles I have read, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "we do not know" ", then I suggest you read the MEDRS sources because there have been a fair amount of studies. The evidence just doesn't support it. There are minor differences, and they are mentioned by MEDRS sources, and thus can be added, given the proper context that they don't have health impacts. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Chemical differences do not = health differences. It is unscientific and wrong to say that every chemical difference makes a health difference. About arsenic (great example btw) see here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Metals/ucm280202.htm Much of the food that we eat has low levels of arsenic in it. So yeah, what if an article acknowledged this chemical fact? It could say (chemical fact)Much of the food that we eat has low levels of arsenic in it. and then give the health fact: High levels of arsenic are toxic. Chemical description, followed by health description. Simple, not complicated. About MEDRS sources and health claims for organic food - they say that we cannot support health claims for organic food. We agree on that. We seem to disagree on what that means. You seem to interpret it as meaning a statement of certainty: "organic food is not healthier than conventional food." But this is not actually true. I live in a regulatory world, and what it means is the following: there is insufficient evidence to make the statement that "organic food is healthier" with sufficient certainty. In other words, we do not know, scientifically, if organic food is as healthy, more healthy, or less healthy. If you ask a scientist to make a statement affirming or denying any one of those three options, he or she would have to say, "I cannot." In other words, we don't know. The MEDRS papers all make a point of saying that further - and much better - studies are needed. They also point out the difficulty and expense of doing such trials. As I said before, I do not think that a clear health statement is going to be possible for a long time - at least not until we develop better technologyJytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When the scientific consensus is "we don't know, we need more research", why don't we say that in the article? The Banner _talk 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not that they don't know, of the many studies "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content". That's not the same. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

All three of us are maddeningly close to the same idea! I don't think we have a real argument here. Because so many people claim that organic food is healthier, it is important to say that there have been several review articles that state clearly that there is no scientific basis for that claim. We should definitely quote from the articles to avoid getting into hair-splitting over wording. The reader should definitely walk away knowing that anyone who says with certainty that organic food is healthier is BSing, or making a statement of faith, but is not making a statement of fact. Ditto anybody who says the opposite.Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is: how reliable is the research done? Who paid for the research? The Banner _talk 19:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Basically, it will be implying that it has clinical relevance without saying it--I too share this exact concern. Especially in the case where we have 2 articles, one WP:MEDRS-compliant and one not, and they both state something about the level of a chemical generally considered to important to human health (e.g. vitamin or fat levels... even just the word "vitamin" is nearly exclusively related to nutrition and its health consequences), we need to go with the WP:MEDRS source and not the other. And, take for example the case of a non-WP:MEDRS test result that found the level of some other chemical... what's the encyclopedic importance of including such a result, expecially in an article about food. So I am struggling to come up with a legitimate reason here to use non-WP:MEDRS sources for findings of levels of chemicals normally associated with their human health consequences, in an article about a general class of product (food) that by its very definition is utilized for its health effects. Zad68 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, chemical difference is not necessarily a health difference. I am a bit surpised to see your last sentence - most people in the developed world eat from habit and pleasure. Something like a drug is "by its very definition is utilized for its health effects". Food is way to huge a thing, both culturally and chemically, to be "primarily utilized for its health effects." What I am trying to do here is find a middle path between you guys and Banner so that we end up with explicit health claims that are MEDRS and no health claims anywhere else. I am committed to there being no "back door" and as you can see above, Banner agreed not to try to slip any in. I think this is a good faith middle way.Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The arsenic article contains extensive information that is sourced to earth sciences, not medical science. Since all chemicals have potential nutritional or toxic effects, the logical conclusion of your argument is that chemistry textbooks are not reliable sources for any articles. The point is moot anyway because there is no disagreement between health and agricultural sources on the levels of toxins and nutrients. And MEDRS has no restriction about using peer-reviewed review studies by experts in their fields. TFD (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between describing arsenic, and claiming food has arsenic in it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see the arsenic pages sources are medical in relation to health effects with food (though not perfect sourcing). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand it correctly that mentioning the word "vitamin" is automatically and immediately a health claim in your opinion? The Banner _talk 20:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Words aren't claims, they are words. A claim requires a sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie, MEDRS is not a policy carved in stone, it is a guideline, an advice. It is NOT mandatory to apply WP:MEDRS on this article at all. The Banner _talk 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Banner, for what it is worth, my advice is to not engage in this kind of general conversation - it is not helpful and the argument is not going to fly, in any case... I for one will not allow a statement with a health claim to stand without MEDRS. I think wolfie is being a bit crazy on the chemical thing but let's not open up the other side too, please.Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am getting increasingly frustrated by his constant attempts to put as much as possible under WP:MEDRS and his complete lack of cooperation. Is this a serious attempt to reach the best for Misplaced Pages or is this using MEDRS for POV pushing? You tell me... The Banner _talk 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is frustrating. Hell is other people. And wikipedia is all about working with other people. Hang in there.Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are making proposals without sources. We currently have "Minor differences in ascorbic acid, protein concentration and several micronutrients have been identified between organic and conventional foods, but it doesn't appear that these have any impact on human health" in the article, what do you propose that is different? Chemical differences can be under MEDRS, because you could be saying something of relevance to health, such as the claims that conventional food had cancer causing toxins from pesticides. That's a chemical difference with large health implications. Now there are some trivial things that don't require MEDRS, but when you speak of such generality, it can't be known if it needs MEDRS or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not making proposals without sources. I think that every statement should be reliable sourced, but not everything needs to be WP:MEDRS-sourced. A chemical analyses can perfectly be sourced by a sourced conform WP:SCIRS (as it is chemistry). The Banner _talk 23:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please you guys just stop it. I am going to draft some content about chemical differences and health claims, with sources, and will post it on this page, probably tomorrow, for us to consider.Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! The Banner _talk 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions of whether organic tastes better are not subject to MEDRS - Just the usual reliable sourcing. I don't care about the issues of taste very much so am not planning on spending time on that.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pesticides

