Talk:Organic food/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Neutrality
Apparently the neutrality is disputed on this page. There is a discussion on WP:ANI#WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner that discusses it. The Banner accused other users of abusing WP:MEDRS to bias the article negatively by removing any content claiming that organic food has health benefits. Jytdog argued that the scientific community has decided that any health benefits from going organic may caused by various factors and therefore the article is neutral because it reflects the opinions from reliable sources. Clearly the neutrality of this article is disputed so I will be adding a {{neutrality}} template. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for opening a section. Please identify any reliable source per WP:MEDRS, that can be used to support a claim that organic food is healthier than conventionally produced food. If you can bring such a source I am sure we will gladly include it in the article. I do suggest that you actually read the article and the sources in it, and the Talk page discussion and archives. I'll leave the tag on for now, but if you don't come back with something substantial, source-wise, it will need to come off in a few days. Thanks again for opening a discussion. I await the sources! And by the way, the existence of a dissident editor does not mean that an article fails NPOV. Banner's position has not had consensus here. And it is not just me working on this page, as a glance through the Talk page and its archives will show; you are getting pretty much everything wrong in your characterization here. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the flag as the basis of the challenge is a challenge to a Wikipedia policy. You might as well challenge the neutrality of the article based on an editor requiring that sources be added to statements. WP:MEDRS is Wikipedia policy. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- well, its a guideline, but a damn important one. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would urge people to stop reverting in the meantime. Both sides of the argument have merits, it's not urgent, and hopefully we can discuss this without too much shouting.
bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. Can we also discuss the application of WP:MEDRS on an article far more related to food and agriculture than to the medical world? Can we also discuss the scientific results and testing as according to Jytdog they are unreliable "due to the messiness of reality"? The Banner talk 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would urge people to stop reverting in the meantime. Both sides of the argument have merits, it's not urgent, and hopefully we can discuss this without too much shouting.
- well, its a guideline, but a damn important one. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Mayo Clinic says: Organic regulations ban or severely restrict the use of food additives, processing aids (substances used during processing, but not added directly to food) and fortifying agents commonly used in nonorganic foods, including preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colorings and flavorings, and monosodium glutamate. [1] Plus, I added the neutrality template not because I personally believe the article is biased, but because there was a disagreement already existing on its neutrality. I added it because the neutrality of this article is disputed. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
none of what you quote from Mayo says anything about an effect on health. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- We should remove the biased assertions from the lede that organic food isn't healthier and doesn't taste better, both of which are rather dubious and in any event present in Wikipedia's authoritative voice a conclusion of a disputed fact. It's fair to include them in a subsection about the medical community's response, if that is indeed the response. Inasmuch as this is an article about food, not medicine, it misapplies MEDRS to use it here — it makes as much sense as citing literature to proclaim whether Spanish food is healthier or better tasting than Italian. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Those statements are sourced to the best kind of sources available, per RS and MEDRS. See also Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll add that lots of people bring very strong assumptions to this article. Please check them at the door, and deal with what reliable sources say. This article is the product of the good faith work of lots of people, following the spirit of WP's policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Those sources aren't entirely apt, regardless of their quality. This seems to be a use of medical sources for non-medical statements, for certain about taste. Why would it be necessary in the lede to have a paragraph basically saying that organic food is bunk? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to summarize the scientific consensus (i.e., review articles) as reliable sources describe it. That's why you are seeing sentences as you describe, because that is the scientific consensus. There's no bias to that from an NPOV perspective. We generally present authoritative findings from such sources in Wikipedia's voice when dealing with assertions of fact at that level, so the things you mentioned above aren't really an issue when you base the content on the sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, so you see the problem, right? Our job is to create an encyclopedia, not to summarize scientific consensus. Wikipedia does not generally speak in a scientific voice. That is perhaps inevitable in articles about science, but in articles about food it's downright silly to opine in a scientific voice as to whether one particular food is tastier than another. I don't see any chefs, food critics, or food writers sourced on that point, for what that's worth, and they are more authoritative than scientists on matters of food preference. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would argue that when there are objectively measureable observables we are well within the purview of science, and our job is exactly to summarize the scientific consensus. We don't need expert opinion on "tastiness" like we do on the relative merits of Cubism. You simply put the food out without labeling which is conventional and which is organic, and ask people which they like better. If study after study of this type doesn't show any difference, then Thomas Keller's expert opinion is flying in the face of a directly observable fact. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The two go hand in hand as our job is to ascribe due WP:WEIGHT. Scientific consensus on a topic is about the highest degree of weight that can be given to something. There are many branches of science, so areas of food science for things such as taste would still fall to the experts on those fields (health for medical researchers, etc.). Chefs, etc. generally wouldn't be reliable sources as they're likely not using properly designed experiments to determine differences in taste. If views are pushed that are not supported by reliable scientific sources, they are generally considered WP:FRINGE (also see WP:PSCI) content and we don't give that any weight. That's why we summarize the scientific consensus so we satisfy NPOV as much as one could hope to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Once science has spoken about what's tasty it doesn't matter what food people say? That's not how an encyclopedia works, or reality for what that's worth. Scientific consensus is perhaps the highest weight on matters within the scope of science, but assuredly not on matters outside the scope of science. To suggest that the entire food community is fringe if it doesn't agree with science is a rather extreme opinion. For what it's worth, and without (yet) checking sources, the weight of the food community probably agrees that everything else being equal food grown using organic standards is not tastier or superior to food grown using methods that do not qualify as organic. They would also say that everything else is not equal, that organic suppliers tend to be higher quality, but that large factory farms making lower quality product are beginning to go for organic certification, and that there are many other small high quality suppliers that don't care about the organic designation. That's a lot more relevant to the subject of organic food than a controlled lab experiment (or literature review of the same) testing whether people can tell the difference. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, there's a lot of assumptions being made there, some of which are common misconceptions for those not yet familiar with the topic, but I would suggest reading the sources provided in the article for some background. You might be underestimating the scope of science from what it seems you're saying. Most things I could respond to would be rather forumy right now so I'll leave them be, but I will clarify that fringe was with regard to views contrary to the scientific consensus from a weight perspective. The "food community" would also be more of a question of what such a source would be reliable for. Those are two different things which go towards the nuance required when dealing with scientific content. If you're interested in proposing content, I'd suggest reading the talk page archives a bit as some topics have been covered rather extensively and then go ahead with content to discuss. To assess whether something is reliably sourced and is appropriately weighted, we need to have content to focus the discussion on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Once science has spoken about what's tasty it doesn't matter what food people say? That's not how an encyclopedia works, or reality for what that's worth. Scientific consensus is perhaps the highest weight on matters within the scope of science, but assuredly not on matters outside the scope of science. To suggest that the entire food community is fringe if it doesn't agree with science is a rather extreme opinion. For what it's worth, and without (yet) checking sources, the weight of the food community probably agrees that everything else being equal food grown using organic standards is not tastier or superior to food grown using methods that do not qualify as organic. They would also say that everything else is not equal, that organic suppliers tend to be higher quality, but that large factory farms making lower quality product are beginning to go for organic certification, and that there are many other small high quality suppliers that don't care about the organic designation. That's a lot more relevant to the subject of organic food than a controlled lab experiment (or literature review of the same) testing whether people can tell the difference. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, so you see the problem, right? Our job is to create an encyclopedia, not to summarize scientific consensus. Wikipedia does not generally speak in a scientific voice. That is perhaps inevitable in articles about science, but in articles about food it's downright silly to opine in a scientific voice as to whether one particular food is tastier than another. I don't see any chefs, food critics, or food writers sourced on that point, for what that's worth, and they are more authoritative than scientists on matters of food preference. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Our job is to summarize the scientific consensus (i.e., review articles) as reliable sources describe it. That's why you are seeing sentences as you describe, because that is the scientific consensus. There's no bias to that from an NPOV perspective. We generally present authoritative findings from such sources in Wikipedia's voice when dealing with assertions of fact at that level, so the things you mentioned above aren't really an issue when you base the content on the sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Those sources aren't entirely apt, regardless of their quality. This seems to be a use of medical sources for non-medical statements, for certain about taste. Why would it be necessary in the lede to have a paragraph basically saying that organic food is bunk? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Somebody reverted[2] my attempt to clarify that these claims are made from a scientific point of view rather than an encyclopedic one, so I have re-added the POV tag. Seriously, the notion that scientific consensus establishes matters of what tastes good is ridiculous. If you think that science trumps human perception you're pretty fringe. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
the new editors are treating "science" like it is some kind of fringe point of view. We humans have developed methods to investigate reality - to know if certain kinds of claims about the world around us, are true or false. Those tools are called "the scientific method". And yes we look to and cite the scientific literature to investigate questions about how organic food and conventional food may or may not be different, and whether or not they make people who eat them more or less healthy. Ditto, we use those tools to do experiments to see if people find any difference in taste. What other tools do the new editors propose be used - what field should we as editors consult -- to look for answers to those questions? I note that no one here has responded to my request for additional sources on which to generate new or different content. Please provide sources supporting your perspectives on organic food so we can discuss them. Without them, your claims are clearly your personal POV. It is fine to have a personal POV but it doesn't belong in WP and is no basis for tagging nor for generating content. This is exactly the problem that has led to the ANI. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it is very useful to add the sources again. In the past, they were always brushed aside with the MEDRS-excuse. By the way: I still mis a reply on your own statement that scientific research is in basic unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". The Banner talk 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- not quite sure how to respond to that Banner. I am not asking people to add sources to the article, I'm just asking them to present them here (they can of course directly add them to the article if they want -- that is just not what I am asking) If editors want to change or introduce new content or claim that the article is biased, they need sources for the new/different content or showing that some perspective not represented here is as valid based on the same quality of sources. That is WP101. With regard to your question you mischaracterize what I said, which is that the science is too messy to support the kind of positive claims you have wanted to make. i have just been paraphrasing the first paragraphs here: Organic_food#Chemical_composition and here: Organic_food#Health_and_safety. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- This "new editor" has been editing Wikipedia for seven years now, and knows a toxic dysfunctional editing environment when they see one. The weirdly condescending lecture about the value of science, the scientific method trumping other types of knowledge because it alone finds truth and reality, and other bla bla nonsense is a case in point. I have more productive things than to do battle with dogmatic science proponents, but the over-reliance of dubious, inapt medical citations in a food article like this is a strange, largely unencyclopedic point of view. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? The article has plenty of non (hard) science content: terminology, law, economics, etc. I'm not sure what exactly is being proposed - is there some good source on the taste of organic food for example that would help? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- "new" to this discussion. no comment on how long you've been on WP nor what you have done. With regard to your experience, believe me, I have plenty of experience with people who parachute into controversial articles with strong personal opinions and zero sources. But I am sorry to see you go, if that is what you are choosing to do. If you choose to stay, I still look forward to hearing about you with regard to sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note - I just went looking for new sources myself and found a review from 2014 that was much more positive than reviews to date. Boy you guys could have had a field day had you actually gone and looked for sources and made me look like I was really biased. Anyway, I added content from it. That perspective remains an outlier in the literature, so the article hasn't completely flipped, but Banner should be happier. