Talk:Organic certification/Archive 1

Removal of unclear statement: "production" vs "product" standards
I removed this for lack of clarity:


 * It is important to note that not the products are certified but the production process. Organic Certification Standards are Production Standards not Product Standards.

I couldn't figure out what the point was. The first paragraph already states that certification involves a production standard. When a product is labeled "certified organic", that means the product is...certified. Certification in this case has to do with verifying how the product was produced, not a dissection of the product itself, but that doesn't mean the product itself is not certified...it is... Tsavage 02:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion: Examples of rules manipulation
I removed this for lack of accuracy:

"A complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent Quality Assurance International (QAI) - one of the world's largest organic certification agencies - charged that tap water had been certified organic, and sold to other organic producers for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water from the distilling process, were certified organic, and sold as an organic base for products like beverages, soups, and shampoos. These items then claimed the minimum 70% organic content requirement for organic labeling. In addition, according to the complaint, the small quantity of plant extracts contained in the "organic base" were not primary ingredients of the range of products concerned. "

see the decision letter. The case was "dismissed as moot" by the USDA. Further, allegations in the compliant were called "speculative and unripe for disposition" and the allegations against the certifier, were "unsubstantiated and dismissed."

With this clarity, it was sad to see this posting as part of the organic certification article for so long.


 * Thanks for pointing out the sloppy wording. I will adjust it, and include the decision. As a well-documented example of the type of manipulation of organic certification rules that is possible, it is still a good one. Bayliss Ranch was marketing the "tap water" product for personal care and food products, but they were not used in food products (which the paragraph you removed does not properly explain). The decision is based only on the fact that the USDA does not regulate personal care products. Anyhow, I'll fix it and put it back. --Tsavage 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited the bit, added the USDA's decision, and replaced it in the article. All of the evidence presented, including screensnaps of the company's web site promoting the claim, and details of the Rutgers University experiment to estimate the amount of outside water introduced into the extracts through distillation, are all there. This is a well-documented example of how the regulations can be manipulated, particularly so because all of the exhibits are available. The USDA didn't find the assertions in the complaint unsubstantiated, they simply said it had nothing to do with them (body care, not food). It's all relevant and verifiable. --Tsavage 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not quite true. The USDA does review personal care products certified to the NOP standards per the Dr. Bronners law suit.  Bayliss Ranch appears to still be certified to the NOP so it seems that the argument made above still has some discrepancies.  I dont want to go through a revision battle, so please revise the paragraph in question considering these facts.


 * Thanks for the note. Certification is an area of rapid development that is hard to keep up with (last Novembers's sudden additions to the NOP permitted substances, for example, should be covered here by now). That said, what I'm trying to do here is make sure the article, on its way to a comprehensive, stable state, represents a reasonably balanced view. One critical part of that is providing the information that certification is not necessarily the ultimate in "organic assurance", and I think examples of how rules can be observed in ways the public would likely find surprising and quite likely objectionable is important, and this is a notable, verifiable aspect of certification.


 * With QAI-Bayliss example, and your second note, I've for now added "at the time", since the NOP included personal care several months after the date of the Bayliss decision letter. Also, in that letter, the fraud claims were dismissed, but without the reasoning behind the decision, no clarity is provided. Was the water content of the extracts considered organic, or not? I don't think the original complaint by OCA is so much the point, it's the detailed explanation of the process being questioned, and the fact that it was formally challenged. I notice that Bayliss no longer advertises its Elixir product on its web site, which was specifically aimed at "beverages and sauces". And perhaps the cost of the hydrosols was prohibitive as a replacement for the the majority of the water content of, say, a sauce. But the point is demonstrating the trickiness of interpreting the regulations, and how products and approaches can be specifically created or modified to meet the regs and gain organic status and whatever market advantage.


 * If you have other examples of rules manipulation (and a write-up on the November additions to NOP would be good), please provide, in the article, or here and I'll try to develop them in the article. I'm not, um, wedded to this particular one. (I assume you don't think that the rules are perfect, are never bent, twisted, lobbied, and that a balanced article should properly conclude that "organic certification is great, critics are generally wrong". Certification is already under...attack, Wal-Mart announcing plans to dominate the organic market makes this whole area more important to get right.) --Tsavage 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link for organic goji juice. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency.67.9.168.146 06:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)paintlicker