With so much being said about pesticides, and especially artificial pesticides, has anyone thought about how these artificial pesticides come on or into organically grown food? As mr. Pottynger already stated above, the use of artificial pesticides and herbicides is entirely prohibited (see the organic standards of the different certifying organisations). So much more important than the question how much is in it and if this is clinically significant, the question should be: how does it get there? The Banner talk 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First it is not accurate (at least in the US) that organic food cannot be grown with synthethic pesticides. The regs specifically allow certain ones, in certain conditions. But what are you referring to when you say "these" artificial pesticides? If you are referring to the lower level of pesticides found on organic foods, nobody said anything about them being necessarily synthetic.Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The impermissible ones, obviously. Montanabw 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. The IOFGA only comes up with In practice organic farming: Avoids the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and (c) The strict limitation of the use of chemically synthesized inputs to exceptional cases these being:. Indeed, that is not a blanket ban. The Banner talk 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"These pesticides" refers to the pesticides found in the above mentioned researches. The Banner talk 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

which could be organic ones like copper, as well as allowed synthetic ones.. right? Just making sure we are on the same page.Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

May be worth noting if there are significant differences between nations. Not a comprehensive list, but a general overview. Montanabw 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

sandbox

ok i have taken a stab at reorganizing the content, as discussed above, with sourcing as discussed above. let the fun begin! NOTE it is still pretty rough. i should also say that wolfie suggested i do this. so we are all trying. it is here: User:Jytdog/sandbox Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no comment, so I went ahead and stuck it in the article. I'm a little freaked out that the talk page went dead... don't know what to make of that. Feel free to revert etc. Just trying to move this along.Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still here. Indeed waiting what the "opposition" is going to do. But let me say that I appreciate your efforts. The Banner talk 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Would you care to make any initial remarks on structure or content?Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I had changed a few typos in the sandbox already. For the rest, it seems pretty okay to me. The article looks far more neutral now. The Banner talk 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article needs a more radical re-write. At present it could just as easily be called "Common misconceptions about organic food". The article provides the impression that an organic farm is a conventional farm that grows the same food using slightly different fertilizers and pesticides. TFD (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

True, still a lot has to be done. But by now this is already an improvement. When I came across this article the first time, it could be summarized as "Organic food producing is a senseless exercise only for hippies and other out-of-this-world or misled people". But you can finish a marathon but making a lot of small steps! The Banner talk 12:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Deuces, thanks for weighing in. Can you be more specific -- what information about organic food does it lack, or do you see as wrong? Or where do you see undue weight?Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Article from 2008: New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant Based Organic Foods

http://organic-center.org/reportfiles/5367_Nutrient_Content_SSR_FINAL_V2.pdf

See also this: http://web.archive.org/web/20091007201825/http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/organic/ASD_Lairon_2009.pdf and especially this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php

The following report on taste gives many examples that challenge the view put forward here on taste: http://organic-center.org/reportfiles/TasteReport.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 07:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