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I cannot speak for The Banner, but I not advocating a pro-organic food agenda. Rather, my point is that the scientific POV and attendant sourcing demands here are an inappropriate approach to a food article. This talk page has a wikiproject medicine template on top, asserting that organic food is a medical subject. Wikipedia has seen its share of WP:BATTLEs over articles seen as health-related, which perhaps explains the content problems here. I'm aware that there is an intersection between food and health claims about food, and certainly the scientific approach is appropriate when discussing those health claims. But that is not the primary notability of the subject. The organic food movement is only partly related to consumers' health concerns. As yet another analogy, people make health claims about blueberries as well. The nutrition and health aspects of blueberries are indeed treated in their own section, yet there is no need to add stilted language to the lede announcing that the evidence is insufficient to support claims that blueberries are healthy, or that claims that blueberries are tasty are unsupported by the evidence. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikidemon I am glad you acknowledge that the health claims need MEDRS sourcing - that has been the crux of the problem. Health claim about blueberries are also subject to MEDRS! I don't think any reliable source would deny that eating blueberries is part of a healthy diet; saying that blueberries cure cancer (for example) is quite another thing. And really, please do read the sources we use in the article - there is paltry evidence that eating organic is healthier than eating conventional food. As you can imagine, organic "fans" have pushed for language the opposite; in my view those folks are the POV-pushers, bringing their assumptions to the table that organic "must" be healthier. I'd like to add that if you want to take a shot at writing the lead more elegantly I would be very open to that. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Win the day by adding the truth and getting topic banned for being disruptive? No thanks. My trust in this article and its main editors is gone. I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. Because that is what is happening. The Banner talk 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Banner you are on the edge of getting topic banned for your behavior, not because of the content argument. I'm sorry you cannot see that. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause. The Banner talk 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. There are differences among the two, and we shouldn't ignore it. Any non medical source, doesn't require a review here. As far as I'm concerned non-GMO is good enough for me. The below about nutrient levels included in the article I agree with, with a question mark on non-significant levels (but fine by me, as long as what I agreed with is stated). - Sidelight12 Talk 04:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sidelight12 You are commenting on an issue that has already been resolved. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. There are differences among the two, and we shouldn't ignore it. Any non medical source, doesn't require a review here. As far as I'm concerned non-GMO is good enough for me. The below about nutrient levels included in the article I agree with, with a question mark on non-significant levels (but fine by me, as long as what I agreed with is stated). - Sidelight12 Talk 04:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause. The Banner talk 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Banner you are on the edge of getting topic banned for your behavior, not because of the content argument. I'm sorry you cannot see that. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here is a link to "Are organic foods better for my health?" on the Dietitians of Canada website. It is a tertiary source so while probably not useful as a source in the article, it provides an example of how the article should present the intormation. It says, "There is not enough scientific evidence to say that organic food is more nutritious than non-organic food or that there are any health benefits to eating organic foods." It does say that organic food was found to have slightly higher levels of some nutrients, but they are insignificant and we should say that. TFD (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TFD. The article does say exactly that already. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no doubt Banner is correct. The neutrality of this page is ridiculous and non existent. The industrial advocates have taken over the page in an attempt to discredit Organic food. I tried for a very long time to work with the people camped on this page. But the edit waring was so bad and the positions various editors took so intractable that I gave up. I am a farmer that actually grows organic food. From a scientific and practical real world standpoint I know about the issues inside and out. I have farmed conventionally too. I know both sides. I even do research and development and side by side trials. But when I provide references, good solid encyclopedic references, they always get rejected for whatever reason one of many posters here can come up with. It's like a debate instead of an educational format. I am not interested in a debate/edit war. That's why I stopped trying to fix this ridiculous page.Redddbaron (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Redddbaron, nice to see you again! The last time you were here, you were still working on understanding what WP means by "secondary source" and in my view (see end of the discussion here, you got frustrated and went away, I am not sure you understand it yet. We have had extensive conversations about MEDRS and health claims here] and here. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog Oh yes, I got frustrated all right. You give a solid peer reviewed source and it gets shot down as a primary. You find a secondary source that references that scientific study and it gets shot down as an unscientific blog, or an industry piece, or a biased site. Whatever. The last straw was when they shot down all the information put together by California State University on nutritional differences in animal husbandry methods and their effects of health. http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/index.shtml Way over 100 peer reviewed scientific studies and not a single damn one allowed. ALL very highly respected information put together by very highly educated scientific minded EDUCATORS! PHD professors no doubt, but shot down here for all sorts of excuses. Take your pick. Every bit of it shot down by every excuse in the book. Meanwhile nearly every single major paragraph in the article is writen with the purposeful attempt to make it appear as if there are little to no differences between organic and conventional food. It simply is a lie that seems supported because the evidence that is allowed to stay on the page is anti organic, and the supporting evidence is always rejected. It is weighting the evidence to push a bias on the reader. The wiki page reads like an industry propaganda blog.Redddbaron (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- i am sorry that you still don't understand what a secondary source is; most articles published in the scientific literature are primary sources. I tried very hard to explain it to you. I really did. With regard to the "grass-fed beef" article, you will recall that I was at first in favor of using that, but the arguments made that it doesn't read on "organic" per se were persuasive. There is no purposeful attempt to represent any POV; the only goal is to summarize what the secondary sources that are relevant, say. again i am sorry you are frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog Oh yes, I got frustrated all right. You give a solid peer reviewed source and it gets shot down as a primary. You find a secondary source that references that scientific study and it gets shot down as an unscientific blog, or an industry piece, or a biased site. Whatever. The last straw was when they shot down all the information put together by California State University on nutritional differences in animal husbandry methods and their effects of health. http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/index.shtml Way over 100 peer reviewed scientific studies and not a single damn one allowed. ALL very highly respected information put together by very highly educated scientific minded EDUCATORS! PHD professors no doubt, but shot down here for all sorts of excuses. Take your pick. Every bit of it shot down by every excuse in the book. Meanwhile nearly every single major paragraph in the article is writen with the purposeful attempt to make it appear as if there are little to no differences between organic and conventional food. It simply is a lie that seems supported because the evidence that is allowed to stay on the page is anti organic, and the supporting evidence is always rejected. It is weighting the evidence to push a bias on the reader. The wiki page reads like an industry propaganda blog.Redddbaron (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Redddbaron, nice to see you again! The last time you were here, you were still working on understanding what WP means by "secondary source" and in my view (see end of the discussion here, you got frustrated and went away, I am not sure you understand it yet. We have had extensive conversations about MEDRS and health claims here] and here. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Redddbaron, you need to become familiar with Wikipedia content policies. You have one paper about the advantages of grass-fed beef and you know that organic beef is more likely to be grass-fed. But unless you have a source that talks about organic food, grass-fed beef and its benefits together, you cannot add the material to the article. See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If you think the article is biased, then find reliable secondary sources that present the topic differently. TFD (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. I gave one link that has well over 100 peer reviewed papers. (both primary and secondary) You simply didn't follow the links. I have tried posting many of them individually. They were all shot down for every excuse in the book. One of those excuses you just named. The logic is this: The one common major difference between feedlot beef and organic beef is the pasture rule. This is true under every organic certification body. The exact details of each certifying agency may vary slightly in the details, but that is the common thread. So scientists test to see if this has an effect on the qualitative characteristics of the final food product. They found differences. Hundreds of studies prove that beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a consensus. So an industrial ag advocate(s) owning this wikipage had to come up with a way to hide this evidence. They did that by arguing that while all organic beef is largely and/or exclusively grassfed, not all grassfed is certified organic. I am telling you it doesn't matter. Most conventional models fatten cattle in feedlots, and all organic is grassfed. (although in rare exceptions that prove the rule some supplemental feeding is allowed to prevent starving the animals when pasture forage gets low or runs out) This doesn't invalidate the scientific studies though. Feedlot cattle produce a measurable qualitatively different food product than organic cattle... because organic cattle eat grass where feedlot cattle eat more grains (and other stuff that isn't grass).Redddbaron (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- you are repeating all the things you said when we discussed this source Talk:Organic_food/Archive_5#Grass_fed_beef. I am sorry that you don't understand - I really am - and that you are frustrated. But you are not listening and turning to personal attacks instead. Just like Banner. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed I am repeating. Agreed it is frustrating. This impasse is the cause of both the biased artical and the editing wars. But I refuse to be in a war. That's why I refused to continue to try and fix the article and why I largely stopped editing wikipages at all. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination for this. There are qualitative differences between organic and conventional food. That is a fact. If you or any other of the more experienced editors on this page cant find a way to include that evidence on the page, then the quality of this wiki page will remain a poorly written propaganda page. But don't expect me to change it. I did my best shot. It apparently wasn't good enough. But I still can vote on the neutrality tag. I have done this and explained in great detail why the disputed neutrality tag is valid. This page is HIGHLY biased, and it is because the people owning this page always find a way to hide the evidence. You and I have both posted our COI's. It is not a personal attack at you per se. But it is interesting to note that many of your edits remain while opposing POV edits are always removed. I would like to see you wade through those 100 studies and find a way to get that evidence included. I know you tried once and your edits got removed too, just like all the rest showing qualitative differences in organic and conventional food, and their effects on public health. So this isn't meant to be a hurtful attack at you personally. It is simply my opinion that this is a dreadfully poor wiki article that is designed to mislead just as badly now that it has a anti-organic slant as it did long ago when it had a pro-organic slant. Redddbaron (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have no COI with regard to this article. You practice farming techniques related to organic; that makes you an WP:EXPERT for sure and some may say you have a financial COI but I don't believe I ever did. I do undestand that you believe strongly that "There are qualitative differences" - (don't know if you meant quantitative or qualitative) but the issue here was, and still is, sourcing. Especially for controversial topics we rely on the best sources we can for this sort of thing, and that is reviews published in the scientific literature. You brought the "grass fed beef" review which for that topic was really great, but as mentioned above, very good arguments were made that "grass fed" is not the same as organic, and the WP:CONSENSUS (which is not the same thing as unanimity) was that this article shouldn't use that source nor content based on it. I do understand that you and others who believe in organic find this article to be "dreadfully poor" and are frustrated, but that is what happens when faith meets science and cannot see that it is making claims about reality that are not sustainable. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed I am repeating. Agreed it is frustrating. This impasse is the cause of both the biased artical and the editing wars. But I refuse to be in a war. That's why I refused to continue to try and fix the article and why I largely stopped editing wikipages at all. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination for this. There are qualitative differences between organic and conventional food. That is a fact. If you or any other of the more experienced editors on this page cant find a way to include that evidence on the page, then the quality of this wiki page will remain a poorly written propaganda page. But don't expect me to change it. I did my best shot. It apparently wasn't good enough. But I still can vote on the neutrality tag. I have done this and explained in great detail why the disputed neutrality tag is valid. This page is HIGHLY biased, and it is because the people owning this page always find a way to hide the evidence. You and I have both posted our COI's. It is not a personal attack at you per se. But it is interesting to note that many of your edits remain while opposing POV edits are always removed. I would like to see you wade through those 100 studies and find a way to get that evidence included. I know you tried once and your edits got removed too, just like all the rest showing qualitative differences in organic and conventional food, and their effects on public health. So this isn't meant to be a hurtful attack at you personally. It is simply my opinion that this is a dreadfully poor wiki article that is designed to mislead just as badly now that it has a anti-organic slant as it did long ago when it had a pro-organic slant. Redddbaron (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- you are repeating all the things you said when we discussed this source Talk:Organic_food/Archive_5#Grass_fed_beef. I am sorry that you don't understand - I really am - and that you are frustrated. But you are not listening and turning to personal attacks instead. Just like Banner. