Talk:Organic food/Archive 2

independent global directory of ecolabels: food type
We recently began work on a global independent directory of ecolabels (http://www.ecolabelling.org). With editorial permission, we would like to add the link: http://ecolabelling.org/type/food/ with text: Food ecolabels at ecolabelling.org to the Organic wikipedia page. We currently list 61 labels from around the world. Please feel free to drop us a line at info@ecolabelling.org if you have any questions.

missing notable critique of organic food
The section dealing with critiques of organic food fails to include a rather weighty argument...proponents of organic food say that it is better for the environment because harmful pesticides aren't used. however, the question of what is best for the environment is open for debate. Surely, chemicals and pesticides are bad for the environment, but pesticide use has allowed the crop per acre harvest to grow three to four times over the past fifty years. If everything was grown organically, farm area would need to be increased drastically, and that would mean less room for the rainforests, etc... The economist had a good article on this last month, if someone wants to cite all of this and work it out further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.30.130 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You should read the the For the environment section in the article where several different studies are pointed out that have found modern organic farms have similiar yeilds in normal years but higher yeilds in drought years.
 * In fact, if the article you are speaking of is
 * then it doesn't cite research at all. Instead, it states the opinion of one man,
 * "Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution"...claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is "ridiculous" because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest."
 * I do wonder what studies this man is reffering to, but also
 * it appears he says nothing of pesticides which is what you were talking about. JabberWok 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it appears he says nothing of pesticides which is what you were talking about. JabberWok 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

QAI logo and reference removal
QAI logo and reference should be removed, as it promotes single for-profit company, and added to a list of current accredited certifying agents. Berimbau1 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

organic pesticides
this is from the criticism section: Toxicity of "organic pesticides": Conventional pesticides must be thoroughly studied before they can be placed on the market. However, such studies are not required for the pesticides used in organic agriculture [citation needed]. For example, the botanical pesticide Sabadilla is highly toxic to honeybees, and according to the California Department of Environmental Protection its mammalian toxicology has not been fully studied

i think it is an important point, only i am not sure if it is true, i point a citation needed in some time ago. soon i will just delete this statement. if someone finds references, she can put it back.. trueblood 11:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A place for users to purchase organic foods online
I realize that wikipedia is not a collection of links, but users might like to know where to buy organic foods and other such products. I have found a reputable dealer online that I think we should add to the links section. http://www.shopnatural.com

A map-based community-input organic food locator - RealFoodFinder.com
This is similar to already listed OmOrganics, but not limited to the Bay Area. The site has a grass-roots aspect to is as well. In addition to the base collection of listings, people list their favorite local place that sells or serves organic foods. So far community has been most active on the west coast, however the site is growing elsewhere as well. http://www.realfoodfinder.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.250.63 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Wild Harvested
On the Internet, I keep seeing the term "wild harvested" associated with organic food, but I cannot find anything in Wikipedia about wild harvested food. This page describes the requirements for management of wild crops near the bottom of the page: Wild harvested food may be food gathered or harvested from a predestinated area that has been free from conventional pesticides and other prohibited substances for at least three years. The actual gathering of the wild crop should not be destructive to the environment and should sustain the growth and production of the wild crop. Once harvested, prohibited substances should not be added to the wild crop by the crop producer. Should wild harvested food be included in this article or should it have a separate article? -- Jreferee 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Undid additions from Organic farming
The edit made by User:Jav43 on March 2, 2007 included:
 * Changing section title "Critisism" to "Evidence of the harm caused by organic food"
 * Adding 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, which contained 1 reference (compare this with the 22 references in the "Evidence of the benefits of organic food".

I reverted this edit for a couple reasons. One major reason is that the "Critisism" section isn't about the harm that organic farming does.

For example,
 * The "Food Safety" subsection shows that conventional food contains many more pesticide residues, but that the effects of these aren't a big deal.
 * The "Sustainability" subsection says that any improvements in energy efficiency aren't due to organic practices but by crop rotation, and that some pesticides that are approved for organic farms are dangerous (like rotenone, although these pesticides are used rarely).
 * And the last two "Organic Food is expensive", and 'Organic food has "sold out"' subsections aren't so much harm as they are critisism related.

As to the 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, they don't contain nearly enough citations or actual "evidence of harm". JabberWok 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of my edits. This article is full of discussion of organic farming practices. That discussion is one-sided, which firmly violates npov rules. There are two ways to balance this. One is to include both sides of the discussion, which I started. The other is to remove the references to organic farming practices and simply reference users to the 'organic farming' article. I suppose I'll edit this to that end. Please see section 18 of this talk page for my comments on this topic at the time of my edit. Jav43 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * you should slow down a bit, i think i agree with some of the moving around of sections from organic food, but please discuss first, and can you discuss at the bottom of the page rather than continue same age old thread, that might esily be overlooked. also actually these articles used to be a lot more pro organic and have become a lot more balanced in recent months. you can check it out be looking at an version from say october 2006trueblood 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's great that these articles have become more balanced recently, but that doesn't mean they are perfect. I do think "Organic Foods" needs balance in the discussion of organic farming practices.  Since organic farming has its own article, I don't see why all discussion of organic farming is not simply moved there. Jav43 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How organic food is grown is relevant to why people buy it - and also why it's an area of the food industry that has been growing much faster than the rest of it. The information that's here should stay - it's a good summary of why organic food is made in the first place - but I agree that a decent amount of it could be copied over to Organic farming and would be relevant there too but phrased differently. JabberWok 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then this article could simply mention that some people prefer organic food due to the ways in which it is grown, and refer to the 'organic farming' article for that topic. Basically, I have two problems here.  I don't see the need for duplicate information.  More importantly, the discussion of organic farming practices in the 'organic food' article is entirely one-sided.  Why not refer people to the more complete article, 'organic farming', rather than discussing organic farming practices here? Jav43 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * to talk about a totally one-sided article after making a change like Changing section title "Critisism" to "Evidence of the harm caused by organic food is a bit thin, how about making some little improvements to the article before making sweeping changes to get it closer to your idea of balanced. trueblood 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you read the title of the 'pro' section? "Evidence of the benefits of organic food" - I simply copied that and made it negative.  Such is balance.  Jav43 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I got reverted when I tried making little improvements to make the article more balanced - which is why I made the larger change of moving the "organic farming" discussion. Jav43 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could supply papers from peer-reviewed journals that show "evidence of harm" by organic farming practices then I would sympathize with your efforts. That's exactly where I recommend you start. JabberWok 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly my point. This article isn't supposed to be about organic farming practices and shouldn't be about organic farming practices.  It should not host this discussion at all.  Jav43 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is about organic food, why people buy it, and why it was given a legal definition in many countries around the world. It attempts to explain the existence of organic food in the first place and this article gives a succinct discussion of those reasons. JabberWok 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Organic standards being rolled back by supermarkets
Apparently big UK companies (e.g. Sainsburys, Tescos) are starting to roll back the organic laws through their sheer barganing power with the governement (e.g. nitrates) in order to cash in on the recent organic boom. Could we include something here? --leopheard 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to organic produce - social impact?
Also, could we include something re: people opposing organic produce not because they think it's no different or has no benefits, but because they consider it to be socio-economic related i.e. people are now starting to oppose it because they believe posh people are making a 'lifestyle statement' rather than purchasing organic for the right reasons. Almost inverted-snobbery if you would.