This section I've pasted below concerns me, because the LA Times article sourced is misleading. The truth is that previously any ingredient could be used in nonorganic form if found to be "commericial unavailable." The USDA change to a list of 38 is a positive step, because it means the list of possible nonorganic ingredients went from everything agricultural anyone would use in a product to only 38. I will try to find sources (other than just working at a cert agency myself) online, but I think this is something that should be looked at and updated: As of June, 2007, the USDA was "considering a proposal to allow 38 nonorganic ingredients to be used in organic foods." According to the Los Angeles Times: "Because of the broad uses of these ingredients — as spices, colorings, and flavorings for example — almost any type of manufactured organic food could be affected, including organic milk, cereal, sausages, bread and beer."[2]

In 2007, the USDA certified Anheuser-Busch's Wild Hop Lager organic "even though" it "uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides."[3]Saltdogs411 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma as a source
I'm current reading this book and it's part 2 write about the supermarket industrial organic. This may be useful for those interested in adding additional references, particularly in the issues with certification section.

Fair use rationale for Image:CAAQ logo.jpg
Image:CAAQ logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fr OF 4c.gif
Image:Fr OF 4c.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Qai-logo.png
Image:Qai-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hellenic.jpg
Image:Hellenic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

EU organic logo
The article should mention the logo of the european union as well. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/qual/organic/logo/index_en.htm --85.176.228.35 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian Standards
This subsection seems to be in disagreement with the article Organic Food, where NASAA seems to be listed as the standards organisation. The section may be intending to discern who the regulatory body is, but either way should be reworded.

220.233.27.104 (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Different categories of organic certification
The article doesn't consider alternative systems for organic certification, such as Participatory Guarantee Systems and Internal Control Systems (ICSs) for Group Certification. It is not correct to leave them out of the article when such alternatives have been accepted and recognized by many national legislations (Brazil and India are excellent examples). Therefore, I suggest the following changes: This sentence gives only a partial view of the issue and should be revised. To say that consumers must rely on third party certification means that there are no alternatives for consumers when buying organic products. This is not correct, considering that : 1.The same farmer markets that existed once, still exist now, and are actually a growing phenomenom (there are plenty of examples in Europe, but not only) 2.Participatory Guarantee systems, an alternative to third party certification, have been adopted by many small farmers in collaboration with consumers, individually or through consumers associations. I suggest changing this title to "Third party certification process" and then adding another subsection entitled "Participatory certification process", linked to the PGS page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaviadmc (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "As such, consumers must rely on third-party regulatory certification."
 * "The certification process"

Labels
In the Netherlands and Germany is the EKO-label used. On the German wiki are two examples of it: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EKO_%28Siegel%29 Maybe we've to add it :-)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.109.115.56 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Agriculture biologique-logo.png
The image File:Agriculture biologique-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"...a symbol based largely on trust and peer-to-peer inspection"
The article includes the statement


 * "In the UK, the interests of smaller-scale growers who use 'natural' growing methods are represented by the Wholesome Food Association, which issues a symbol based largely on trust and peer-to-peer inspection."

I imagine that the WFA process for awarding its symbol is based on trust and inspection. Surely this needs to be reworded? --TraceyR (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiny Cyprus
In the table of organic land area of European countries, Cyprus is credited with having 2 hectares of organic land in 2006, comprising an alleged 1.1% of its agricultural land area. This doesn't seem plausible - although Cyprus isn't a particularly large island, I'm sure it must have more than a total of 200 hectares of agricultural land, which is the conclusion to be drawn from those figures. The figures for Poland also don't seem right, in comparison to the other countries. The source of the figures isn't accessible to check. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Counterfeit biofood
Shouldn't counterfeit biofood be mentioned ? See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3022567/posts 109.130.163.110 (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Puffery?
this revert, the source does not say that OFA is officially recognized (I expect that it isn't), nor does it mention New Zealand. Also, why is 'peak industry body' capitalized? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you are correct, the puffery was already there, and was copy-pasted from the organization's website. it is just a lobbying organization; doesn't certify anybody.  removed it.  my apologies for mischaracterizing your edit! Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why has the entire mention of the Organic Federation of Australia suddenly been removed? I'm not familiar with the OFA, but from what I can gather in a couple of minutes:
 * it's an Australian national umbrealla organization, like the Organic Trade Association in the US,
 * appears to be rather central in all aspects of Australian organics, including legislation and certification.
 * has numerous mentions in Australian media (I site-searched ABC)
 * has multiple submissions to the Australian government on organic issues
 * is apparently a co-sponsor of something called the Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Products (AS 6000), "initiated by the OFA and AQIS in an effort to get regulatory protection for organic products by working within the existing regulatory system"
 * the Australian Department of Agriculture says "The Organic Federation of Australia is the peak body for the organic industry in Australia" and lists them as the sole Organic industry contacthere.
 * I could be wrong, but all of this suggests the OFA is at least reasonable central to the Australian organic industry, and organic industries are based on certification, and therefore they'd be highly relevant to this article. --Tsavage (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * b/c this is an article about Organic Certification and they say on their website that they have nothing to do with that: "The OFA does not certify farmers. Our role is to work with all of the organic industry to further our common aims." maybe content about them belongs in organic farming but it is just a trade/lobbing organization. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Particularly as we don't have a separate "organic standards" article at the moment, the certification topic encompasses the necessary standards, what they are and where they come from, who administers them, and who certifies producers who follow them. Industry umbrella groups are, for better or for worse, generally instrumental in guiding the course of standards and how they are administered. The OFA, a sponsor of the Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Products, and designated the peak organic industry contact by the Australian government, is clearly a key player in Australia. Did you not read my post above?