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. I gave one link that has well over 100 peer reviewed papers. (both primary and secondary) You simply didn't follow the links. I have tried posting many of them individually. They were all shot down for every excuse in the book. One of those excuses you just named. The logic is this: The one common major difference between feedlot beef and organic beef is the pasture rule. This is true under every organic certification body. The exact details of each certifying agency may vary slightly in the details, but that is the common thread. So scientists test to see if this has an effect on the qualitative characteristics of the final food product. They found differences. Hundreds of studies prove that beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a consensus. So an industrial ag advocate(s) owning this wikipage had to come up with a way to hide this evidence. They did that by arguing that while all organic beef is largely and/or exclusively grassfed, not all grassfed is certified organic. I am telling you it doesn't matter. Most conventional models fatten cattle in feedlots, and all organic is grassfed. (although in rare exceptions that prove the rule some supplemental feeding is allowed to prevent starving the animals when pasture forage gets low or runs out) This doesn't invalidate the scientific studies though. Feedlot cattle produce a measurable qualitatively different food product than organic cattle... because organic cattle eat grass where feedlot cattle eat more grains (and other stuff that isn't grass).Redddbaron (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- See the problem? You state, "that is what happens when faith meets science" But what happened is hundreds literal HUNDREDS of peer reviewed scientific studies backing organic methods of animal husbandry were disallowed. So the strategy is arbitrarily disallow the science, then the claims can be called "faith" and not backed by science. You don't see the irony? Organic was science based from its inception. It was ALWAYS science based. The father of organic was a scientist. Actually the "faith" based is conventional, a faith base with science added here and there. The faith that those proven differences are probably not harmful. Organic on the other hand was always 100% science based from it's very inception. There are qualitative differences in the food products. That is the reality. You can test it. I can test it. Anyone can test it. There are HUNDREDS literally HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of scientific studies proving this beyond all shadow of a doubt. I gave you well over 100 myself. A wiki consensus may disallow all 100+ of them, but if anything that wiki consensus is what is unscientific. The scientific consensus is that there are qualitative difference in the nutritional properties of organic food among other things, especially animal husbandry products, but to a lessor extent vegetables as well. Disallow those studies all you want, then claim there is no science backing organic. You can do it. It happened. But in no way is it reflecting reality, only reflects a highly biased wiki propaganda page that has a neutrality dispute tag. Great argument and strategy for a virtual page , but certainly not reality. That's the truth and if you don't like it, tough. Reality and science trumps your faith based arguments. The ONLY way anyone can claim there is no difference is by disallowing every scientific study that proves there is.Redddbaron (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- again, i am sorry but you don't seem to understand that results published in primary sources in science are often not true and they are not meant for the general public - they are how scientists talk to one another; that is why we rely on reviews (secondary sources). i am sorry that you still don't understand this. but look at the recent reviews cited in our article. please.Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, YOU are calling into question the validity of the studies, claiming they may not be true, as if YOU are an expert. But the studies I posted were picked precisely because they were already screened by a US State University and a team of real accredited Phd experts/educators, and re-published for public education. Your claim is the only "unscientific" faith based claim. Almost hopeful thinking they maybe might not be true. But they are true. It is undeniable by ANY scientist. They include reviews too. Even those reviews you put your faith in that made the wiki were VERY VERY limited in scope and it says so right in them, not even attempting to do detailed examinations. But just look at the opening paragraph on the wiki page section for chemical composition: "With respect to chemical differences in the composition of organically grown food compared with conventionally grown food, studies have examined differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residues. These studies generally suffer from confounding variables, and are difficult to generalize due to differences in the tests that were done, the methods of testing, and because the vagaries of agriculture affect the chemical composition of food; these variables include variations in weather (season to season as well as place to place); crop treatments (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.); soil composition; the cultivar used, and in the case of meat and dairy products, the parallel variables in animal production.[3][6][55] Treatment of the foodstuffs after initial gathering (whether milk is pasteurized or raw), the length of time between harvest and analysis, as well as conditions of transport and storage, also affect the chemical composition of a given item of food.[3][6] Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is drier than conventionally grown produce; a higher content in any chemical category may be explained by higher concentration rather than in absolute amounts.[4]" Read it? It sounds exactly like an excuse as to why the found differences should be ignored. No where does it just come out and say, "yes there are chemical differences between organic and conventionally raised food" All they seem to be saying is "We are confounded for various reasons" ignoring the fact that differences were found. A proper wikipage would say something to the effect, "Yes there are differences found, but there are confounding factors that need addressed" The last mealy mouthed comment from that paragraph is particularly ridiculous. You end up proving the food is more nutrient dense, so the industry explains it away as being dryer? LOL. What the heck is more nutrient dense if not more nutrition and less water? D'oh. You wonder why an organic tomato tastes better and has more flavor and why conventional tomatoes at the grocery store have almost no flavor? There it is. But it is slanted so ridiculously that it appears to "discredit" the claims about organic food. The whole article is slanted in this manner, because they used slanted citations and figured out ways to remove allmost all citations that were not slanted this way.Redddbaron (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree wholeheartedly with Redddbaron. It's such a shame that wikipedia is being destroyed like this. Jimbo Wales is asleep at the wheel, or just doesn't care. MLPainless (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Redddbaron, I am just explaining why WP policies and guidelines for science-based content, are what they are. You are getting way too emotional; all your passion is not going to change what the best sources say. And the article does describe some differences. The long quote you provide is accurate and is well-sourced, and reflects the actual difficulty in proving anything with regard to something as messy as food. Where the rubber hits the road is whether differences that can be identified, matter for health. Reviews to date have generally said, "we don't know." The most recent review went there, and said they might. That is included too. I'll end as I usually do - please bring reliable, secondary sources for the content you want. Please. Jytdog (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll also point out to please just stick to what sources say and base content off that. Bring the concepts up, and we can assess the reliability of the source and the weight of the statement with other sources. Keep in mind we're trying to stick to secondary sources not only because they summarize the literature properly for us, but also for everyone's benefit. If we wanted to suspend our general lack of approval for primary sources and start considering including them, I technically could discredit pretty much any primary study with my statistics and experimental design background. However, that is not my place as a Wikipedia editor, just as it's not for anyone to determine the validity of a primary study here. That's why the list of primary studies you gave wasn't used. We just don't use sources like that as editors. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Here are a few. But the sources won't change the slant or the article. For that you simply need a rewrite without the bias. http://www.csuchico.edu/grassfedbeef/research/Review%20Grassfed%20Beef%202010.pdf, http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107555301750164244, http://www.agronomy-journal.org/articles/agro/full_html/2010/01/a8202/a8202.html, http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480120092071, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00196.x/full#b40, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsfa.5639/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false, http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AR03173, Redddbaron (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Again, YOU are calling into question the validity of the studies, claiming they may not be true, as if YOU are an expert. But the studies I posted were picked precisely because they were already screened by a US State University and a team of real accredited Phd experts/educators, and re-published for public education. Your claim is the only "unscientific" faith based claim. Almost hopeful thinking they maybe might not be true. But they are true. It is undeniable by ANY scientist. They include reviews too. Even those reviews you put your faith in that made the wiki were VERY VERY limited in scope and it says so right in them, not even attempting to do detailed examinations. But just look at the opening paragraph on the wiki page section for chemical composition: "With respect to chemical differences in the composition of organically grown food compared with conventionally grown food, studies have examined differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residues. These studies generally suffer from confounding variables, and are difficult to generalize due to differences in the tests that were done, the methods of testing, and because the vagaries of agriculture affect the chemical composition of food; these variables include variations in weather (season to season as well as place to place); crop treatments (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.); soil composition; the cultivar used, and in the case of meat and dairy products, the parallel variables in animal production.[3][6][55] Treatment of the foodstuffs after initial gathering (whether milk is pasteurized or raw), the length of time between harvest and analysis, as well as conditions of transport and storage, also affect the chemical composition of a given item of food.[3][6] Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is drier than conventionally grown produce; a higher content in any chemical category may be explained by higher concentration rather than in absolute amounts.[4]" Read it? It sounds exactly like an excuse as to why the found differences should be ignored. No where does it just come out and say, "yes there are chemical differences between organic and conventionally raised food" All they seem to be saying is "We are confounded for various reasons" ignoring the fact that differences were found. A proper wikipage would say something to the effect, "Yes there are differences found, but there are confounding factors that need addressed" The last mealy mouthed comment from that paragraph is particularly ridiculous. You end up proving the food is more nutrient dense, so the industry explains it away as being dryer? LOL. What the heck is more nutrient dense if not more nutrition and less water? D'oh. You wonder why an organic tomato tastes better and has more flavor and why conventional tomatoes at the grocery store have almost no flavor? There it is. But it is slanted so ridiculously that it appears to "discredit" the claims about organic food. The whole article is slanted in this manner, because they used slanted citations and figured out ways to remove allmost all citations that were not slanted this way.Redddbaron (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually you are that point obviously. Not my fault you bought a spurious argument by non experts who claim organic beef isn't grassfed. Bottom line with all animal husbandry is that the product is nutritionally related to the feed and a requirement of organic is grassfed. The requirement is called the pasture rule and EVERY organic certification board has a similar requirement. But be stubborn and refuse reality. That's not my job to teach you how to raise a cow. But the Milk link has the same results for the same reasons, "As a contribution to the debate on the comparison of nutritional quality between conventional versus organic products, the present study would like to provide new results on this issue specifically on dairy products by integrating the last 3 years' studies using a meta-analysis approach with Hedges' d effect size method. The current meta-analysis shows that organic dairy products contain significantly higher protein, ALA, total omega-3 fatty acid, cis-9,trans-11 conjugated linoleic acid, trans-11 vaccenic acid, eicosapentanoic acid, and docosapentanoic acid than those of conventional types, with cumulative effect size ( ± 95% confidence interval) of 0.56 ± 0.24, 1.74 ± 0.16, 0.84 ± 0.14, 0.68 ± 0.13, 0.51 ± 0.16, 0.42 ± 0.23, and 0.71 ± 0.3, respectively." And there justr to avoid any possible claims of ignorance in how cows are raised..it says organic. (truth is it's the grass that makes the difference) Redddbaron (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- no one claimed that "organic beef isn't grassfed." The biggest problem is that the article never mentions organic, and another problem is that not all grassfed beef is organic. This is the same thing that has been said a million times and you keep ignoring it. frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- So a link to a hoax (assuming this qualifies as evidence of a hoax) is supposed to be a legit reason why organic food that follows the rules can't show the qualitative nutritional differences? Really? Says right there 90% of all beef is feedlot beef (which would automatically disqualify it as organic). All organic beef must be kept on pasture through all life cycles. (with minor exceptions due to weather) We have been through this before. Sources on the article only because I put them there. That covers pretty much everyone. There may be some tiny % that raise their animals organically but refuse to pay for certification. That is a political financial regulatory issue. It doesn't change the qualitative effects on the product.Redddbaron (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- you are not talking, you are just yelling at me. I'll be happy to talk you bring some secondary sources that are relevant. Take care, redddbaron. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I gave you 7.Redddbaron (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
7 sources
- 1) grass-fed beef. done with this one. overdone.