Perhaps under a heading called ==Social impact== ?? --leopheard 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

links
There's was a number of spam links in the External links section which add nothing to the article and were, it seemed to me, largely spam. These have been removed. MidgleyDJ 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just removed another spam link from the article. Cheers MidgleyDJ 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Added link to DMOZ. MidgleyDJ 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC Article
Perhaps this article will point towards reliable sources that would be useful to this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6595801.stm Gantlord 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

overbroad
Why does this article encompass topics from the organic farming article? Shouldn't it avoid discussion of organic farming and remain limited to organic foods, leaving the full treatment of organic farming to that article? Jav43 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey again! You've brought this up before in the section above, Undid additions from Organic farming. My last point in that discussion is relevant again,
 * The article is about organic food, why people buy it... and the farming practices involved are the very reason organic food is bought by many people.
 * That is why this article gives good, short, descriptions of organic farming, and leaves the details for the main article, organic farming. JabberWok 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Undid essay
I undid the following edit by by 76.48.59.222 (talk):

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? Learn the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts. Decide which is best for you, considering nutrition, quality, taste, cost and other factors. You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket. In one hand, you're holding a conventionally grown Granny Smith apple. In your other hand, you have one that's been organically grown. Both apples are firm, shiny and green. Both provide vitamins and fiber, and both are free of fat, sodium and cholesterol. The conventionally grown apple costs less and is a proven family favorite. But the organic apple has a label that says "USDA Organic." Does that mean it's better? Safer? More nutritious? Several differences between organic and nonorganic foods exist. Become a better informed consumer for your next trip to the supermarket. Organic or not? Check the label The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established an organic certification program that requires all organic foods to meet strict government standards. These standards regulate how such foods are grown, handled and processed. Any farmer or food manufacturer who labels and sells a product as organic must be USDA certified as meeting these standards. Only producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic foods are exempt from this certification. If a food bears a USDA Organic label, it means it's produced and processed according to the USDA standards and that at least 95 percent of the food's ingredients are organically produced. The seal is voluntary, but many organic producers use it. Products that are completely organic — such as fruits, vegetables, eggs or other single-ingredient foods — are labeled 100 percent organic and can carry a small USDA seal. Foods that have more than one ingredient, such as breakfast cereal, can use the USDA organic seal or the following wording on their package labels, depending on the number of organic ingredients: ·	100 percent organic. Products that are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients. ·	Organic. Products that are at least 95 percent organic. ·	Made with organic ingredients. These are products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The organic seal can't be used on these packages. Foods containing less than 70 percent organic ingredients can't use the organic seal or the word "organic" on their product label. They can include the organic items in their ingredient list, however. You may see other terms on food labels, such as "all-natural," "free-range" or "hormone-free." These descriptions may be important to you, but don't confuse them with the term "organic." Only those foods that are grown and processed according to USDA organic standards can be labeled organic.

While most of this is good information, and could be included in the article, it doesn't fit in this section. It's style is unencyclopedia (e.g., "You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket"). And it needs references. In short, more work needs to be done on this before it can be added to the article. Sunray 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is actually copied word-for-word from a recent Yahoo article:. Jav43 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

British Library Food Stories website
Do you think this link to the British Library's Food Stories website should be added to the External links section? Its a learning interactive that includes oral testimony and background information to the organic food industry in the UK. (Jenwren83 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

British Library Food Stories
http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/foodstories/index.html (Jenwren83 10:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

arguments in favor and opposition
Please get rid of these two sections. It's a poor way to divide up the article.

— Omegatron 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Moore sentence removed
The following sentence appeared in the article:
 * "Numerous scientists — including Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore — believe organic farming poses a far greater threat than conventional farming to the environment and to wildlife."
 * with reference of:
 * Sustainable Forestry: Patrick Moore & The Future of Things - August 8, 2004 http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D90.cfm

If you go to the web page the relevant quote is:
 * "I believe that much of the environmental movement’s policy today is ’unsensible’.
 * For example, the call to go back to organic farming - it’s just nonsensical.
 * If we give up the advances in agriculture; fertilizers, chemicals, and genetics, it would mean that we’d have to use and vast amount more land to grow the food for the 6 billion people.
 * This would mean cutting down more forest to get that additional land."

I thus removed the sentence for a couple reasons:
 * 1) He didn't say anything about wildlife,
 * 2) or conventional farming
 * 3) And most importantly his opinion reflects statements already made in the article - that is, organic farms may have less yield than conventional farms although this is disputed. JabberWok 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Quotes are generally good to have in articles, even if they reiterate something that is already spelled out in prose. It's usually good to make clear who feels a certain way.  With Patrick Moore you'll have to point out when he said that though, and his relationship with Greenpeace at the time (he is now a critic of Greenpeace). — Omegatron 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

organic food less sustainable than conventional food??
what is this, is this article getting a bit one sided on the critics side. i am sure people like moore and trevavas have lots of things to say on organic farming and food, but maybe we can get some other opinion as well, also the section on environmental impact says one thing and the one on sustainability says another thing, but they talk about the same thing; maybe the to sections can be united trueblood 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words?
Someone put a tag at the top of the article stating that it contained weasel words. I cannot find any discussion of that on this page. I think that there is some onus on someone who places such a tag to point out weasel words. Better yet, the individual who spots weasel words could edit them out (i.e., be bold). If the editing chore seems too challenging, a note on this page or even a tag at the specific location in the article would be helpful. Sunray 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Edits by 209.161.227.5
It's hard for the few other editors of this page to get an edit in edgewise when 60+ edits are made over the course of a few days by a single anonymous user.

Please talk about issues here on the discussion page before making a large number of changes. I'm still trying to comb through all the edits myself, and I'm sure there are plenty of good things added, nothing permanent has been lost. But there needs to be some review.

Also, I just wanted to make a couple points (useful to know for everyone):
 * 1) Perhaps use the "Show Preview" button when you are making edits, and then after you have made all the many changes you like, only then hit the "Save Page" button. 10 small edits could easily just be 1 big one (and thus easier for editors to deal with).
 * 2) When making references, try to use citation templates.
 * 3) Also, see Wikipedia's policy on citing sources.  Personal interviews, personal addresses, and the like are not acceptable references.  Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, needs to have verifiable references.  That is also why there is no citation template for personal interviews.

Thanks. JabberWok 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the edits to incorporate better facts about organic from the source and remove flagrant abuse by opponents of organic farming
I forgot to sign in, but I've been making the substantial edits on behalf of 750 organic organizations in 108 countries to better reflect the true state of affairs and to eliminate flagrant abuse of this page by opponents of organic farming and food.

The table I added is the global overview from the World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007, which is the only global source of statistics and updated regulatory information on organics. I used the show preview button before making any changes permanent. I assure you nothing of relevance is lost. My changes are backed by millions of organic farmers. It's better to have a table that gives the overview of all regulations of organic farming in the world than have a few links to biased information about a few countries. Presumably earlier authors just didn't know or realize that other countries have regulations, or that Australia's regulation only is for export, and not for internal markets. In any case, I will continue to make many changes to these and every page related to organic on behalf of the organic movement, and I will not hesitate to remove erroneous and politically motivated content from the likes of Dennis Avery.

Nsorensen 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid the change made by a Monsanto representative on pesticides and farmers
Nsorensen 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.


 * many statements require references, particularly those tagged with "citation needed"
 * reference style are not uniform
 * external links require cleanup
 * images requiring fair-use rationale
 * "Legal definition" section requires tone cleanup, as it sounds like an instruction for how to apply for organic food label
 * "Motivations" section is completely not referenced

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This article no longer holds GA standard and therefore delisted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

looks like someone had some fun?
i havent been involved in this project much, just someone who refers to this site very often. was reading this article and noticed this paragraph looks like it was played with as a joke, and managed to show up on the live version. hopefully this is the right method to report this problem if there is a way to revert this section:

Fresh, "unprocessed" organic food, such as crayons and scissors are purchased directly from growers, at farmers' markets, from on-farm stands, supermarkets, through speciality Crayola stores, and through Cats Stinking Association (CSA) projects. Unprocessed animal products like organic cameras are less commonly available in "fresh" form.