They seem like good sources. TFD (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, the 2 sources from the Organic Center would not be good sources to use; the Organic Center is decidedly biased toward organic foods and "sings to the choir". Ideally we have sources that people on any side of disputes over organic food find trustworthy. The findings discussed in the news release looks interesting -- I will look for the actual paper that they say had not published yet as of 2007 - if anybody finds it that would be great too.. looks like they did some press releases around this conference, where leifert presented some of the work discussed in the release http://orgprints.org/10417/2/leifert-etal-proceedings-qlif.pdf If they were never able to get it published that would be too bad. At first glance the review article by Lairon does look useful for the chemical analysis sections -- will have a closer look at it and see what I can incorporate into our article.Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And how many of the medical sources "sings to the choir"? The Banner talk 16:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Banner, I am sorry but you are missing my point. A publication by the Organic Center (not in a scientific journal, but actually published by them) is outside the standard scientific publishing process -- it is "self-published". And in that sense, somebody who is skeptical of the claims is going to say "hmm well sure they are going to say that." I very, very much hope that by your comment above, you do not believe that there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists and scientific journals to exclude positive information about organic food... but I am not sure how else to interpret the comment. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sceptical about the neutrality of research organisations receiving massive donations from companies growing rich by or through conventional agriculture. The Banner talk 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what that statement is based on. Here are the facts: In the US most investigators at universities are funded by government agencies, not by companies. see here http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13305/ (~3% funded by industry). For the UK, see the left pie chart here: http://www.shef.ac.uk/finance/staff-information/howfinanceworks/higher_education/funding_of_research (7% industry funded). Please provide a basis for your statement.Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, the article is cited 42 times]. The Banner talk 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Citing" doesn't necessarily mean "agreeing with" or even "taking seriously". The first citing article (which is published in a peer reviewed journal) says "However, the herein reported results are not in agreement with a recently published comprehensive report, which concluded that, for example, ascorbic acid (in roughly 6 of 10 cases), total phenolics (in roughly 7 of 10 cases), and antioxidant activity (in roughly 9 of 10 cases) are often higher in organic compared to conventionally produced plant products (31)." (ref 31 is the organic center report). The second citing "article" is a book or report from a univeristy "eco-lab" in Australia advocating for more organic farming - it just quotes the statement in the Organic Center's report that "“yes, organic plant-based foods are, on average, more nutritious". The third citing article in the list, just includes this article in a big list in the intro section of the paper (which is pretty interesting, btw). So getting cited in google scholar doesn't mean that much...Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

At least it means that 42 "articles" took it seriously enough to respond on it. The Banner talk 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Really, Banner. In the work that I do on wikipedia I try to use sources that everybody finds credible. That is a reasonable goal, surely.Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the Lairon paper more closely. Not sure what to do with it, as it doesn't really synthesize the studies. For instance Lairon seems to think nitrates are really important, and here is what he writes: Nitrates are naturally present in plants; they are absorbed through the roots and further used for amino-acid synthesis. They can accumulate in plant tissues, especially in vegetables. Several comparative studies have been performed on nitrate levels in vegetables. At the level of a retail shop, we performed a study on five vegetables in spring and observed significantly lower nitrate contents (–28 to –85%) in organic potato, leek, turnip and salad but not in organic kale (Lairon et al., 1982). A comparable study performed in Austria on 17 vegetables found lower nitrate contents (–40% to –86%) in organic ones except in spinach (Rauter and Wolkerstorfer, 1982). In Germany, a comparison on carrots showed 61% less nitrates in organic ones (Pommer and Lepshy, 1985). At farm level, by comparing designated crops on matched farms, three studies provided interesting data. We performed one in Provence (Lairon et al., 1985) and found in the organically-grown samples –39% nitrates in lettuce, –46% in potato, –22% in carrot and a higher content in one sample for leek. In Switzerland, organic lettuces grown over two years contained 2.5 times less nitrates than their conventional counterparts in May–June, 1.2 times less in October and comparable high levels in November (Temperli et al., 1982; Vogtmann et al., 1984). In contrast, two other studies performed on tomato in Israel (Basker, 1992) and carrot in Norway (Hogstad et al., 1997) did not show noticeable differences." So, what do we say? Something like: A French review of studies published in 2009 found that nitrate levels in various organic vegetables compared to their conventional counterparts varied from having an unspecified amount more, to having 250% less, depending on the vegetable, the time of year, and the study." Is that a useful sentence? I don't think so. (also, what exactly is "salad"?) So I don't see what we can use out of this review. Open to suggestions!Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Salad" is the winner of the uselessness prize as it is normally a mixture of several varieties of lettuce but often also includes Mustard greens (who are part of the Brassica-family).