- 2) Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains published in the The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, by Virginia Worthington, MS, ScD, CNS. Published in 2001. This is journal of woo and the article is 14 years old. We have reviews from last year.
- 3) this is a dead link http://www.agronomy-journal.org/articles/agro/full_html/2010/01/a8202/a8202.html
- 4) Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence published in International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition in 2003. This is not a bad source but is 12 years old. Its findings are much like those in our recent reviews. Some small differences in nutrients; unclear if there is any effect in humans.
- 5) Organic Foods, published in Journal of Food Science in 2006. Not a bad source but is 9 years old, and it says the same thing that our more recent sources say.
- 6) Comparison of nutritional quality between conventional and organic dairy products: a meta-analysis published in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture in 2012. This is recent enough and is a good journal, and we don't cite it. Great! This is worth a look. From the abstract, it appears to offer little different conclusions from what we already cite, but worth looking into more.
- 7) [Effects of nutrition and management on the production and composition of milk fat and protein: a review] published in Australian Journal of Agricultural Research in 2004. 12 years old. Too old. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- so, one good one! Maybe 2, depending on what 3) is. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding (2), a review is a review. Now you get to pick the ones you like?
- Regarding (3), try this Took me 3 seconds to find.
- Please stop discarding review studies from the last 15 years
because you happen to have more recent ones that are more to your liking. - PMID 24968103 — why not in article? Or is it? MLPainless (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
your sarcasm is unwelcome. I'll come back later. i am so sick of people just being mean. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)(striking Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC))- NOTAFORUM, please remember. MLPainless (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Discuss content, not contributor per WP:TPG. . Please strike " because you happen to have more recent ones that are more to your liking." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- When you first strike "I am sick of people being mean". I wasn't being mean, simply stating what looks like a fact to me, and that is that perfectly good reviews are being excluded on specious grounds. MLPainless (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The "Took me 3 seconds to find" is snarky, as is your attribution of my applying standard editing practice for science matters (newer reviews take into account all the evidence to date) to my personal taste. I've striken my comment, and i'm pretty much done talking with you, per WP:SHUN - you make this too personal. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- When you first strike "I am sick of people being mean". I wasn't being mean, simply stating what looks like a fact to me, and that is that perfectly good reviews are being excluded on specious grounds. MLPainless (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Discuss content, not contributor per WP:TPG. . Please strike " because you happen to have more recent ones that are more to your liking." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- NOTAFORUM, please remember. MLPainless (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- The why not snipes need to stop. It's only an accusation of wrongdoing and has no place here. If you think new content can be generated from certain sources, just propose it. Also keep in mind that newer reviews (on the order of magnitude being discussed above) supplant older ones when they bring about different views. That's how science works, so that's the standard for all scientific sources on Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll ask "why not" as often as I please, your inference that it's an accusation of wrongdoing notwithstanding. I supplied a new review, and nobody is answering the questions I asked in relation to it. Stick to the topic. MLPainless (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
PMID 24968103 has been in the article since July and is still there. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering the question. I did scan for it but oddly the find command did not find that pmid number, on that occasion. Now I wonder why that study, which states that the concentrations of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were found to be substantially higher in organic crops/crop-based foods is used as a source for the sentence "...insufficient evidence to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food" (in the lede)? MLPainless (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with this statement: "We should remove the biased assertions from the lede that organic food isn't healthier and doesn't taste better, both of which are rather dubious and in any event present in Wikipedia's authoritative voice a conclusion of a disputed fact. It's fair to include them in a subsection about the medical community's response, if that is indeed the response. Inasmuch as this is an article about food, not medicine, it misapplies MEDRS to use it here — it makes as much sense as citing literature to proclaim whether Spanish food is healthier or better tasting than Italian." - Wikidemon (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- And I agree with this statement: " Can we also discuss the application of WP:MEDRS on an article far more related to food and agriculture than to the medical world?" -- The Banner talk 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- That said, the lack of NPOV tag should be restored. David Tornheim (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- we have discussed the application of WP:MEDRS to health claims many times here. Why do you think that claims about health benefits of organic food, are not health claims? Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- You just made improper use of WP:MEDRS again in reversing an edit! The word "health wasn't even present at all! No WP:MEDRS claims were made at all.Redddbaron (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- we have discussed the application of WP:MEDRS to health claims many times here. Why do you think that claims about health benefits of organic food, are not health claims? Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Bad source? Ok what about this one? Organic Diets Significantly Lower Children's Dietary Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides Chensheng Lu, Kathryn Toepel, Rene Irish, Richard A. Fenske, Dana B. Barr and Roberto Bravo Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 114, No. 2 (Feb., 2006), pp. 260-263 Published by: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3436519Redddbaron (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- An old primary source, of no use to us. Please see WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS and ensure you grok WP:NPOV. Also please try to ensure comments on Talk pages are properly indented so people can track the flow - see WP:TPG. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK here is a review that is newer. Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. (PMID:20359265)Redddbaron (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- An old review in a fringey (now defunct) journal. Is there nothing newer/stronger than that on this topic? Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- How strong do you need to prove food sprayed with pesticides have more pesticide residues than food not sprayed with pesticides? I swear if I was a conspiracy theorist (I am not) that all the out of work pundits that used to work for big tobacco just moved over to big AG. There is a point where this gets ridiculous. Shall I also need a recent peer reviewed study to prove the sky is blue? Let me ask you, why would the FDA keep such large monitoring and databases on pesticide residues in food if they didn't exist or potentially pose a health threat? http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM2006797.htmRedddbaron (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- what exactly are you upset about here, Redddbaron? The article has a section on pesticide residues, here. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- "How strong do you need to prove food sprayed with pesticides have more pesticide residues than food not sprayed with pesticides?" I don't think that's what we're addressing here at all since organic crops can be sprayed with pesticides as well. The key finding in MEDRS sources here seems to be that regardless of what is sprayed, they reach negligible levels by the time the food is being consumed and isn't a significant health concern at that point. Regardless of if you spray an organic crop, the conventional residues are so low that the relative safety risk between the two is essentially the same. That's the general gist I've seen from sources discussing safety from a consumer perspective so far at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Right, that would be the common sense thing to think. However, it wasn't the edit that was reversed. The edit that was reversed simply stated that conventionally grown food has more pesticide residues than organic food. I happen to agree the source being a Fox News report, fine to ask for a better source, but this isn't a MEDRS issue until you start making health claims about that simple observable and well documented fact. And if it isn't a MEDRS issue, then a simple rewrite with a better source is warranted, not just deleting it completely. Redddbaron (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- How strong do you need to prove food sprayed with pesticides have more pesticide residues than food not sprayed with pesticides? I swear if I was a conspiracy theorist (I am not) that all the out of work pundits that used to work for big tobacco just moved over to big AG. There is a point where this gets ridiculous. Shall I also need a recent peer reviewed study to prove the sky is blue? Let me ask you, why would the FDA keep such large monitoring and databases on pesticide residues in food if they didn't exist or potentially pose a health threat? http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM2006797.htmRedddbaron (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- An old review in a fringey (now defunct) journal. Is there nothing newer/stronger than that on this topic? Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK here is a review that is newer. Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. (PMID:20359265)Redddbaron (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Magkos F et al
This 2006 review ((2006) Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46(1) 23–56 | pmid=16403682) is cited 5+ times in the article. Since this review is more than 5 years old and there are more recent reviews cited in this article which cover the same area, MEDRS suggests it should be removed entirely. I have no problem keeping it in the article, but think the number of refs to it should be reduced. What do others think?Dialectric (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I personally think the study is reasonably good and reasonably up to date. There are some newer studies, but not equal in quality, nor as comprehensive. Nor has any or the main claims been overturned as of yet. There are some original research studies that might call into question certain parts, but they are not usable as wiki sources here. Until there are better reviews of the newer research in the same quality as this one, I vote we keep it for now and simply be patient. I believe the reason it is cited so often is simply due to its comprehensive nature.Redddbaron (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Organic industry promotion
In this diff, content was removed in addition to a source describing the organic industry's promotion of health benefits, etc. of organic. That and another source being cited by the removed one were added by Jytdog here to satisfy a citation needed tag last August. The content still fits since we still have a source. Since we aren't dealing with scientific content though and more just describing the marketing end of things, my first glance is that the sources seem somewhat reliable. The Academics Review source would be a primary source (maybe secondary?), while the Food Safety News source was being used to give the primary source context. That seems appropriate by providing both sources in that context.
The question for me is if Food Safety News can be considered a reliable source as a news website? That basically means it needs a reputation for fact-checking and just overall satisfies WP:RS in this case. I'm in a gray zone right now on that, though I'm not seeing red flags at least yet the more I look into it. Otherwise, is there a gold-standard type of sources others would look for to cite content saying the organic industry promotes ideas about health benefits, etc.? I'm not sure what would be considered better at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- It appears to be used as a source in reliable sources. Here is a link to a Google book search. TFD (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- The removed Food Safety News cite draws all of its numbers and nearly all of its content from the still-referenced Academics Review paper, and as such it added little to the article. It may be an RS, but in this case is only a reliable source for what the AR paper, which is already included, says.Dialectric (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it to correct a NPOV problem. I specifically chose that particular citation to prove the inherent bias of editors of this page, since FSN was just removed from the lead. Sure enough, when FSN is used for a neutral POV citation it is removed, but left to stand for months if anti-organic. In this case the biased wiki text was reverted to attempt to retain the negative biasRedddbaron (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- So what you are saying is that your are disrupting wikipedia to make a point?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am and always was since I became an editor, trying to help. Not me disrupting wiki. But I chose that particular change to prove a point, only because I was asked to and told the proper way to handle the situation. So I did, and the point was proven in short order.Redddbaron (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) PS If you don't understand, the point to be proved was that it wasn't me causing the disruption.Redddbaron (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please see wp:point and keep it in mind in the future.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am and always was since I became an editor, trying to help. Not me disrupting wiki. But I chose that particular change to prove a point, only because I was asked to and told the proper way to handle the situation. So I did, and the point was proven in short order.Redddbaron (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) PS If you don't understand, the point to be proved was that it wasn't me causing the disruption.Redddbaron (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Vigorous debate as to the relative safety of organic versus conventional food
From the lead section:
- "There is insufficient evidence to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food."