In Australia, organic thumb taks must be from free-range pins, rather than from battery operated s[5]. Kangaroos for the organic market may not be fed shrink hormones or witches such as cauldrons and brooms

68.104.55.97 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

environmental impact
i replaced this phrase: While organic farming is not primarily an environmental endeavor, there are claims that it is a somewhat less environmentally damaging farming method than conventional farming. organic farming is of course an environmental endeavor, look at any home page of an organic farming association.trueblood 11:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

i removed this passage for improvement : Also, non-organic farmers are exposed to far fewer food-borne microorganisms, such as E.coli. .

the study probably found that farmers in minnesota were exposed to microbes if there organic, please improve the wording to reflect that. without knowing the extend of the whole study i find a but much to conclude that is true for all organic farming trueblood 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

image


fail to see the interest to the article trueblood 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No discussion of the term organic
The label 'organic' is related to living things generally, and there's no discussion in the article of any conterovery surrounding the term organic as applied to food. Traditionally, all food would have been considered organic. --Llewdor 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * it is only in english that organic farming is called organic and not bio or ecological farming, the term comes not from organic as in organic chemistry but from the notion of the farm as an organism, is in biodynamics. maybe there was also a hint of vitalism in the choice of the word. do not confuse it with organic, that is carbon based chemistry. most pesticides are organic in that sense that they are carbon based. maybe the origin of the term needs an explanation, but maybe better in the article on organic farming.trueblood 10:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Organic food is called that because it grows by itself -- without outside help... this of course is only partly true, since compost, water, etc. are added, but the point is, it grows on its own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate that the term has come to be used this way, but not really all that incorrect. The word 'organic' had meanings before organic chemistry came along, and it's from these roots that the current usage arose.  The battle is lost -- get over it.  If you want to do a write-up on the etymology, it would be a welcome inclusion, but there's no controversy here. --Randall Nortman (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Very Uncomfortable with Motivation Section
The motivations section simply isn't the sort of thing I expect, in an Wiki article, at all, though I'm no regular editor. Is there any reason at all that it shouldn't immediately be tagged with and  ? --Enantiodromos 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had exactly the same reaction, not even an hour after you posted this, and I popped over to the talk page to see if anybody else had discussed it. What a coincidence.  I have tagged it with your suggestions, and added  as well. --Randall Nortman 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i'd be happy with deleting the section, maybe the history section could be moved up to take it's place.trueblood 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo organic.gif
Image:Logo organic.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 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

POV-check
I reviewed the article and found it well referenced and NPOV. I have removed POV-check tag. TimL (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:EU organic farming logo.svg
The image File:EU organic farming logo.svg 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. --08:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Pesticides and farm workers
I recently removed and placed on the talk page of another article information about pesticides and health effects on farm workers; Mesoderm reverted, noting " rv large-scale removal of important, on-topic, reliably sourced content -- this is a major reason for consumer purchases of organic foods." I have several issues with this section and the revert:

1) This information is tangential to an article on organic food. Indeed, I sampled a number of the sources, and they don't even use the words "organic food" in them. This is why I moved the information to the talk page of what I thought would be a much more appropriate location.

2) The fact that few, if any, of the sources uses the words "organic food" means that use in this article would likely constitute orginal research which is not allowed.

3) The idea that effects on farm workers are a "major reason" consumers purchase organic foods is, shall I say, unlikely.  None of the surveys I have read on consumer attitudes towards organic food even mention farm worker health (as opposed to say environmental concerns, health concerns, personal safety issues).

This material really is not appropriate for this article (which is not to say it is not appropriate for Wikipedia; it just needs to find its right home).

As an aside, I will point anyone watching to the message I left above a few months back about the problems with MEDRS. I will be largely re-writing the safety and nutritional sections of this article using secondary reviews as recommended by WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The health effects of farm workers from using pesticides is not "tangential" to an article on organic food. The harmful effects of pesticides on the environment and on farm workers are both common justifications for switching to organic foods. Please take a look at these Google Books results, which clearly demonstrate that pesticides' effects on producers are regularly discussed in the literature on organic food. &mdash; Mesoderm (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at those results, most do not talk about the two together (organic food and health issues with farmworkers), but I digress. The information would appear to be most appropriate in other articles (say organic farming) rather than organic food.  This article should be about the food itself; discussion about farming techniques or dangers of pesticides should be left to other articles, no? Yobol (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you make a very good point. Organic farming would be a better place to discuss this, with a very brief (1-2 sentence) summary of it here in the section on Organic Farming. -- &mdash; Mesoderm (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved material to organic farming talk page. Yobol (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably deserves a section that discusses the question of what are the physical differences versus the political/philosophical differences between "artificial"/synthetic ingredients and tools. On one end are certain pesticides which are very complex chemicals not found in nature. On the other end many modern fertilizers such as calcium oxide (or lime) and ammonia (or dung) are chemically identical to the active ingredients in organic treatments - except for concentration and mechanical particle properties which make modern fertilizer more suitable for application by automated machinery. Note should be given as to how over application of organic fertilizer such as dung can have similar environmental poisoning effects as more modern fertilizers. Finally it should note that even some complex pesticides produced synthetically for mass production are in fact chemically identical to the active agents in natural pesticides such as orange peels.

(So in fact the benefits of organic farming may in many cases more like Buddhist sand gardens -- it may simply be a series of action which deliver spiritual healing and calm (the chicken didn't freeze in the truck going to the factory...they froze in the garden like nature intended. Guilt can be a powerful thing and avoiding it very powerful as well.)66.68.23.251 (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

More Problems
The sentence "There is widespread belief that organic food is significantly safer for consumption than food grown conventionally, based mainly on anecdotal evidence and testimonials rather than scientific evidence, which has fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices" is based on a source from 2006. Since the sentence uses the present tense, the source needs to be from 2011 in order for this sentence to be kept.

Recommendation: either delete the sentence or replace with "There WAS widespread belief..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.179.202 (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is from a scientific review; until there is a newer source that contradicts it, there is no need to use the past tense. Almost all sources say the same about the public perception about safety. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

HUGE PROBLEMS
The weight of the available scientific evidence has not shown a significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety, nutritional value, or taste.

How can that be said. That is a matter of opinion. There is no fact here. And to put that in right in the introduction. That is bias. That is not what wikipedia is about. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.149.109 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly once "weight" has been stated then this sentence needs have its source cited. Otherwise we are left wondering ,"Who has weighted the evidence with such a result. On the face of it this sentence appears to be uncheckable for accuracy by the naive reader. And as such needs to be modified or removed. 124.170.37.40 (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Study from Newcastle
Based on the study published here ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689.2011.554417 ), i've added "However, a recent research from School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, and published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, indicated that organic food could result in a potential increase in life expectancy by 25 days for men and 17 days for women. Such a conclusion challenge the conclusions of FSA. The study also suggested that using organic food may result in increased availability of vitamin C and other key nutrients in the food.", under the section 'Nutritional Value and taste'. One may improve/ rephrase the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effulgence108 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review our guideline for finding appropriate sources for medical claims. We should be using reviews of the literature, not primary literature like this, and are explicitly prohibited from using primary literature to "debunk" the results of the review (in this case, saying organic food is more healthy) as you are doing here.  Please find an appropriate source, such as a peer-reviewed review article published in the medical literature. Yobol (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems
Came across this article by chance, but note several significant problems:


 * Much of the Environmental Impact section is probably better either incorporated into the Organic farming article or removed entirely; this amount of detail is definitely not needed in this article
 * I understand why it would pertain more to organic farming, but I think that environmental impact is one of, if not the most important reasons why some people are attracted to organic food, next to maybe the health concerns. At least for me, that is the main reason I want to eat more organic food.  The environmental impact of organic food vs. monoculture food should be included in both articles in my opinion.Tannerbk (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Much (all?) of the Pesticide and Farmers section appears to be WP:OR; a quick run down on some of the cited sources don't even mention organic food or farming, and would probably be much more appropriate in another article


 * Serious WP:Undue problems in the health section with the QLIF report (which I can't even tell if it's been peer-reviewed) taking up most of the section with a lot of primary studies cited and the secondary sources (which per WP:MEDRS should make up the bulk, if not all of the sources in this section) being relegated to citing one sentence.


 * A lot of health claims in the Environmental impact section; it would be best to segregate any and all health related issues into one section


 * The ending section with Facts and statistics and especially the Organic olympiad section is probably not encyclopedic and not appropriate for this article.


 * Let's not mention the entire swaths of the article that are uncited and have had citation tags for months (? years).

If no one objections, I'll be paring down on much of the text that violates OR and Undue and adding studies and supporting statements as I find them. Yobol (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of Googling and I agree, the QLIF report has been given undue weight. I looked it up and the "study" is not peer reviewed. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or lacking meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. I think a study that is not peer reviewed lacks editorial oversight and should be removed. They arrive at a predetermined conclusion. The following three links are really intresting: skepdic.com and dailymail.co.uk and senseaboutscience.org. I will remove the QLIF report. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. Wasbeer 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people claim organic food helps with cancer, even though the ACS says there is no proof whatsoever. Should this be included in the article? Wasbeer 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal world peer-reviewed articles are not manipulated and express the high integrity of scientists and those who finance them.