 * From what I see here and in the edit history, you didn't like that somebody called you out on reverting the wording of a sentence, so you went and deleted the whole item, apologizing all the while as if you were agreeing with the editor who objected to your original reversion of a few words. What exactly is your objective here? --Tsavage (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * to improve the encyclopedia, of course. why are you here?   speaking of that, you ignored what i wrote above - I will repeat it, with some emphasis, so you can respond to it.  this is an article about Organic Certification and they say on their website that they have nothing to do with that: "The OFA does not certify farmers. Our role is to work with all of the organic industry to further our common aims." maybe content about them belongs in organic farming but it is just a trade/lobbing organization."   I did hear you by the way... you talked about how they are important for the organics industry in AU.   I get that, which is why i suggested having content on them in the Organic farming article.  Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * what the heck is a "peak body" anyway. bizarre language that was copied from their website Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * which was added in this dif by an IP address that made 3 edits, and that added the promotional language that Hroðulf objected to (and i wrongly thought Hroðulf was adding promo but he was actually toning it down!), and after that a link to their website in EL, and then a link to IFOAM. conflicted editor adding off-topic WP:PROMO content, perhaps? looks that way to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You should spend more time actually editing and less time arguing and messing with other people's stuff: The OFA is actually formally part of the government's ​Organic Consultative Committee Legislative Working Group setting organic standards: "1 representative from Organic Federation of Australia.", but in Jytdog world, it makes perfect sense to delete. Hahahahahahaha, this is so primitive and time-wasting, it's fantastic. Anyhow, that's it for me! --Tsavage (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "what the heck is a 'peak body' anyway. bizarre language" - typical US-centrism. Defined right here on WP, "Peak body is an Australian term for an advocacy group, an association of industries or groups with allied interests. They are generally established for the purposes of developing standards and processes, or to act on behalf of all members when lobbying government or promoting the interests of the members."
 * Let's humor your tiresome "you ignored what I wrote" tactic to ignore any response that doesn't start by repeating your words verbatim. Aready answered, but ok, you write that the OFA "does not certify farmers" well, governments do not certify farmers, they only work with peak bodies like the OFA to create the entire certification framework, so let's just improve the article by removing mention of all of them.
 * Dunno what "promotional language" you're talking about. In your diff, both the before and after versions are correct, the after leaves out some detail - are you even aware of the unusual organic certification set-up in Australia? Meanwhile, the wording you changed is in fact used by the Australian government itself: "The Organic Federation of Australia is the peak body for the organic industry in Australia." - Government of Australia, Dept. of Agriculture (Hroðulf edit summary simply said "better reflects the cited source", which in that case was the OFA, not the government as I have cited here)
 * "other people's stuff" also bizarre and unWikipeian -  nobody owns any content here.  If OFA actually has some role in creating certification standards in Australia, that would be good content.  Thanks for pointing out that "peak body" is WP:JARGON - i acknowledge i was ignorant of that.  If we bring OFA in again, it would be useful to de-jargonize that.   I will add content on that, based on the sourcing you provided - that part of your post was helpful.  The comments on contributors, not content, was not.  Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a) forgot I wanted to get in a last word; b) partly slightly off-topic to Puffery and OFA, but certainly relevant to WP editing in general:
 * "other people's stuff" also bizarre and unWikipeian Bizarre? UnWikipeian, certainly not. Editors must respect other editors via their work. We don't enter a hive mind state when we edit, we naturally take pride and satisfaction in what we do, and each editor's contributions should be respected in subsequent editing (there is ample core WP policy and guideline backing this, and the spirit behind it: we only must accept that our changes may be changed in the process of improvement). Particularly with new and infrequent editors, summarily deleting contributions while spewing WP rule abbreviations (quite commonly, rules misinterpreted) is distinctly "unWikipeian." Respecting other editors through their work means first trying to improve it or give them and others a chance to improve it, rather than cruising through, terminating with a "...per WP:BRD and WP:V" or whatever. That's "unWikipeian"...
 * Case in point re rules misinterpreted: WP:JARGON refers to technical language, it points to a section titled, "Technical language." Peak body doesn't seem to qualify as "technical jargon," it's just another term for advocacy group, or industry group, or whatever, like truck/lorry or chips/crisps in American vs British English usage. If it's "technical jargon" for being an Australian term for a common thing, then every bit of English language usage that doesn't conform to, say, American usage, becomes technical language. That reasoning seems bizarre.
 * "If OFA actually has some role in creating certification standards in Australia" - this should have been clear from my first reply, yet you unhelpfully ignored that and continued to argue. But above all, before deleting content, the onus is on you to make sure that you believe it may not be verifiable. Before deleting OFA, you should have checked to see whether it was involved in formulating certification policy (which took, like, 3 minutes to confirm), as obviously it was included in the article for that reason (and it is reasonable and common sense to assume that a national organic advocacy group is involved in some way in organic rule-making) - that approach is core WP policy. You should thoroughly re-read WP:VERIFY, particularly the third paragraph (including footnotes) at WP:CHALLENGE: except in legal situations (copyright, character defamation), deletion is a LAST RESORT, not an immediate step.
 * Now I think that's it for me! :) --Tsavage (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: It's good that you reinstated an improved version of the OFA item. Thank you. --Tsavage (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Organic certification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130626015757/http://www.maine.gov:80/agriculture/pesticides/library/ppt/Master_Gardener/Organic_Food_Buying_More_Safety_Or_Just_Peace_Of_Mind.pdf to http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/pesticides/library/ppt/Master_Gardener/Organic_Food_Buying_More_Safety_Or_Just_Peace_Of_Mind.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Other certifications
This article is incomplete. I suggest including institutions such as Oregon Tilth and country programs such as Mexico's.Penelope Gordon (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Images?
Why are there no pictures of the most common seals?--95.91.33.11 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Organic certification. 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 tag to ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/understanding/Understanding_EN.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602021423/http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/standards/family_of_standards/familiy_of_standards.html to http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/standards/family_of_standards/familiy_of_standards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129051841/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PGP_PRD_CAT_PREREL/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007/PGE_CAT_PREREL_YEAR_2007_MONTH_06/5-12062007-EN-BP.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060226155700/http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/food/aust_organic_industry_full_report.pdf to http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/food/aust_organic_industry_full_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique
Hello! Thanks for all of you before me for their hard work that has gone into this article.