There is plenty of evidence. The above statement is inaccurate. See: NRDC: Our Children At Risk.
It would be more accurate to say that there is vigorous debate as to the relative safety of organic versus conventional food. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The MEDRS-guys shoot down everything what is not fitting in their game plan. In effect, positive things are not allowed as you can not expect the medical world to know enough about farming and agriculture. That is the sad situation here. The Banner talk 19:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have been eating natural foods for around 40 years and have read hundreds of books. The medical profession is about the last place I would go for health info concerning food. They pass on info that is totally wrong. I remember when they said enriched white bread was healthy food. And many doctors still push a low-fat diet as the best way to lose weight even though that myth has been thoroughly debunked by many studies. The original studies that promoted it were very flawed, and were published in WP:MEDRS-approved medical and scientific journals (many of which have been discredited over the years for their many flawed and compromised studies).
- There needs to be another arbitration hearing over all this, but I don't have the time to do it. Wikipedia has been compromised, yet again. There are many peer-reviewed studies listed in NRDC: Our Children At Risk and other places. So that statement in the lead is complete crap. And it doesn't pass the common sense test. Why did the US government go to the bother of USDA organic labeling if there were no health benefits. Stupid beyond belief. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- people have very strong feelings about health and about food, and doubly strong where those things intersect. that is one of the key reasons why we have high standards for sourcing claims about health. I was unaware this page had ever been to arbcom. if it goes there (and i would be surprised if it would), i don't have much doubt that Arbcom would say that MEDRS applies to health claims about food. If you have any such new sources (i think the most recent review we cite is 2015 or late 2014), or you think that current sources used are not being communicated accurately, please do speak up about that. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- There needs to be another arbitration hearing over all this, but I don't have the time to do it. Wikipedia has been compromised, yet again. There are many peer-reviewed studies listed in NRDC: Our Children At Risk and other places. So that statement in the lead is complete crap. And it doesn't pass the common sense test. Why did the US government go to the bother of USDA organic labeling if there were no health benefits. Stupid beyond belief. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- The link advises buying organic food because of the reduced risk of pesticides. I do not think that the level of pesticides in food is a MEDRS issue, but saying that the consumption of organic food will reduce health threats caused by consuming pesticides is. It may well be that the medical scientists are wrong, but policies require us to accept their opinion regardless. If you do not like that, then you need to get the policies changed. TFD (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You hit on one of the biggest issues. Pesticides are tested according to a risk/benefit analysis. Even when a pesticide passes FDA approval process, that does not in any way negate the fact that pesticides are known health hazards. The trick being to get the average dose (residue on food) low enough that the risks are smaller than the perceived benefits on average in most cases. As far as MEDRS here on this page? Often abused. Food in most cases is not medicine, and shouldn't be treated as such. On the other hand high quality food is an important factor in overall good health, something that is quite obvious. I strongly feel that there are anti-organic advocates camping on this page, but it is an old complaint. There seems to be great difficulty in finding a way to write a quality page that everyone can live with. If the anti-organic advocates were not here, the page would quickly revert to even worse, but in the other direction with organic advocates taking control. Right now we simply have to live with mostly factually correct, but written with a decidedly anti-organic bias and style. That's at least better than factually incorrect. Just my opinion. I don't dare edit here anymore due to being ganged up on by multiple editors who can't abide by a neutral POV writing style or content. If I did I risk being banned for edit warring. Many many editors have been run off for the same basic reason.Redddbaron (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think they say that the levels of pesticides are too low to be harmful, even if in large doses they could be lethal. Some supporters of organic farming claim that even these low levels are hazardous, although the scientific literature does not support that view. That is not to say the critics are wrong, but we need to follow weight and explain there is no evidence to support the view. Personally I support organic farming, but for other reasons, some of which you list on your user page. The problem with the topic though is that there is nothing that is unique to organic farming. Animal cruelty for example is widespread in conventional farming, but there are many non-organic farmers who follow the same practices as organic farmers. So while you can say that organic farmers observe standards on humaneness, you cannot say that all other farmers do not. TFD (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- In fact that part is correct, me being a good example, as I am in fact a farmer, and I am not certified organic. I do use organic methodology though. (In fact I do research on organic methodology) So I know very well what you are talking about. When it comes to qualitative differences in the food product, the difference is in the methodology, not the certification label. That's just a paperwork issue. Science knows this too. The studies you find don't generally talk so much about paperwork as they do comparing methodology. But just try and insert a source proving that here? Like stirring up a hornets nest. Good example: It is well proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that grassfed beef has a different nutritional profile than grainfed confinement beef. It is also a requirement that all certified organic beef be grassfed with actual access to pasture in all growth phases (and/or hay in inclement weather conditions only). Yet multiple times I have attempted to make the case here, and all studies showing the nutritional benefits to grassfed have been disallowed for ridiculous and spurious reasons. Just one example. Similar things happen here with vegetable production as well. Organic methods improve the humus and other organic carbon compounds held in the soil. When these compounds are higher, it can affect the nutritional profile of the food grown in that soil, generally positively. But show a study that humic acid effects plant growth and nutritional content, and it will get shot down here immediately, because they didn't use the term "certified organic". There is a whole lot of scientific evidence being disallowed on this page simply due to advocacy and dogma and abuse of MEDRS. And it isn't just one way either, but right now the anti-organic crowd have control, so their dogma stands.Redddbaron (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You would need a source that puts it all together, otherwise it is synthesis. In the meantime, why not focus on articles about the specific issues? "Grass-fed beef" for example is an unsourced section of "Cattle feeding." Egg (food)#Nutritional value says that free range eggs have more nutrients but it is tagged for a MEDRS source. (I think it is more accurate to say that they usually have more nutrients.) But those are all areas that could be improved with good sources. TFD (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- And there are the big words again. Experience is labelled as synthesis. And the claim for sources mean MEDRS-sources, not sources provided by, for example, an agricultural university. It often gives me the eerie feeling that a lot of guys here really have no clue how to grow vegetables or raise cattle themselves. The Banner talk 09:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Banner you were going to cool it personalizing this. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Considering that the folks who do MEDRS quality reviews are exactly experts in the areas you mention such as agriculture or nutrition (often based exactly in agricultural universities), I'm not seeing any issue here. There are a lot of agricultural researchers out there, so it's not difficult to find reviews. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- And there are the big words again. Experience is labelled as synthesis. And the claim for sources mean MEDRS-sources, not sources provided by, for example, an agricultural university. It often gives me the eerie feeling that a lot of guys here really have no clue how to grow vegetables or raise cattle themselves. The Banner talk 09:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You would need a source that puts it all together, otherwise it is synthesis. In the meantime, why not focus on articles about the specific issues? "Grass-fed beef" for example is an unsourced section of "Cattle feeding." Egg (food)#Nutritional value says that free range eggs have more nutrients but it is tagged for a MEDRS source. (I think it is more accurate to say that they usually have more nutrients.) But those are all areas that could be improved with good sources. TFD (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- In fact that part is correct, me being a good example, as I am in fact a farmer, and I am not certified organic. I do use organic methodology though. (In fact I do research on organic methodology) So I know very well what you are talking about. When it comes to qualitative differences in the food product, the difference is in the methodology, not the certification label. That's just a paperwork issue. Science knows this too. The studies you find don't generally talk so much about paperwork as they do comparing methodology. But just try and insert a source proving that here? Like stirring up a hornets nest. Good example: It is well proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that grassfed beef has a different nutritional profile than grainfed confinement beef. It is also a requirement that all certified organic beef be grassfed with actual access to pasture in all growth phases (and/or hay in inclement weather conditions only). Yet multiple times I have attempted to make the case here, and all studies showing the nutritional benefits to grassfed have been disallowed for ridiculous and spurious reasons. Just one example. Similar things happen here with vegetable production as well. Organic methods improve the humus and other organic carbon compounds held in the soil. When these compounds are higher, it can affect the nutritional profile of the food grown in that soil, generally positively. But show a study that humic acid effects plant growth and nutritional content, and it will get shot down here immediately, because they didn't use the term "certified organic". There is a whole lot of scientific evidence being disallowed on this page simply due to advocacy and dogma and abuse of MEDRS. And it isn't just one way either, but right now the anti-organic crowd have control, so their dogma stands.Redddbaron (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think they say that the levels of pesticides are too low to be harmful, even if in large doses they could be lethal. Some supporters of organic farming claim that even these low levels are hazardous, although the scientific literature does not support that view. That is not to say the critics are wrong, but we need to follow weight and explain there is no evidence to support the view. Personally I support organic farming, but for other reasons, some of which you list on your user page. The problem with the topic though is that there is nothing that is unique to organic farming. Animal cruelty for example is widespread in conventional farming, but there are many non-organic farmers who follow the same practices as organic farmers. So while you can say that organic farmers observe standards on humaneness, you cannot say that all other farmers do not. TFD (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You hit on one of the biggest issues. Pesticides are tested according to a risk/benefit analysis. Even when a pesticide passes FDA approval process, that does not in any way negate the fact that pesticides are known health hazards. The trick being to get the average dose (residue on food) low enough that the risks are smaller than the perceived benefits on average in most cases. As far as MEDRS here on this page? Often abused. Food in most cases is not medicine, and shouldn't be treated as such. On the other hand high quality food is an important factor in overall good health, something that is quite obvious. I strongly feel that there are anti-organic advocates camping on this page, but it is an old complaint. There seems to be great difficulty in finding a way to write a quality page that everyone can live with. If the anti-organic advocates were not here, the page would quickly revert to even worse, but in the other direction with organic advocates taking control. Right now we simply have to live with mostly factually correct, but written with a decidedly anti-organic bias and style. That's at least better than factually incorrect. Just my opinion. I don't dare edit here anymore due to being ganged up on by multiple editors who can't abide by a neutral POV writing style or content. If I did I risk being banned for edit warring. Many many editors have been run off for the same basic reason.Redddbaron (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Health and safety - consumer safety section still has some synthesis issues. Along the lines of what TFD mentioned, Organic beef also needs a lot of work. This discussion, like the similar discussion that was had in January, shows that there are ongoing concerns about NPOV in this article. These concerns are unlikely to be addressed unless those raising the concerns propose alternate wording with sources or escalate the issue to an RFC or admin noticeboard.Dialectric (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Proposing alternate wording is not enough. As soon as I tried that an edit war began. See above "current edit war over the lead" on this talk page. Other examples can be found in archives. If the person actually following wiki policy of "be bold" is subject to almost instantaneous reverts by multiple parties, and proposed changes in talk never reach the article, only deadlock can result.Redddbaron (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC) PS: Please see WP:Tag teamRedddbaron (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, deadlock can be a problem when editors have policy-based arguments for and against changing specific content. Though it is tedious to do for every change, you may find that posting an WP:RFC requesting feedback on proposed wording would get outside input and potentially break up the deadlock.Dialectric (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just another note for Redddbaron, but sometimes there just isn't consensus for a change either. That should