But for the moment peer-reviewing is causing a lot of harms including deaths if we take some medicines as example. It is outrageous that the word of people who experienced many problems taking medicines is not taken seriously and is considered as anecdote evidence.

Their physicians don't report them because they receive money to prescribe, to peer-review, to advertise, to ghost-write and other activities. It is hard to find integrity in science today.

The forth phase of clinical trials is surveillance after the drug is on the market which is not being done because the pharmaceutical company don't want to stop profiting even if it costs lives. Peer-reviewing has more to do with defending the corporations than the consumers.

Abstract: Recent scandals involving deceptive and sometimes even fraudulent publication practices by pharmaceutical companies have shaken the faith that many people have in the evidence produced in medical journals. This talk will review some of the recent scandals '''and some of the suggested changes in the peer-review process to address these scandals. Not all (or even most) industry funded research is biased, though, and there are assurances that you should look for that can help vouch for the credibility of a research study even when there are obvious conflicts of interest listed'''. http://www.childrensmercy.org/stats/weblog2007/ManipulationPeerReview.aspx

The sham of peer review – this is the big boy, IMO as the the term “peer-reviewed” will never carry the same weight in this field again. They clearly had a long-standing pattern of abusing the system to prevent “contrarian” views from being published. The key steps:

1) Withhold data/methods/code from those questioning their results (McIntyre, McKittrick, Keenan, etc.). Force them to reverse engineer the methods and make assumptions. Some assumptions will inevitably be mistaken 2) Attack the mistaken assumptions as clear evidence that the author is a fraud, the paper is garbage and is not worthy of publication 3) Pressure the journals/reviewers not to accept the paper based on its alleged inferiority and errors 4) After paper rejection, criticize those questioning their findings as not being peer reviewed 5) If a paper does get through, attack the journal as bush league (e.g. E&E) or go after the editor to prevent reoccurrence (e.g. GRL) 6) Repeat as often as needed http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/

Discussed are increasing science community and university dependence on private industry funding and on development of proprietary technologies; [http://monopolization%20of%20the%20make-up%20of%20expert%20scientific%20bodies%20on%20transgenics%20by%20pro-industry%20scientists%20with%20vested%20interests%20in%20transgenics;%20deficient%20scientific%20protocols,%20bias,%20and%20possible%20fraud%20in%20industry-sponsored%20and%20industry-conducted%20research;%20increasing%20politically%20and%20commercially%20driven%20manipulation%20of%20science%20within%20federal%20regulatory%20bodies%20such%20as%20the%20FDA;%20and%20bias%20in%20the%20peer-review%20process,%20tolerance%20by%20the%20scientific%20community%20of%20biotechnology%20industry%20manipulation%20of%20the%20information%20environment,%20and%20of%20biased%20treatment%20and%20harassment%20of%20non-compliant%20scientists. http://www.ijsaf.org/contents/16-1/lotter2/index.html]Discussed are future food production strategies for developing countries, recently framed in the 2008 UNsponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology, an action plan that emphasizes non-proprietary, agroecology-based approaches to food production and does not include crop transgenics as a central strategy. The under-funding of non-proprietary agroecological approaches to food production is discussed. http://www.ijsaf.org/contents/16-1/lotter2/index.html

--Justana (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC) -- there's a reference to 1939 coining of "organic farming", but google shows lots of references to organic farming pre-1939, possibly as early as 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.242 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The environmental impact of pesticides as well as the impact to the health of farm workers are reasons given for purchasing organic food.[citation needed] just to add some evidence about the health of farmers (and their children), look here http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi/10.1289/ehp.1003185, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1988.9934372, finally, this recent article is done in URBAN pregnant mothers-to-be and relates the consumption of pesticides and their children's IQ according to metabolites of organophosphates (ie pesticides) and the results are interesting, here is the article http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1003183. After reading this I think there is some evidence that non-organic food is NOT the same. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.15.34 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nutritional Value and Taste
I made some modifications to this section. The main problems were:
 * Citing individual studies. Particularly innapropriate was citing a study published last year which has been cited a total of two times; this study analyzed the bias or poor academic practices of claims about organic nutritional value put forth by organizations with a vested financial interest in organic foods. Within the wikipedia article, this reference was used as the basis for the claim that "consumers are wasting their money if they are seeking to buy organic food for higher nutrient content." The lack of academic rigor in that logical jump makes my head hurt. In a field which is developed enough to the point where there are 10s of 1000s of studies, it is rarely appropriate to cite individual studies directly in a wikipedia article (especially obscure, recent ones) because the picking-and-choosing involved in doing so (and the proceeding analysis of them) in effect becomes a form of original research.
 * Conflating a lack of a clear finding of nutritional benefits with definitive proof of a finding of no nutritional benefits. These are not the same thing. Oy. If you know anything about research methodology you know these are not the same thing. Maybe I'll come back and write more about this later.
 * Selection of literature. The section had a very clear academic bias (and right now, other sections of the article are somewhat biased in voice but not so much in citation. There should be more "proponents of" for some of them) in a field that has seen thousands and thousands of conflicting studies in both directions, some stacked by interests vested and (the conventional agriculture lobby has its hands in this debate pie as much as the organic lobby) and some not at all, measuring thousands of different things in effect, and using methodological practices from solid to awful. Even with all these things, sometimes a field has a clear scientific consensus. However, it could hardly be said that there is a scientific consensus on this matter. Even the authors of the 2009 FSA article stress that there is a lot of work left to be done. But for now, because its so fuzzy, this article should also not advise people to pull out their credit cards and go buy organic, nor should it promise that they'll be just as healthy without it.

In the future, anyone planning on editing a part of a page that requires heavy citation of scientific studies to make claims, (such as a section on nutritional benefits), would do well to read. If you don't have an academic background in a field with lots of publishing and citing and all that (or you're not from the hard sciences, and could use a little brushing up on how studies work there), please read the relevant Identifying reliable sources.

Stay cool. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 03:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Several problems, including calling literature reviews "individual studies". I would suggest reading literature review again so that you can tell what a literature review is. I do agree that the one paper you singled out (which is a review) does have a very editorial/opinion like tone and will remove it for now, though.  It can probably be introduced in another section, but probably not appropriate here at this time.  I'm not sure what an "academic bias" is; if it is meant that there is too much emphasis on the academic studies, then that is an intentional bias caused by our guidelines including WP:MEDRS.  I agree that we need more discussion about the poor lack of quality in the area of nutrition evaluation, and will be adding that soon. Yobol (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick Google Scholar search on "organic food nutrition" and what I found there does not seem to agree with the way the article is written. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=organic+food+nutrition&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=XVI_T5nDJ5GdiAeDv-zLBA&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA Also, the health section should also mention the chemical residue on the food, not only the nutrition. It could be nice to also include the health effect of organic farming on other foods, for example fisheries. In Bangladesh it is widely agreed that chemical use in agriculture causes declines in fish stocks, therefore causing malnutrition. -- ulrikhorn (t) 18 February 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC).
 * We use reliable sources for medical claims, which would be review articles, not random google search results to source our articles. If you have articles in mind that meet the criteria in that link, please present them so that we can incorporate them.  In the meantime, discussion about organic farming belongs on that page, not here. Yobol (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Organic food" is not a technical term but a "fill in the blank" term. Political term? Legal term?
The reader needs to be told in as clear and upfront way as possible what kind of referent this is; what kind of term this is. This is not a technical term with a specific meaning universally adhered to in scientific journals and such. It is a political term or some such thing; a word whose definition changes with time and place depending on local law. This is what the body of the article says. That's according to this article. What needs changing is the lead. This idea, fact, needs to be summarized in the lead alongside the other parts of the definition such as "pesticide free" with such short, to-the-point words: perhaps "...means different things in different places..." or "...definition depends on proof in packaging laws in effect..." or a better wording of your choosing that would get this point across in a way it communicates that other parts of the meaning such as "pesticide free" are put in proper context. Please help me figure out the best way to re-word the lead. Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

**this article should be marked for deletion**
I provide here the dictionary definition of ‘organic’: ‘derived from an animal or vegetable protein, of or pertaining to animal or vegetable protein or substance’

In accordance with this definition, all foods can be understood to be ‘organic’, with the possible exception of things such as sand (which I suppose may find its way into a meal as a consequence of lake-side lunching) or plastics,or rocks or some other kind of incomsumables.