Nitrate is important in organic farming, as it stimulates leave growth. The way I look at it, is that organic vegetables get the time to use up the nitrates available, while in conventional farming the plants are harvested long before the nitrates are used up. (But this is an opinion!) The Banner talk 02:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am bummed that Lairon didn't synthesize b/c nitrates are an "antinutrient" and the article is pretty thin on examples. I would have liked to be able to use something about that from this article. But there is no meaningful takeaway.Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I looked to see if Leifert had published the findings from the conference. He has not done that yet.Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this meta-analysis, showing greater micro-nutrients, is not added to the header of the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333

Also, all of the studies reviewed by the organic center in the initial article are valid, and there are a plethora showing greater nutrient content in this or that area, but it is better to refer to it rather than to the individual studies. Additionally, all of the scientists who compiled it have good profiles.

I remember putting forth two very important items showing the undue influence of Big Ag on policy and regulation, and this needs to be considered. Also, in the October 25, 1998 New York Times Magazine article Playing God in the Garden, Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, was quoted as saying "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job".

Yet the FDA's Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties states that "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.": http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm

In a report in the International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food entitled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise", Don Lotter noted that "the FDA does not test the products for safety (Mellon and Rissler, 2003). The regulators rely ‘almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review’ (Friends of the Earth, 2004)."

He also noted, "Despite the mutation problems with plant transgenics, thorough studies on the toxicology of transgenic foods are few. Domingo surveyed the literature on toxicology studies in a 2007 review article in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, and wrote that it is ‘quite amazing to note’ the paucity of toxicology studies on transgenic foods, and asks ‘where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies involved in commercial GM foods?’ (Domingo, 2007)."

He also noted, "Commenting on the lack of safety data on transgenic foods in the Journal of Medicinal Food, David Schubert, head of the Cellular neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute in California, wrote in 2008:

There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that ‘since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe’ is both illogical and false. there are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted (Schubert, 2008).": http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf

The following reliable secondary source sources two large scale reviews that show superiority or organic foods in safety and quality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/30/organicsbetteradmitit

The reviews are from the Soil Association, a reliable source.They are as follows: 1) :::http://web.archive.org/web/20090116064938/http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/9f788a2d1160a9e580256a71002a3d2b/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489/$FILE/foodqualityreport.pdf

2) http://web.archive.org/web/20080314170203/http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/4042794258a20f4280256a680046b77e/7a54a18f894fee45802571bc00443124!OpenDocument

Also, the overview of concluding comments from a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Scientists Agree That Organic Farming Delivers Healthier, Richer Soil and Nutritionally Enhanced Food", is of relevance: http://www.organic-center.org/news.pr.php?action=detail&pressrelease_id=28Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pottinger, Why do you keep talking about GM food? This is an article about organic food.Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The metaanalyses omit relevant data that appears in the organic center articles. Books are mentioned in an attempt to dismiss organics, so why not add the other articles, by qualifies scientists, overviewing studies that support organics? Mentions of GM food are important, because in the US, it is not labeled, and organics are the only thing that explicitly avoid it. Organics are thus more necessary, and this becomes especially obvious when considering the following overview: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

Also, the microutrient information is relevant, as it shows that organic food is more nutritious.

A review of 41 studies found higher levels of all the 21 nutrients analysed, compared with conventional produce. This included statistically significant higher levels of iron (21% more), magnesium (29% more), phosphorus (14% more) and vitamin C (27% more), and significantly less nitrate (a toxic compound). Organic spinach, lettuce, cabbage and potatoes showed particularly high levels of minerals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11327522

And as TFD noted before, "As I explained above, Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis says that organic and conventionally raised meat differ in quality, nutrition and toxins. Yet it is used in the article to support the opposite claim. We also ignore that the book said organic food is fresher. An obvious problem with the tests is that it assumes organic farmers raise the same lower nutrition breeds of fruits and vegetables that were developed for intensive farming. While we cannot comment on that, nothing prevents us from presenting sources discussing whether the breeds actually grown by organic farmers are more or less nutritious." - so we need to not use that article to support a claim it does not make.Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems have also been associated with food irradiation, which is absent in organic food: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427585/, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/28/2/130.full.pdfPottinger's cats (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a manageable discussion. Pottinger, if you want a discussion, please do not keep piling new stuff in. If you want to keep suggesting sources, may I ask that you just create a new section called "possible sources" and you can list them all there. I would appreciate it very much as I am sure would other people trying to have a discussion. thx Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed citation related to "organic production and food quality"

TFD noted:

As I explained above, Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis says that organic and conventionally raised meat differ in quality, nutrition and toxins. Yet it is used in the article to support the opposite claim. We also ignore that the book said organic food is fresher. An obvious problem with the tests is that it assumes organic farmers raise the same lower nutrition breeds of fruits and vegetables that were developed for intensive farming. While we cannot comment on that, nothing prevents us from presenting sources discussing whether the breeds actually grown by organic farmers are more or less nutritious.