not be misconstrued as tag teaming just because multiple people disagree with something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- If this was a wiki "good article" you would have a valid point. Those good articles don't necessarily need change. Any changes to them need to be made quite cautiously. However, this article is a delisted good article. That means it needs change to become a good article again. Stewardship of a good article is not at all the same as owning a bad article to make sure it remains biased. They may seem similar but the most important difference is the quality of the article an editor is "owning" or "stewarding". An editor does no favors for wikipedia by protecting an article in need of improvement. A group of editors "protecting" an article like this is not stewardship and the consensus they bring is not positive or constructive toward the goals of wikipedia. Now once the article obtains "good article" status, everything changes. Then the same editor that might be accused of owning or bullying or tag team etc, suddenly becomes the good steward. Doesn't apply here.Redddbaron (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, deadlock can be a problem when editors have policy-based arguments for and against changing specific content. Though it is tedious to do for every change, you may find that posting an WP:RFC requesting feedback on proposed wording would get outside input and potentially break up the deadlock.Dialectric (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Proposing alternate wording is not enough. As soon as I tried that an edit war began. See above "current edit war over the lead" on this talk page. Other examples can be found in archives. If the person actually following wiki policy of "be bold" is subject to almost instantaneous reverts by multiple parties, and proposed changes in talk never reach the article, only deadlock can result.Redddbaron (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC) PS: Please see WP:Tag teamRedddbaron (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Health and safety - consumer safety section still has some synthesis issues. Along the lines of what TFD mentioned, Organic beef also needs a lot of work. This discussion, like the similar discussion that was had in January, shows that there are ongoing concerns about NPOV in this article. These concerns are unlikely to be addressed unless those raising the concerns propose alternate wording with sources or escalate the issue to an RFC or admin noticeboard.Dialectric (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
When you provided suggestions above, they were contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure which policy from which you are referring. WP tag team is an essay not a policy. It provides guidance for editors not rules that must be followed. If you are referring to the above suggestion that my suggestions are a synthesis. Here is a published review study that ties what I have said all along about organic being "grassfed" beef: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1051/agro/2009019 If it is not either one of the above, please be more specific and maybe I can help?Redddbaron (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC) PS that same review as well as many others have shown there is actually a scientific significant qualitative difference in most organic and conventional foods. What it doesn't go so far to prove is that those difference necessarily are enough to effect public health. That is possible, maybe even likely, but not proven as of yet, with many conflicting studies. So since it isn't a consensus as of yet, I can certainly live with a wiki article that makes no health claims at all. Thus no need for MEDRS either. Just explaining the measurable and quantifiable differences and leaving it at that. I do understand that if health claims are made, then MEDRS must come into play. So that is a viable option too. Always remembering the obvious logic rule, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Redddbaron (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- TFD, can you clarify what you are talking about here? As written it is quite vague.Dialectric (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
organic foods and health
Hi ,everybody . I am new member on Wikipedia and I am interested on the article organic food . After reading this article ,it is seem that there something missing on the section organic foods and health . There is no problem for eating organic food but there is a problem if you don't know what kind of organic food you are allergic to . If you don't know which food you are allergic to , you are going to eat some organic food and if something happens you may start complaining about organic food . Also people that consuming organic meats should be sure that it is cooked properly to decrease the risk of foodborne illnesses . Right now I need to do more research to find out if it is common that people who are allergic to some kind food , would be allergic to the same food if it organic food .Azetobevi (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be so quick to place blame on organic food for allergies. I'm not suggesting that's what you are doing at all, but if someone eats any type of food without an allergic reaction, then switches to the organic version of that food, it will not cause allergies. If anything, people who are allergic to "regular" non-organic food are more likely to see those allergies subside or disappear when they switch to organic. I have family members who cannot eat cucumbers because of the pesticides on the skin. However, when they eat certified organic cucumbers, they're perfectly fine. That being said, I think a lot of your questions may be better answered on the Food allergy page. Good luck.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Nanotechnology and Organic Foods
This section, added by a new account in November 2015 and edit warred over, did not belong in the article. It draws too heavily from a single source, Paull. It had an essay tone rather than an encyclopedic tone, with wording like 'we are all ingesting twentieth-century techno-pollution.' Finally, this content, even if reworded, sourced better, and condensed would better fit in Health impact of nanotechnology or Regulation of nanotechnology articles.Dialectric (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Organic food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090801124722/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23725592-details/article.do? to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23725592-details/article.do
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/faq/BuyOrganicFoodsC.shtml
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/statistics/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Organic food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pugwash.org/reports/ees/cuba2004/03%20Pugwash/02_Rebecca.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Poor reference
"Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses"
This is a poor quality meta-analysis study. It states that they only focused on those studies that showed significant differences. This shocks me that such a study was accepted for publication, as it implies they intentionally created the known "file drawer bias" that meta-analysis can show. They MUST include all studies, regardless of findings, which have sufficient data for inclusion. By focusing only on the significant studies, they have biased the findings in favor of differences. If nothing else, this should be noted. The interpretation of this study can be that, for those studies that did find differences, these are the percentage differences in nutrient concentration. It's also drawing conclusions that are consistent with past studies but mis-attributing this as greater quantities. Concentration and quantity are not the same thing. It's been shown in past research that the slow growing and lower water quantities used in organic grown crops reduces the water content of the foods, which has the effect of reducing their size. This increases concentrations. You need to account for the water difference to ensure that concentration metrics actually reflect greater absolute quantities of nutrients. This has been done, was already cited, and finds no differences in absolute nutrient levels, accounting for water differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8E7:C90:F0DA:2D7F:B807:6AEF (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Conventionally Grown Food
The information that I want to add to the article came from Fredhelm Schmider, the General director of the European Crop Protection Association. This information would help people to understand that conventionally grown foods are just as nutritious as organic foods.
"This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of the food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the organic market." said Fredhelm Schmder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azetobevi (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- You would have to mention thst the European Crop Protection Association is a registered lobbyist for conventionally grown foods, which would weaken the message you want to present. And it is an oversimplification. "Conventional" methods have led to substantially decreased nutrition, partly caused by depleted soils and crops developed to grown faster. While studies show that when organic methods are used to grow conventional crops in depleted soils they are no more nutritious, the reality is that organic farming typically does not do that. TFD (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are misinterpreting the research. The research that failed to find differences between organic and conventionally grown food did not only look at growing conventional crops in depleted soil. That in fact is an assumption you are making as a reason for the lack of differences. Even your assertion that soil is nutrient depleted is an arguable point as the literature will not be on your side. Additionally, organic farming as a concept nor organic farming as a certification does not require the use of a specific nutrient rich soil, and as such buying organically grow crops would not guarantee greater nutrients levels (as found in the literature). I think it is very important to differentiate between organic farming as it has come to be organized, regulated, and certified, and a notion of non-factory "ethical" farming techniques, which may or may not be "organic" and may or may not have improved flavor or nutrients. This concept is unrelated to organic farming and is nearly completely unresearched. Organic foods are highly researched and the best evidence we have, as a whole, suggests no nutrition or flavor differences, nor found to improve sustainability.2602:306:B8E7:C90:F0DA:2D7F:B807:6AEF (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Environmental benefits/impact of Organic farming
This seems to be a notable omission. Environmental impact is listed as a motivation for choosing organic food, but there is no evidence either way presented here. Given the extended discussion of health/taste benefits, it would be good to have this included.
--Adlhancock (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is not an omission, it is not allowed by the CABAL. Everything positive about organic food or organic gardening is blocked and/or removed, often on rather silly arguments. So have medical sources a far greater weight (undue to my opinion) than agricultural sources. The Banner talk 12:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Environmental impact discussion would not require medical sources. Review articles in scientific journals are harder to dismiss than other sources, so if you can find these to support a concise statement on impact, we can work on adding it to this article or Organic farming. It can be frustrating, but otherwise WP:RS sources that are not scientific studies tend to get removed.Dialectric (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion while the case for environmental benefits/impacts of organic farming is pretty strong, the page that case needs made is the organic farming page, not the organic food page. Farming methodology certainly impacts the environment. Many, but not all, organic methodologies are an improvement. But the improvements when they exist are on the production side not the consumers side.
- Banner is correct of course in his assessment of the state of affairs on this page. However, that has been argued quite extensively (and bitterly) here for years. I don't see it changing here on this page until major changes are made in wiki policy. Anyone attempting too large a fix of the flaws on this page risks their ability to continue as an editor. So don't risk it. You are going up against a stonewall similar to the Tobacco lobby of years past. The fight needs to be done somewhere else, not on wiki. Redddbaron (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree -- and for this reason none of my circle of friends trust Wikipedia for similar topics. Speaking as a woman, and for women, I think it has a lot to do with the lopsided gender issues here. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- While I understand that the editing environment can be frustrating, as long as you stick to policy, and go to rfc's rather than escalation/editwarring when conflict occurs, it is possible to get new information into these articles.Dialectric (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is better covered in the organic farming article. It might be helpful to if we had a hatnote referencing that article, since it is relevant to many readers of this article. TFD (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- This seems the sensible option, both to avoid the politics above and given that it's the farming practices rather than the food itself affecting the environment. Adlhancock (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Issues with neutrality and/or framing
This subject is vulnerble to political bias. (Full disclosure: I oppose most of the public relation practices of some agricultural conglomerates). My personal bias prevents me from editing in good faith. And I apologize that my claims should evoke extreme skepticism. I also apologize that i only have about 15 minutes to spend on this.
Search term: "There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventionally grown food."
It is highly unusual that an entire phrase be found on numerous pages, verbatim. The most common exceptions are common sayings, direct quotes from academic or other literature, as well as intentionally framed sentences by organizations not acting in good faith. The probability of this occurring directly by chance is nil.
Search term: "There is no good evidence that organic food tastes better than its non-organic counterparts."
As of wrting this phrase yields 63 results.
At this time, as of writing, it would be exceptionally unlikely to find any phrase I have written, verbatim.
Citation 4 is written by Robert Blake. Robert Blake supports precision agriculture. The source cannot be found online. The question of neutrality should be considered. I did not research other citations; however this was not chosen at random.
Of 3 phrases I searched two were sentences. One of those three such phrases was a paragraph, which was not found to be repeated. The other two are linked to above. These were not chosen at random.
It is common practice for public relations firms to employ extensive online strategies.
104.12.4.122 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Ross H.