The separation of foods into ‘organic’/’inorganic’ on the basis of chemical composition that is not relevant to the above standard is inappropriate, and an indication of bias. Without some further evidence regarding the use of additives and preservatives in food it is not appropriate to impose artificial definitions. This is a violation of our NPOV policy.

This article should be marked for deletion. --rasko99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're logic is shaky at best. There are different definitions of organic, and this article clearly focus' on the type of organic food the U.S government allows to be labeled as organic. 98.214.117.203 (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

in reference to the preceding
it is true that there are multiple definitions of 'organic'-- the popular usage of the term is different then this accepted dictionary definiton-- something more along the line of 'foods created, grown, or produce without the benefit of artificial addivities or the influence of human technologies' -- this is what I believe is implied by advertisers and marketers that make use of this label to market certain kinds of produce/eggs/other food items as 'organic' or 'more organic'-- however, I do not believe that the FDA currently provides standards or regulations for this kind of labeling. The term is misleading, it is inconsistent with a common sense understanding of the term 'organic', and the article should either reflect these realities or be deleted.

is there anybody working on this article with an opinion as to how to proceed? ---rasko99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasko99 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The USDA sets terms for what is called organic in the US (see here). I see no particular suggestion to improve wording or sources to discuss. We already describe the different meanings of the word "organic" in the article, so I do not see how this could be confusing to anyone (in fact, the average reader would probably think of this use of the word "organic" before any other such as the description of the chemistry discipline. Yobol (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
I removed the comment
 * The terms "organic farming" or "organic food" can not be considered scientifically meaningful definitions, despite the efforts of some to make others believe they are so. At best the term "organic farming" describes a broad concept of attempting to farm sustainably, at worst it is no better than a cheap political or marketing stunt.

from the beginning of the main section. This is at best in need of a drastic rewrite to avoid sounding horribly POV, and at worst needs to be simply forgotten. The assertion that the term "cannot be considered a scientifically meaningful definition" is, at best, questionable. I'm not an expert, but this sounds like it was written by someone who has an axe to grind.

I'd be comfortable with it being reinserted if some RS citations came along with it.

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes
Recent changes have inserted clear POV problems, in that they are misrepresenting sources and using sources that do not appear appropriate.

Source #1, |this malformed ref, does not mention organic foods and is therefore WP:OR to use as a source here to discuss its safety.

Source #2, here appears to be a student essay, not a peer reviewed article as would be expected by our guideline on medical sourcing. Ironically, the conclusion of this student paper doesn't even support the cited sentence that there is a significant difference between organic and convention foods, noting "While organic foods are produced using biological methods and in the absence of synthetic crop inputs, this does not guarantee more nutritious, healthier, and safer products. While studies have been conducted, most of the results were deemed inconclusive because too few experiments with too much variation have been performed. Thus, consumers should be wary when purchasing food products, since “organic” does not necessarily equal superior food quality."

Source #3, here appears to be a paper written in conjunction with a student, and no indication that it has gone through any peer review (a search on MEDLINE showed no results for this title), thus meaning it does not meet MEDRS. Again, ironically, this source does not support the suggestion that organic food is healthier, noting, "However, there are still far too few studies completed to establish a consensus regarding the health benefit of organic foods."

Source #4, here does not support the statement that there is a health difference between organic and conventional, noting "While many studies demonstrate these qualitative differences between organic and conventional foods, it is premature to conclude that either food system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition. Pesticide residues, naturally occurring toxins, nitrates, and polyphenolic compounds exert their health risks or benefits on a dose-related basis, and data do not yet exist to ascertain whether the differences in the levels of such chemicals between organic foods and conventional foods are of biological significance."

Source #5, here does not even speak to health effects (speaking only of environmental and economic issues), and I cannot tell if it has been peer reviewed either.