My only few suggestions would be to

1) flush out a little bit more information in some of the European countries. Tons of great info is there for the US, Canada, Australia, and Germany (to name just a few) but I think some of the others need more than what is provided. For Greece, Ireland, and Sweden, when were their respective organizations founded? Did those countries have organic movements and standards prior to the EU requiring it? If there were not standards prior to EU certifications, what lobbying from the public was done to form policy around organic certification, if any? For Japan, what was the JAS before being implemented as law? Why was it revised in 2005? Sinapore: what organizations were doing the certifying that some producers claim to have? What does it look like now (5 years later) ?

2) formatting in the "Regional Differences" category a little better. I get lost in all the entries with little division between them. I also think that there could be more highlighting of the differences between the countries and their standards. Who has the most strict? Who is most lax? How to trade agreements work between differing standards? Do trade agreements have different certification standards depending on who is importing and who is exporting?

3) compare/contrast governmental certification and private certification. I would have loved to hear more about this, now that I'm thinking about it. Are there benefits/drawbacks to either one? Do they both accomplish the same things in the same ways with the same efficiency? Do government departments in large countries (like the USDA) always end up needed to contract out to independent agencies? Do they then let the agencies certify the producers without supervision or do they spot check? How does that system work? I think that would be a fascinating section to follow up the regional differences where some countries use endorsed third parties and some have government agencies and departments.

4) work with the citations a little bit. This might be nit-picky, I recognize. Instead of seven citations on a single sentence (Under 'False assurance of quality' in the "Issues" section), maybe summarize a little bit from all of those? Is organic food never safer, healthier, more nutritious? What do all of those say?

Krsullivan (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)