- The reason that the quote is found in other sites is that they have copied the article, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. TFD (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Organic food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130601123101/http://www.ota.com:80/organic/mt/food.html to http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/food.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140714131457/http://www.iriworldwide.com/Portals/0/articlepdfs/SPINS%20NaturaLink%20Segmentation%20External%20Webinar%20-%20102213.pdf to http://www.iriworldwide.com/Portals/0/articlepdfs/SPINS%20NaturaLink%20Segmentation%20External%20Webinar%20-%20102213.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150103190541/http://www.agricultureandfood.dk/Danish_Agriculture_and_Food/Organic_farming.aspx to http://www.agricultureandfood.dk/Danish_Agriculture_and_Food/Organic_farming.aspx
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150103180953/http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3JrEn2Saxxg%3D&tabid=313 to http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3JrEn2Saxxg%3D&tabid=313
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130530130935/http://www.inrisedevelopment.com/data/research/2010/0912/ to http://www.inrisedevelopment.com/data/research/2010/0912/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Antioxidants
@Alexbrn: It's not OR or synthesis. The sources support that "evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting." As the previous paragraph states antioxidants may be higher in organics, it's essential for encyclopedias to provide context; in this case that antioxidants may not even be that beneficial. These articles don't all have to have all facts and refs directly correlate to the exact topic. It's very important to provide context, especially in health issues, to balance statements. This is essential; please revert. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- "As the previous paragraph" <- there's your problem right there. This combines sources to imply a health (non-)effect wrt organic food, when our sources do not make that connection themselves. In general, we must not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources we use. Of course the antioxidant question is real enough, but that's a different topic ... If this was a question of WP:PSCI such context might be required, but I don't think it is. Alexbrn (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It definitely is an issue of fringe theories. Many people feel that organic food is healthier, and that above paragraph I mentioned would only seem to confirm it just by saying organics have more antioxidants. Removing the key that antioxidants aren't even probably significant would skew it incredibly. Would you anyway be okay with me adding "Evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting." (which is without the original first part) to the end of that antioxidant paragraph? And we should definitely get the attention of WikiProject Medicine members, who should be able to clear this up better. I don't edit scientific articles all that often; food is my specialty, and it's been very clear that there is misinformation over organics right now, which Wikipedia would be perpetuating. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- If we're going to invoke WP:PSCI the fringe idea needs to be in the article before it is "debunked", so what is the source for people regarding organic food as healthier specifically because of antioxidants? Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ooh boy. Not sure what sorts of sources you're looking for, as fringe ideas are usually not supported by heavily reliable sources (especially scientific ones), though like the first three results all support that fringe theory. I can find many, many more given time, which I really have none of right now. [
www.organicauthority.com/health/health/antioxidants-and-organic-foods.html- not a reliable source.]
- Ooh boy. Not sure what sorts of sources you're looking for, as fringe ideas are usually not supported by heavily reliable sources (especially scientific ones), though like the first three results all support that fringe theory. I can find many, many more given time, which I really have none of right now. [
- If we're going to invoke WP:PSCI the fringe idea needs to be in the article before it is "debunked", so what is the source for people regarding organic food as healthier specifically because of antioxidants? Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It definitely is an issue of fringe theories. Many people feel that organic food is healthier, and that above paragraph I mentioned would only seem to confirm it just by saying organics have more antioxidants. Removing the key that antioxidants aren't even probably significant would skew it incredibly. Would you anyway be okay with me adding "Evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting." (which is without the original first part) to the end of that antioxidant paragraph? And we should definitely get the attention of WikiProject Medicine members, who should be able to clear this up better. I don't edit scientific articles all that often; food is my specialty, and it's been very clear that there is misinformation over organics right now, which Wikipedia would be perpetuating. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
[articles.mercola.com/antioxidants.aspx - not a reliable source.]
[www.organic-center.org/organic-fact-sheets/top12antioxidant/ - not a reliable source.] . ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mmmh, don't you love Fox News too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- We need a decent source. The thing is this: if this whole organic/antioxidant thing is not being discussed in RS, what business does Wikipedia have discussing it? Ideally we'd want something like a scholarly article that references this specific misconception about organic food. Alexbrn (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Fox News is sometimes considered a decent source unfortunately. I can look into scholarly sources sometime, though it would be tough to find them (many may mention but not have as the primary topic of the article). I urge you or other WP:MED people to look for some as well. This is honestly critical for countering misinformation. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- We need a decent source. The thing is this: if this whole organic/antioxidant thing is not being discussed in RS, what business does Wikipedia have discussing it? Ideally we'd want something like a scholarly article that references this specific misconception about organic food. Alexbrn (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mmmh, don't you love Fox News too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The only dietary antioxidants having physiological significance are vitamins A, C, and E, referenced here. There is no convincing review showing that organic foods have more of any of these vitamins, or phenolic content, if someone wants to argue that case. The sentence and references removed do not pertain to organic food content of antioxidant vitamins, and do not discuss organic food health and safety - the topic of the section. It was WP:SYNTH to have this content and its sources imply that use of phenolic supplements or drugs apply to health from consuming organic foods. --Zefr (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, did you not read my first few comments here? I really don't want to restate the same thing a third(?) time. Regardless, the general antioxidant myth is a common enough fringe belief that we can explain and debunk, separate from that other health paragraph. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- That's a clear example of synthesis. If the sources don't say that the additional nutrition in organic foods has no marginal benefit, then neither can we. TFD (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- But sources do say it, that's what I'm saying above, jeez. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am looking for a source that says, "there is conflicting evidence over whether the increased anti-oxidants in organic food improves health." Note that as that is a medical claim, the source must conform to MEDRS. You cannot combine one source that says organic foods are higher in anti-oxidants and another that says the marginal benefit of increased anti-oxidants is disputed and state or imply that anything about the health benefits of increased anti-oxidants in organic food. TFD (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Aha, there is the usual MEDRS stranglehold again. The Banner talk 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: take a look at this. It may not be entirely as I explain it, but the details and level of detail in this article would be very important to include in the Wikipedia article. I can look for more too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- The Banner, even if MEDRS did not exist, we should not provide statements about the health benefits of foods unless they are sourced to health professionals writing in peer-reviewed journals. Ɱ, can you point out where the article makes the statement you think we should include? TFD (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why should health professionals have a say about food and the growing of food? You do not ask farmers to have an opinion about medical procedures... The Banner talk 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- No one is asking them for their opinion about the growing of food, or even to analyze its properties. We do however ask them what the body does with food when it is consumed, which is what we are discussing here: the health benefits of organic food. Only they can tell us for example how much Vitamin C we need and what the body does with it. TFD (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- So they do not need to know where they are talking about, but the still are supposed to judge. That is what I call the stranglehold of MEDRS. MEDRS on food is an absolutely silly idea. But yes, I know. You MEDRS lads and lasses think differently about that. So you bring in the big guns and kill of reason itself. The Banner talk 23:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- No one is asking them for their opinion about the growing of food, or even to analyze its properties. We do however ask them what the body does with food when it is consumed, which is what we are discussing here: the health benefits of organic food. Only they can tell us for example how much Vitamin C we need and what the body does with it. TFD (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why should health professionals have a say about food and the growing of food? You do not ask farmers to have an opinion about medical procedures... The Banner talk 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- There's a few different places, you can do a CTRL-F for "antioxidant". Mostly it's the second para of the intro, second para of "A Closer Look...", and the kiwi comparison para. I think the seasonality affecting antioxidants would also be important to note. In addition, it seems the already-cited Dangour A.D., et al. also supports that antioxidant effects are mixed, even in the context of organic food. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- The Banner, even if MEDRS did not exist, we should not provide statements about the health benefits of foods unless they are sourced to health professionals writing in peer-reviewed journals. Ɱ, can you point out where the article makes the statement you think we should include? TFD (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: take a look at this. It may not be entirely as I explain it, but the details and level of detail in this article would be very important to include in the Wikipedia article. I can look for more too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Aha, there is the usual MEDRS stranglehold again. The Banner talk 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I am looking for a source that says, "there is conflicting evidence over whether the increased anti-oxidants in organic food improves health." Note that as that is a medical claim, the source must conform to MEDRS. You cannot combine one source that says organic foods are higher in anti-oxidants and another that says the marginal benefit of increased anti-oxidants is disputed and state or imply that anything about the health benefits of increased anti-oxidants in organic food. TFD (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- But sources do say it, that's what I'm saying above, jeez. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You have to be more specific. We can't just read the article and form a general impression that the author sees no marginal value in organic food, the author must state that explicitly. TFD (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Sperm counts and pesticide levels.
The article is way out of date. This is the current info in the Wikipedia article:
More specifically, claims related to pesticide residue of increased risk of infertility or lower sperm counts have not been supported by the evidence in the medical literature.
The source is an old review article compiling very old info. There was no discussion before this Big Pharma and Big Chemical propaganda was put in the article. The word sperm is not found in the talk archives. This talk section is the first one with the word "sperm" in it.
There are more recent epidemiological studies showing lower sperm counts depending on the level of pesticides in the diet. Look it up. I doubt that anybody will do so other than me. Obviously, no one has bothered to do so yet. And Wikipedia's medical info referencing is based on reviews by journals coopted by Big Pharma ads, and/or poorly trained doctors who know only Big Pharma propaganda: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
- Big Pharma Is America’s New Mafia. From the article:
| In fact, the heavy influence of pharmaceutical dollars inspired the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, to conclude, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” |
--Timeshifter (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I looked and there are no high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses giving the 'fire' for the smoke about pesticides exposure and reduced fertility. This isn't sufficient to pass skeptical and scientific muster, let alone WP:MEDRS. The subject of pesticide exposure is next to impossible to control in a population study: quantity defined for ingestion, over variable duration of what people eat, which foods, which pesticide(s), and how would the control group be 'controlled', etc. It's not the type of study with optimism for leading to a definitive objective conclusion. I don't agree with your statement that journal reviews are negatively affected by pharma ads or scientists corrupted by pharma. Rather, rigorous editorial review and peer-review for funding screen out the weak research applications, and well-trained scientists and physicians know their reputations are on the line to do the work and provide evidence making it difficult for competitive research teams to challenge. Although from 2006, the Magkos article still states the scientific status adequately, as does the 2012 statement from the American Cancer Society. --Zefr (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep looking. This is a test. When you fail, or if you fail, I will show you the references. It's really obvious for those who are really looking. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- The medical review literature satisfying this issue and compatible with MEDRS is easy enough to find. I don't need help to do this or a test by you. If you have valid MEDRS-quality reviews worth discussing (I'm betting you don't), put them here or more preferably at WT:MED for experienced editors to comment. --Zefr (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep looking. This is a test. When you fail, or if you fail, I will show you the references. It's really obvious for those who are really looking. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- So I was correct in my OP: "There are more recent epidemiological studies showing lower sperm counts depending on the level of pesticides in the diet. Look it up. I doubt that anybody will do so other than me." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your answer confirms my suspicion that you don't know the difference between an epidemiological study and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that would satisfy MEDRS. We write and edit for an encyclopedia, not the Discussion section of a research paper in a journal where lower quality epidemiological studies would be allowed; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7, 9. I think we can conclude you don't have anything useful to add to this discussion or the article concerning fertility and pesticides. --Zefr (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- And you still haven't looked it up. You can't possibly know if the epidemiological studies are lower quality or not. You are promoting preemptive censorship because you don't want to be confused by the facts. That is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sharing of all significant viewpoints, one of the major guidelines of this encyclopedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just read this article in the Harvard Gazette. Agree with Timeshifter and suggest the Wikipedia article be changed accordingly. Jusdafax 01:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- And you still haven't looked it up. You can't possibly know if the epidemiological studies are lower quality or not. You are promoting preemptive censorship because you don't want to be confused by the facts. That is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sharing of all significant viewpoints, one of the major guidelines of this encyclopedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your answer confirms my suspicion that you don't know the difference between an epidemiological study and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that would satisfy MEDRS. We write and edit for an encyclopedia, not the Discussion section of a research paper in a journal where lower quality epidemiological studies would be allowed; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7, 9. I think we can conclude you don't have anything useful to add to this discussion or the article concerning fertility and pesticides. --Zefr (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- So I was correct in my OP: "There are more recent epidemiological studies showing lower sperm counts depending on the level of pesticides in the diet. Look it up. I doubt that anybody will do so other than me." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- The author of the article says, "To our knowledge, this is the first report to link consumption of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables..." I will avoid quoting MEDRS guidelines, but refer to weight. An individual study that conflicts with generally accepted opinion should not be included unless it has received a lot of attention. In that case we would have responses from experts and could include it, and explain the degree of acceptance of the findings. At present we do not know whether its findings can be replicated, so we don't know what credibility it has. More importantly, neither do experts and we have to await there decision. TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Conventionally Grown Food (cont.)