These sources therefore either do not meet our standards as WP:MEDRS or do not support the cited statements, failing WP:V. I have therefore removed them, yet again. Yobol (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with your assessments and appreciate the work you put into this. The sources either do not meet standards or do not actually contain the information which they are purported to reference. I hope what you did here inspires other people to consider the quality of their sources.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cancer
The best argument for organic food is the cancer argument, but this argument has been omitted from the article, even where it as cited, such as the notable argument between the ACS and the President's Panel on Cancer. Although the presidential panel avoided the word "organic", it clearly promoted "food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers", which by definition includes organic foods, and which is clearly relevant enough for inclusion in this article. It was entered in the article with several goods citations (including primary and secondary sources). It's complete removal indicates a bias in the editors of this article. The strongest argument for organic foods is almost omitted (with only the mention of the ACS official position that not enough study has taken place to be able to determine an answer, and this is hidden at the end of a "consumer safety" section), while the debunking of much weaker (and therefore irrelevant) arguments is covered extensively. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The strongest argument for "organic" food is that consumers are willing to pay higher prices for food with "organic" branding. The cancer argument can hardly be strongest if it's based on a source which doesn't mention organic food. I just tracked down the panel's last annual report; it doesn't even mention pesticides or fertilizers, let alone organic food. bobrayner (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Presidential Panel recommended "food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers". That is a direct quote. It's not OR that organic foods are grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers, and foods that are not labelled "organic" almost always are. The report also points out that "less than 2% of chemicals on the market have actually been tested for carcinogenicity". This is clearly a central argument that people promoting organic foods use and, unlike the other arguments they use, this one hasn't been disproven, and yet it's the only argument not mentioned in the article. Mr G (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely if the point is so important you can actually find a WP:MEDRS compliant source that actually uses the words "organic food" in it at least once. Yobol (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did find several sources that were worth mentioning but they were removed from the article. Mr G (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is no evidence I'm not sure how it is the best argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Health and Safety" section
Perhaps it would be better to remove the whole section "Health and Safety". First, scientifically it is a battleground. Second, the massive food industry will weigh in with their money, paying for scientific research that has a WP:COI. Third, the exclusion of sources, giving undue weight to the medical side of the story. The Banner talk 13:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The supposed health and safety effects are a major reason why people consume organic foods; flat out removal of the section is grossly inappropriate. If there are problems with WP:DUE, it can be addressed without ignoring the topic.  Hand-waving objections about conspiracies by corporations are probably not going to go anywhere. Yobol (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the same food large companies make both organic and non-organic produce; organic food is highly profitable. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Monsanto into organic food? I don't think so. GMO is absolutely prohibited in organic production. Just look at the organic standards (at least the European ones) The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Potential COI: I grow vegetables, non-organic.
 * Just FYI - Monsanto has a big line of vegetable seeds that are not genetically modified. They breed new varieties that are valuable to conventional as well as organic growers.Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Large food companies" ≠ GMO. Organic food is big business, and still benefits from economies of scale just like modern agriculture. Nothing wrong with big business, of course. If you have evidence that the sources we rely on are inherently bad because of the massive food industry weighing in with their money, that would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nasty question: can you prove that the source we rely on, are really independent and neutral? Did you notice that every time there is a favourable report about organic food, it is followed by a report discrediting it? Strange at least. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When there are studies lacking rigour it's not a conspiracy when someone points this out. You may as well argue that when a report is released favourable of astrology it is followed by a report discrediting it and this indicates a conspiracy. Conspiracies by their very nature lack verification. If you want to posit a grand conspiracy by the "big grain" to push down "big organic" then do that elsewhere. I'm not sure what you mean by the "medical side of the story". There is no "other side" when it comes to health. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When supposedly "rigorous" studies are wholly funded by major corporations such as Monsanto, that too is suspicious. It's remarkably easy to have a university researcher to publish favorable results  with unlimited funding.  We may also need to add some of the political issues as well.   Montanabw (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that our editing should be governed by such conspiracy theories. Got sources? bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me what the objection is.  Is there some specific content in this section that is supposedly not neutral?  A specific reference that is objectionable?  This kind of blanket discussion is not going to be fruitful so please be specific.  Thanks 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)
 * I think the issue is here is a debate to use only MEDRS versus WP:RS. There is no need for there to only be MEDRS sources here to the exclusion of other material that will pass WP:RS.  My point is that peer-reviewed literature and studies that appear in such sources are often not supportive of alternative views, and a lot of mainstream research is funded from corporate sources.  Thus, particularly in fields such as this one, to limit sources to only things that appear in Pubmed will, inherently, create a POV bias that is not appropriate for a comprehensive article, leaving behind only an anti-organic, pro-corporate agriculture viewpoint that defeats the intent of wikipedia and the NPOV pillar.   Montanabw (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making very specific claims about a conspiracy with absolutely zero evidence. For health claims we use MEDRS. Your objections sound like special pleading. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to waste time on this article as I have other projects.  You all know damn well that MEDRS is not the only reliable source for wikipedia articles that only tangentially have health claims, and thus, while they are clearly WP:RS sources, others are allowed.  And you also know damn well that corporate America is hostile to claims that organic products are superior.  I'll let those who care about this article continue to defend their materials, but I am simply here to offer them support.  I know you Wolifie, and I know you have an obsession with MEDRS that approaches Meatbot behavior.  I just don't have the time or energy to deal with you.   Montanabw (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. The text in question is not "tangentially" related to a health claim; it is a health claim about the safety of the food. Yobol (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And again, RS is appropriate, MEDRS is not mandatory. Both mainstream and alternative sources are needed to avoid an anti-organic food POV, and really, do we need MEDRS for things as obvious as "oranges contain vitamin C" ? I don't think so, note WP:POPE.  Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When dealing with contentious topics, we should be using the best sources. We are not sourcing "oranges contain vitamin C", we are sourcing contentious claims about the safety and health of specific foods. In this case, MEDRS are the best sources. We don't come to a neutral point of view by presenting all sides with equal weight, but by giving due weight to what the best sources say. If the scientific sources do not support organic foods, then so be it.  We do not include random sources to "balance" things out. Yobol (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you take organic farming seriously, Yobol? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, have you seen the feedback on this article? Comments as The article is one sided, slanted towards big agri-business. Studies have shown that consuming pesticides over a long period of time is harmful to one's health. This article denies this., This is not an objective page., Very one sided and you dont have real informnastion make clear that there IS a problem with this article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that not every claim in this article needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Not even every scientific claim needs it.  But we really do benefit our readers by insisting on WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for health claims, and claims about health effects on humans of organic vs. non-oragnic food clearly falls in the realm of health claims.    23:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We do our readers a great disservice if we violate our own guidelines and policies to please random people on the internet. Our role is not to write to please people in our feedback; it is to write a good article based on our policies, no matter if some readers personally find the final results biased. Yobol (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, Yobol. We are here to write a good and reliable article that offers the public a complete view on the subject. Not a one-sided affair, hijacked by a silly WP:MEDRS-guideline that will never, never, never permit an objective article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we are here to write a complete article as dictated by the reliable sources. For health claims, that means MEDRS compliant sources. Once again, we don't include sources that are not reliable just because they mention a different point of view. Yobol (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When is that decided? By whom? Do you have links to a vote or RfC? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, with consensus. The consensus is clear that WP:MEDRS applies to all health claims. You can certainly try to adjust that consensus at WT:MEDRS, though it is doubtful it will work. Yobol (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Yobol. I don't want your personal opinion. I want facts. So: When is that decided? By whom? Do you have links to a vote or RfC? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. If you are asking when MEDRS was decided to govern sourcing for health claims, that would be when it was promoted to guideline status by the community. See WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let me spell it out: you use this WP:MEDRS as a policy, carved in stone and protected by the whole Russian and American Army together. In fact, it is nothing more then a guideline. Guidelines are not mandatory, as policies are. But you, and your friends, use it as such.
 * What makes you so afraid of alternative sources? Agricultural research on universities is just as reliable as any other research done by universities. It is only published in other journals. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-MEDRS are by-and-large inferior sources when it comes to health information. When an article is published in a journal outside its scope, and that information conflicts with results published in more relevant journals, that is a huge red flag. You have two choices at this point: attempt to get WP:MEDRS changed to fit your personal view, or attempt to get consensus here that WP:MEDRS does not apply or that that article is appropriate as a source.  Either way, further discussion about this seems like a waste of time at this point. (I note that you conspicuously left out of your multiple Wikiproject notices that you left out Wikiproject Medicine, the one Wikiproject with the most experience with WP:MEDRS.) Numerous other editors have stated they do not feel your interpretation of MEDRS is correct or that that article should not be used.  Yobol (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that, mr. Yobol? Can you really prove that agricultural sources about food health and safety are really inferiour in quality? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not wasting more time on this. If you can get consensus that this source is allowable, it goes in. If you can't, it won't. Further repetition on my end does not appear to be an efficient use of my on-wiki time. Yobol (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you have no facts to prove your stance. That is now clear enough. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So, if I finds books supporting that organic food is safe and healthy, they are allowed? According to Yobol restore; books aren't indexed in pubmed, so not finding them there is not a reason to remove. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Books that meet WP:MEDRS can certainly be used (see the section on books). In this case, the author of the book in question is Robert Blair, who has quite the resume, and is published in an academic publisher (Wiley-Blackwell). If the authors have significant academic credentials such as Blair's, and is published by an academic publishing company, certainly it can be considered for addition. Yobol (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should start reviewing your own sources a bit. By now, I have seen several who are unable to say that organic food is healthier or safer. Unfortunately, most of them claim that there are not enough well-controlled studies performed, to make a valid claim. Could you look at the sources and change the text accordingly? Thanks. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article says neither is significantly healthier or safer, which is what our sources say. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Yobol (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Kouba and Bourn stated that there was in fact just not enough research done to give a clear verdict. And I have found that by now also in other articles. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If there has not been enough research (i.e. evidence) to show a difference, then that's what we say (there is no significant evidence of a difference). Perhaps you should read null hypothesis. Yobol (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try. But what I read as statement from the authors in those article is plain: "I don't dare to say it is safer/healthier or not. based on the available research, I just don't know." Or, you can't prove it and you can't deny it. Would you have the same outcome when you allow the use of agricultural peer-reviewed university published studies into organic food? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no idea what you're talking about. And since we're back to talking about non MEDRS sources, I'm back to recognizing this as a waste of my time. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And again, no arguments. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your statement is so generic as to be meaningless. If you find a book it will be judged on its merits of being a reliable source of medical information. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Switch of you tunnelvision, IRWolfie. You are talking about food, not about medicins.
 * And secondly, I am not impressed by your threats on my talkpage to take me to AN/I when I go on giving Yobol a hard time. Those threats are incivil and agressive on its own. I can understand that you want to scare me away, but that is not going to happen. This threat only confirm me that that you lack proper arguments. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Details of specific POV issues?
TheBanner appears interested in placing POV tags on this article, but this Talk page does not detail specific POV issues and how they can be remedied. A tag like the POV tag needs active Talk page discussions that provide specific detail about the concerns and how they can be remedied, so that the problems can be addressed and the tags removed. This is especially true for an article-wide tag, which indicates that an editor is concerned that the entire article has significant POV problems. TheBanner pointed to the WP:MEDRS and Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussions, but they do not provide specific, actionable detail about the apparent POV concerns. The WP:MEDRS section discusses which sourcing guidelines should be applicable, and the Removal of "Health and Safety" section discussion has wandered into off-topic territory. There are no active Talk page discussions to support the POV tags. If the tags are replaced, please open a Talk page discussion and provide specific detail about actionable concerns. Cheers... 04:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you kill off this discussion is evidence on its own that you don't want a different opinion and different sources in the article. Excluding different opinions is favouring specific opinions = POV. Look up the now removed section about homeopathy and the strong POV statement attached to it. As long as this article is hijacked by a narrow opinion about valid sources, it will never be neutral. But I surrender to the CABAL. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong POV? You added unsourced claims that homeopathy works; in direct contradiction to the body of sources about homeopathy. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Instead of twisting my words, you could have read properly what I wrote The Soil Association's organic standards encourage the use of effective homeopathy and prevention on livestock, using veterinary medicines only in emergencies. That is a neutral comment about what the Soil Association recommends in her Organic Standards. You can look that up in the source given in the article. But is was you coming up with POV-statements as "There is no such thing as effective homeopathy" and "However, homeopathy is not effective in treating any disease.". What you do, is adding an opinion to a statements available on paper and on the internet in sources provided by the Soil Association. You can read it yourself when your are willing to make the effort. The point of effectiveness of homeopathy is in this context irrelevant and POV. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? "The point of effectiveness of homeopathy is in this context irrelevant and POV" but it's you that added "effective" before "homeopathy" in the article.
 * Reliable sources are quite clear that homeopathy is not effective, and the mention of the Soil Association's support of homeopathy was hinting at one of the problems with the world of organic food; I'd avoided hammering the point home, but if readers are missing that point, then I would happily flesh it out a bit more, to make clear the disconnect between the Soil Association's beliefs and reality. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1) the "effective homeopathy" is a quote from their organic standards. 2) when you want "to make clear the disconnect between the Soil Association's beliefs and reality" you are judging the Soil Association in the wrong place. Do that in the article about the Soil Association, but in this article it is irrelevant and POV as it is discrediting organic food on a minor detail. Shall we judge Bill Clinton over the fact that he gave away some underpants and recorded them as gifts for charity on his tax returns and call him a tax cheater? Come on. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You think if the soil association thinks homeopathy is effective that means we should so it's effective? Have I summed that up correctly? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Switch off your tunnel vision, Wolfie, that is not what I say. What is said is: In her organic standards the Soil Association is referring to "effective homeopathy". You can quote that, if you like. But this article is not the place to make a judgement over homeopathy. When they believe homeopathy can be effective, fine. They have the right to think and say that. But this article is not the place to judge the effectiveness of homeopathy. The Soil Association made a statement, and we should state that (or leave it out) without any further comment or opinion about it. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You added text specifically saying homeopathy is effective despite that being contrary to the most reliable secondary sources. Do you deny that? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I added a quote out of the Organic Standards of the Soil Association in which they mentioned "effective homeopathy". I did not say homeopathy is effective as my own opinion, I quoted. It was your judgement about the ineffectiveness of homeopathy that is out of place. In this context it is irrelevant to add a statement about the ineffectiveness, as the wikilink to homeopathy would make that clear enough. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC) And please, could you refrain from seeing edits wars when there are no edits war going on?