So I am using it to say that "evidence is equivocal".Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also two organic farming movements - the small scale movements using unorthodox agricultural techniques, and the large scale movement. I feel that current reviews have not taken this into account in an adequate way.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I also have reference somewhere to an EPA overview listing many pesticides as carcinogenic - I will see if I can locate it.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For the "organic production and food quality" book, on taste, a review noted in the end that the text discussed " differences that probably lead some consumers to prefer organic products despite the price often being higher. These include, for example, taste and longer storage life of some fruit and vegetables, leaner but less tender beef with less marbling, lower nitrate and higher antioxidants, higher contents of polyunsaturated fatty acids, pig and poultry meat slightly tougher with enhanced flavour and some slight differences in milk and eggs. He concludes that the main differences between organic and conventional foods appear to be in the area of taste, freshness and the issue of nitrates and phenolic contents. He urges more research in these areas and also, on the basis of limited evidence to date, on the production of meat, milk and eggs from animals and birds raised on organic feed or forage.": http://www.soilassociation.org/motherearth/viewarticle/articleid/4763/book-review-organic-production-and-food-quality

So I have updated the article to take that into account.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Also - I updated the response to the 2012 Seralini study above, in this talk page. At any rate, it is controversial, and including it would give undue weight. With that said, I see no reason why this 2011 meta-analysis of 90 day tests is invalid, the criticisms leveled at the other study, which were responded to (see above), do not apply to it. I would like any future dialogue on this to deal with the meta-analysis: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual you bring up way too many issues at once. With respect to your proposal to use "equivocal" this is not OK with me, as I mentioned in the comment when I reverted this. The data so far is NOT equivocal -- it is insufficient to make health claims for organic food (lack of clinical trials which are mostly impossible), and when you drill down and try to make claims just about differences, a lot of it becomes very detailed and somewhat contradictory, which again makes it insufficient for making broad claims. Those are very very different things from "equivocal".Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just one question before further engagement on the other issues - is there any valid objection to the Seralini 2011 meta-analysis? (not the 2012 long term study)Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Section - negatives of conventional food?

OK, i just want to open a section on this. Several folks, mostly Pottinger but I think some others too, have introduced sources and ideas in earlier Talk sections, related to chemicals and GMOs used in conventional farming being bad for you in one way or another -- sources for example that say that glyophosate is harmful, or GM food is somehow harmful. That sort of thing. I have no idea why these ideas and sources were suggested, on this Talk page for Organic Food. So I am opening this section to provide an opportunity for interested editors to make suggestions on what kind of content could be in this article, to be supported by these sources. So that is the question - what CONTENT would be included in this article, and in what section or sections, about a) negative health effects (would require MEDRS); b) with respect to chemical analysis, "more bad stuff and less good stuff"? Some sources were brought up that have to do with supposed toxicity of glyphosate (I don't think about any other herbicide/pesticde) - again I don't know what kind of content would be in this article about that. (Pottinger, please don't dump a ton of sources here - the question is, what CONTENT about "negatives of conventional food" should be in this article on Organic Food?) As for me, I have a hard time seeing why there should be any content that solely describes negatives of conventional food, that does not explicitly compare it to organic food.Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Motivations for organic agriculture

Hello all,
I'm concerned that Motivations for organic agriculture mostly overlaps with Organic food and Organic farming. It risks becoming a pov-fork. I think the best solution is to merge it into Organic food or Organic farming (or a little of both). What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

FAVOR. Great idea. I became aware of the "motivations" because someone added a "see also" link to it here. Seemed mighty redundant to me. I went over and cleaned it up a bit (following in your footsteps, bobrayner) - and even copied some content on Health from this article into that one. but favor dismantling it.Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• C-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Agriculture articles
• Mid-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• B-Class Horticulture and gardening articles
• Mid-importance Horticulture and gardening articles
• WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening articles