New evidence - a metanalyses of 343 studies on the contents of organic food by the University of Newcastle - shows organic food is clearly healthier , in light of this new study - this whole wikipedia article needs to be rewritten as it currently misleading and is actually irresponsible, ignores the evidence and could endanger peoples health.:
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2015/10/organicvsnon-organicfood/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.170 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your source says organic produce is higher in antioxidants and lower in toxins, it does not say it is healthier. A person who consumes adequate antioxidants will not experience any benefits from additional antioxidants. Similarly, someone who consumes safe levels of toxins, such as are found in conventionally grown produce, will not experience any benefits through reducing them. To provide a parallel, oranges contain more vitamin C than lemons, yet we would not say they are healthier. So long as one gets sufficient vitamin C, it does not matter where it comes from. In any case, Leifert's findings already appear in this article. TFD (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- It is positive, so it is shot down. Predictable. The Banner talk 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not at all. The report is used in the article. I would recommend however that we better reflect what it says. Currently we say, "While there may be some differences in the nutrient and anti-nutrient contents of organically and conventionally produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results." The source says, "organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues." Jytdog had opposed inclusions of findings in 2013 because they had not yet been published. But again unless the report says the food is healthier, we cannot make that claim any more than we can claim that oranges are healthier than lemons. TFD (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent new review is available: Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review[1] Chickpecking (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Not sufficient evidence"
Firstly, Source 7 is an older review of the effects of Organic food and is a purely secondary source. (It is a Wayback Machine article from January, 2011.) It simply states that currently there isn't enough evidence. Source 6 mentioned several pro-organic reasoning: "...bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%])." and "...risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%])..." Source 5 goes on to say that "At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food." This is referring not specifically to human aspects of safety, but other aspects. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest safety and health in general. I needn't delve into source 3; its title is "Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops". Thus I propose that that is changed, and while I do not necessarily propose that the opposite is stated on the grounds that that could be considered a bit of undue weight without further review and research, so far it seems clear enough that that statement, at the very least, is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser271 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is altogether a very poor analysis. Simply reading article titles and cherry-picking information that doesn't appear to support the Wikipedia claim isn't a neutral or respectable method of making an argument. The Food Standards Agency is a respectable and heavily reliable source, and secondary sources are ideal in situations like this. Source 6 comes to the same conclusion, contrary to what you write above. In other words, all of these sources are fine and back up the claim you hastily deleted. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It would behoove us to include WHO data on acute pesticide poisonings and deaths from these when we speak of safety. over 300,000 deaths per year is significant. Granted these are mostly not in industrialized countries but they are still very relevant to the question of safety. Chickpecking (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The new meta analysis published showing a link between Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure and human health- links to birth defects, autism, and more[2] may also be a reason to change the "not sufficient evidence" stance, at least a bit. Chickpecking (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Let's be careful to not overinterpret that study. Mainly, it is a weak analysis due to a limited pool of weak studies to assess, leading the authors to conclude: "The studies conducted to date were limited in number with suggestive but methodologically weak findings related to chronic exposure. Given the wide-scale use of neonics, more studies are needed to fully understand their effects on human health." In other words, the assessment really concludes nothing, and the article should still state there is "not sufficient evidence". --Zefr (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then we have the problem of "sweeping under the rug" real data. I think a better solution would be to honestly characterize the state of the current data. Stating there is weak evidence is different than stating there is not sufficient evidence, and now seems more honest.Chickpecking (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Can't agree with that assessment, Chickpecking. The topic of organic food and pesticides bears on human health. For the encyclopedia topics on human health, we rely on the highest standards for sourcing, as explained in the guideline, WP:MEDRS, and in particular the MEDRS section emphasizing systematic reviews or a meta-analysis of completed randomized controlled trials represented by evidence quality in WP:MEDASSESS. A weak study like this is unencyclopedic as a source, and should be ignored until better MEDRS sources are available. --Zefr (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- We should not conflate the relative weakness or strength of a conclusion from a solid source (systemic review) with an assessment of the usability of that source. Per close reading of WP:MEDRS Systemic reviews are by their nature given due weight, even when they are not based on results of RCTs. To do any different would be moving the goalposts. The review is noteworthy in that it is a systemic review of a pesticide's effects on human health and should be included with caveats to the quality/reliability of its findings.Chickpecking (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- When you introduced this review, you said above that it provided "links to birth defects, autism, and more", which is going too far based on the weaknesses of the report. It would be helpful if you could draft a sentence that includes those caveats, then choose other editors from the article's history to review the draft here for consensus. --Zefr (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Either way, in addition to being WP:UNDUE for organic food, there's only a passing mention of organic honey samples in the paper. Nothing that would appear particularly relevant for this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Are we looking at the same study here???Chickpecking (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- Either way, in addition to being WP:UNDUE for organic food, there's only a passing mention of organic honey samples in the paper. Nothing that would appear particularly relevant for this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
- When you introduced this review, you said above that it provided "links to birth defects, autism, and more", which is going too far based on the weaknesses of the report. It would be helpful if you could draft a sentence that includes those caveats, then choose other editors from the article's history to review the draft here for consensus. --Zefr (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- We should not conflate the relative weakness or strength of a conclusion from a solid source (systemic review) with an assessment of the usability of that source. Per close reading of WP:MEDRS Systemic reviews are by their nature given due weight, even when they are not based on results of RCTs. To do any different would be moving the goalposts. The review is noteworthy in that it is a systemic review of a pesticide's effects on human health and should be included with caveats to the quality/reliability of its findings.Chickpecking (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Can't agree with that assessment, Chickpecking. The topic of organic food and pesticides bears on human health. For the encyclopedia topics on human health, we rely on the highest standards for sourcing, as explained in the guideline, WP:MEDRS, and in particular the MEDRS section emphasizing systematic reviews or a meta-analysis of completed randomized controlled trials represented by evidence quality in WP:MEDASSESS. A weak study like this is unencyclopedic as a source, and should be ignored until better MEDRS sources are available. --Zefr (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Then we have the problem of "sweeping under the rug" real data. I think a better solution would be to honestly characterize the state of the current data. Stating there is weak evidence is different than stating there is not sufficient evidence, and now seems more honest.Chickpecking (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Mie A, Andersen HR, Gunnarsson S, et al. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review. Environmental Health. 2017;16:111. doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4.
- ^ Cimino AM, Boyles AL, Thayer KA, Perry MJ. Effects of Neonicotinoid Pesticide Exposure on Human Health: A Systematic Review. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2017;125(2):155-162. doi:10.1289/EHP515.
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Organic food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327224148/http://www.chinaconnections.com.au/en/magazine/current-issue/1940-food-safety-in-china-opens-doors-for-australia%E2%80%99s-agri-sector to http://www.chinaconnections.com.au/en/magazine/current-issue/1940-food-safety-in-china-opens-doors-for-australia%E2%80%99s-agri-sector
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140822005418/http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nopaccesstopasture to http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nopaccesstopasture
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218135909/http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/html/cpdbfs.htm to http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/html/cpdbfs.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140508063850/http://www.chinaconnections.com.au/en/magazine/back-issues/73-novdec-2010/849-australias-share-of-chinas-organic-pie to http://www.chinaconnections.com.au/en/magazine/back-issues/73-novdec-2010/849-australias-share-of-chinas-organic-pie
- Added archive https://archive.is/20121230101520/http://www.bio-austria.at/presse/presseinfo_archiv/pressemeldung__4 to http://www.bio-austria.at/presse/presseinfo_archiv/pressemeldung__4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Something was wrong
Environmental safety ---> "conventional farming", but this is Organic farming for Organic food! I suggest checking this section, it may have been mistaken! Enrico Vandenberg (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Organic food and farming are often compared to conventional food and farming, which explains the repeated references to conventional farming in this article.Dialectric (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Organic vs conventional (leed)
@Zefr: Hi. I am fine with the wording as is.
However, as a sidenote to the main issue, I would like to state that it seems confusing and misleading to incorporate economical assessments in a section dealing with environmental issues exclusively. Economy and environment is also separately discussed in body, so why mix them up in leed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinoMind (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Studies of Organic foods
User:Zefr reversed my edit, "A review of studies of organic foods in 2014 found that they were higher in anti-oxidants and had enhanced taste." [Albright, Mary Beth. "Organic Foods Are Tastier and Healthier, Study Finds". National Geographic, July 14, 2014.] Their comment was, "Study already mentioned with publication source under Phytochemicals." Indeed the meta-analysis is mentioned in that section.
However, my edit replaced the previous text, "Claims that "organic food tastes better" are generally not supported by tests." That was based on a 2012 study (and the source used was from 2012). The 2014 meta-study however found that the 2012 study was wrong. In order to revert to the findings of the 2012 study, we need to find a source that the later 2014 meta-study was wrong. TFD (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The BJN review here did not evaluate taste or flavor perception. That appears to be an unsourced interpretation of the NG author. The BJN review concluded that "organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues." The "antioxidants" mentioned in the article are not dietary antioxidants but rather polyphenols which are antioxidants only in a test tube, and have no relevance to human health, as discussed in the WP article. We can't have that misleading information in the lede here. As there is nothing to support a change in the original lede statement, I'm reverting the edit until a better source is used to verify a taste effect, WP:BURDEN. --Zefr (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Goda Cmukaite. Peer reviewers: Thomas Leonard96.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)