 * I find the comment "And please, could you refrain from seeing edits wars when there are no edits war going on?" a little odd considering the article has been locked by an admin due to the edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not odd: Protection request: no 3RR and your warning. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There was definitely edit-warring, which is why the admin protected the article. If there were not any edit-warring, the admin would not have protected it.  There wasn't a 3RR violation, but a 3RR violation is not required for there to be edit-warring.  If there were 3RR violations happening I would have filed a report at WP:3RRNB and there probably would have been blocks.  It is better for the article to be protected and for us to discuss the issues here on the Talk page instead of editors getting blocks, isn't it?    19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do no see any editwarring, but I do see a serious content dispute. And I am not afraid of blocks or threats of blocks, a neutral Wikipedia is far more important. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree on content dispute, that's why hopefully we'll have agreement to go to DR. Based on my experience at Wikipedia, the edit history of the article page demonstrated edit-warring, and the fact that an admin full-protected the article for 10 days confirms it.  As an academic exercise, ask admin CambridgeBayWeather for his input on it, as he was the one who reviewed the RFPP and subsequently protected the page.    20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Article protection
The article has been locked down due to the above dispute, and the last alternative version to the current, locked version contains the following paragraph. This version is one which I edited to restore a valid viewpoint and restore a POV balance to the article, BUT also changed from previous versions to clearly state who holds the position, dates, and other information to allow readers to draw their own conclusions from the data. I also made some small edits to other paragraphs to remove unnecessarily POV adjectives and create more neutral language. I removed two sentences sourced to dead links, these changes were also reverted. There appear to be no arguments presented above other than an insistence that MEDRS must be followed in this instance. However, that is an argument that makes no sense, as the MEDRS literature is already covered in the article and their dismissal of the organic food industry is well-discussed. As one the very core issues in the organic food industry is this very health and safety concern, to not discuss it at all in the article is to have the article have serious NPOV problems. It is my position that it is simplistic in the extreme to provide only the negative view without the positive view as well, and MEDRS is not an appropriate limitation on sources, though, clearly, such sources are, of course, preferred when available. Therefore, I recommend restoring the following paragraph, or, in the alternative, a similar expression of the concern raised by supporters of organic food, with reliable sources per WP:RS. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

However, a 1989 peer-reviewed study sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk. A 2012 risk assessment estimated that cancer benchmark levels in preschool children were exceeded for several toxic substances and recommended consumption of organic foods as one strategy for reducing risk. Proponents of organic food express concern that children are being exposed to hazardous levels of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In 1989, NRDC estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life. In a study conducted on children and adults in California, consumption of conventionally grown foods was associated with excessive cancer benchmark levels for all children for DDE, which was primarily sourced from dairy, potatoes, meat, freshwater fish, and pizza. -- Please discuss below. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I had added the original version of the paragraph - from viewing the article's history I guess it's not surprising it was immediately removed. Essentially I think it's absurd that a long article on the pros and cons of organic food not contain a single sentence about pesticide resides potentially being a BAD thing when there's a large set of evidence that it is (that's published and peer-reviewed). I agree there's also many published studies suggesting it's safe but the article as it is written currently is obviously extremely biased against the benefits of organic food. Why would ONLY reviews (per a strict application of MEDRS) be allowed here, when it clearly isn't in any number of highly related articles (on specific pesticides and their health effects when ingested as residues, for starters)? Krem1234 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Montana, first, let me commend you at starting this conversation. Honestly we're at an impasse here if there is still an insistence on using non-WP:MEDRS sources to try to support medical claims in articles. Having those claims carefully couched and qualified and attributed does not, in my evaluation, get past the WP:MEDRS requirement. I'd suggest we take it to dispute resolution as a start, because I don't see anybody here being convinced yet by the arguments of others. The center of the argument appears to be: Are the WP:MEDRS sourcing requirements in effect for medical claims in non-medical articles? I believe the Wikipedia consensus is Yes. We have 10 days until the article is unprotected, and we could be well along in making progress at WP:DR by then. 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the application of MEDRS is necessary at all. You are talking about food here, not medicines or healthcare. But dispute resolution and/or an RfC might be a good way to start. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you'd be OK with either, I'd prefer DR, as it should get us to a clear result faster.  20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have written it differently: dispute resolution including an RfC. I like to see outside input about the question if WP:MEDRS should be applied on food-articles or that WP:RS is sufficient. That question is in fact the source of the dispute. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope we can at least agree on how to phrase the issue for DR, then (or probably Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). As I see it, the issue is first if MEDRS should be applied to THIS article? (irrelevant as to other food or agriculture articles, unless we really want to spend six months of dramah dealing with that question - I don't)   Then I would refine this question further:  if it does at all, then should MEDRS apply to the article a)  in its entirety (i.e farming methods, chemistry questions, etc.) ; b) only for "medical" or "health" claims (whatever those are);  and if B applies, then c)  Is the question of pesticide residue entirely a medical claim subject to MEDRS in the first place or is it also a non-medical question involving politics and other issues (and if so, are these relevant to balance the NPOV of the article)? To me, the concern that pesticides in non-organic foods are harmful is akin to early claims that smoking is linked to lung cancer; mainstream researchers debunked those until the Surgeon General started looking at it.  Most such concerns are raised long before there are sufficient mainstream studies to verify or debunk them.  My own position is stated in MEDRS:  "sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." (My emphasis)   Montanabw (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DRN? Why not just ask at WT:MEDRS. People seriously want to include non-MEDRS sources about cancer risks? If so, an RfC is easy: "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer". IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice twist, Wolfie, but that is not the case. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 03:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you disagree that claims about cancer risk where being added without using MEDRS sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant question, Wolfie. I was not adding information about cancer risks. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * : "However, a number of studies have identified an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk." That is explicitly information about cancer risks. You even used the word cancer risks. It's also a synthesis. You are using something from 1989 to counter something much later. More: "it was estimated that 5,500 to 6,200 of the current population of American preschoolers may eventually get cancer "solely as a result of their exposure before six years of age to eight pesticides or metabolites commonly found in fruits and vegetables." This estimate was based on conservative risk assessment procedures, which indicate that greater than 50% of an individual's lifetime risk of cancer from exposure to carcinogenic pesticides used on fruit takes place during the first six years of life." IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Any material that is health related falls under MEDRS, whether it is about medications or not. Note that those who are judging the NPOV of the material in this article based on their own personal interpretation of what they feel should be in the article, rather than letting the high quality secondary sources (in this case MEDRS) dictate the WP:WEIGHT of this article, have it exactly wrong.  We use sources to dictate NPOV, not use our own views on the subject dictate which sources "should" be in the article to "balance" the POV. Yobol (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your interpretation, Yobol, and it is a rather narrow interpretation. What you do is giving undue weight to one type of sources (the medical sources), while completely ignoring other high quality reliable sources. By ignoring/outlawing agricultural sources in an article about food, you make the articles inherently POV. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Present the high quality secondary reviews that meet WP:MEDRS and we can talk. The sources you want to use don't qualify, so you try to shoehorn other sources in, or badly misread WP:MEDRS to justify bad sources. You start with finding good sources. You don't start by finding sources that meet the POV you want to push and try to push it into the article. Yobol (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) It sounds like you are proposing that because this is an article about food, and not some medical topic, WP:MEDRS should not apply. However, the WP:MEDRS guideline, which was promoted to guideline status four years ago, is not limited to articles about straight medical topics.  From the guideline:"Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."Clearly the guideline is not limited to biomedical information only in medical articles, but "in articles," meaning, all Wikipedia articles.  Food is eaten by humans and affects human health.  The claims that were being proposed here were clearly biomedical claims, and WP:MEDRS applies.    04:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having no particular horse in this race, and being a regular editor of articles on both medicine and some natural world topics, it strikes me that applying MEDRS here can only lead to an inherent POV bias, by excluding highly relevant articles which are published in reputable journals other than those strictly termed 'medicine'.  This has the effect of introducing systemic bias, and some of tha arguments given above like "Should we use non-MEDRS sources to make claims about what causes cancer" are facetious and unhelpful to achieving a solution.


 * I would seem to me that, like other controversial topics, that the only suitable resolution is to lay the controversy out by mentioning appropriate peer reviewed journal articles which claim that an issue exist, and then setting out the review articles which run contrary. Not mentioning important theories is like talking about the MMR vaccine whilst not mentioning that article (which of course the article, part of the medicine wikiproject, does).


 * The view that pesticides etc. cause deleterious effects is not WP:FRINGE, as it is widely believed (and I pass no judgement on whether it is correct or not) and widely reported.  As such, it seems entirely reasonable to insert a variation of the paragraph above, although probably with the balanced view in close proximity. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I fact, the move into the cancer-debate is a distortion of the original question. Originally, we were talking about organic food being safer and healthier than conventional grown food, not focused on cancer as Wolfie is doing now. I came across a peer-reviewed article from the Agricultural Department of the University of Newcastle, claiming that organics grown food had some moore goodies than conventional grown food. Shot down, because is did not comply with WP:MEDRS. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC) It would be nice when it was disclosed who was paying for a certain study/research.
 * Our article already discusses pesticide residue in detail (an entire paragraph is dedicated to it). While it mentions some people believe organic food to be safer due to lower pesticide residues, determining the validity of that viewpoint must be based solely on WP:MEDRS compliant sources.  In this case, the available high quality sources state that organic foods are lower in pesticide residues, but probably are not safer as both have pesticide residues lower than determined safe limits.  There is no need to include random primary articles to artificially "balance" (and in this case, skew) the POV. Yobol (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have contributed significantly to the MMR vaccine controversy article, and we mention and discuss "that" article at such length specifically because (not despite) high quality secondary sources (i.e. MEDRS) mention it. We, as editors, don't decide which individual primary articles are important to mention; we allow our high quality secondary sources to determine which are significant, and then we mention them. Yobol (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing your POV here so clearly, Yobol. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your line of reasoning. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. If you think organic food is nonsense, it is hard to be positive about it or see any POV as it just confirming your own personal ideas. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that blanket application of the secondary source rule in this case creates a systemic POV problem, and whilst I appreciate your point about the particular article in question in MMR being pointed to, it was only illustrative. I can see no compelling argument to not use some selected primary articles to illustrate that the view is held by academics, who have produced peer-reviewed articles on the subject. At the moment, the article reads to me as if the only people who believe some of the points of contention discussed are uninformed members of the public, which, from the existence of primary research appears not to be the case. In fact, for at least one section, the point is specifically made in the cited review article that too little evidence exists to make a firm judgement - a clear cut case IMHO to use some primary sources, with appropriate caveats and balance.

In general, the article is full of slightly dubious statements, mostly tipping towards the anti-organic stance, like commenting on the naming convention to say that calling food organic or non-organic is "technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves" without any sort of citation.

With no particular view on whether organic is or is not a desirable trait in food, this article does appear to reflect a clear bias, which judicious use of primary sources, with appropriate copy editing and balance, would do much to correct. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This illustrates my point above about how this view of NPOV is incorrectly arrived at. You read the article, you decided it looked biased to you based on your personal opinion, and then are trying to add studies (even if they violate our guideline on sourcing) to correct the bias. That is manifestly the wrong way to go to develop a neutral point of view. We should be developing a NPOV by reading all the high quality sources and developing a neutral point of view by summarizing those good sources.  For example, we do not add primary studies about how HIV does not cause AIDS to our HIV article because you or I think it is "biased" because it does not mention this; just go by what our high quality sources say. If good high quality sources that meet WP:MEDRS say organic food is safer or more nutritious, then great, let's add them (none have yet been presented).  The absolute wrong approach is for individual editors to decide what bias an article should have before reading the sources, and adding inferior sources to match their own preference. We need to follow the high quality (in this case MEDRS) sources, not push the low quality ones on the article to push a POV.


 * If all the high quality sources say organic food is not significantly safer than conventional food, there just might be a good reason for that, other than perceived bias. Yobol (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you refuse to look at peer-reviewed sources looking at the matter from an agricultural viewpoint, Yobol? Do you think that agricultural departments of universities are second rank research institutions? Did you ever look into the quality of those sources? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They generally don't specialize in cancer risks as far as I am aware. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are more health issues then the cancer risks you so desperately cling on, Wolfie. It is quite likely that agricultural institution know much more about the presence of vitamins in parsnips than no matter what medical journal. And I think (I did not look it up yet) that they will know far more about genetically modified crops and the related health and ecological risks. Would you be willing to remove all health claims out of the article Agent Orange when those sources did not comply to WP:MEDRS? Or would you accept that there is wide coverage about health concerns outside WP:MEDRS-approved sources? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Peer review is not a cure all for reliability, as discussed in WP:MEDRS - there are other factors to consider. If you have a problem with WP:MEDRS, you can discuss that on the relevant talk page. Agricultural journals are generally reliable for agricultural issues (farming techniques etc) while biomedical journals are generally reliable for health related claims. In this case, we are making health claims, so we should be using biomedical journals. I would have the same objection to people using the BMJ for the intricacies of farming, despite its sterling reputation as a biomedical journal. This has been explained to you several times now. Yobol (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be funny to term it this way, but the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines pro-actively demand a "systemic POV problem" slanted toward mainstream, peer-reviewed, reliable secondary sources. If the application of the WP:MEDRS guidelines "slants" an article to present the best-quality mainstream consensus of scholarship about a particular biomedical claim, to the exclusion of sources that do not meet the standard, then we should be pleased with the result.  That is exactly the "POV" the Wikipedia guidelines intend.    16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree with using reliable peer-reviewed articles. I don't think anyone is arguing against that, but that the strict application of the specific terms of MEDRS, which is looking for review articles, rather than individual research items seems inappropriate here.   We should not be pleased with any bias in an article, and at the moment because of this application, it seems to be undue weight for one side, to the exclusion of what appear to be academic articles which meet all the provisions of WP:RS, just not the some authors particular interpretation of MEDRS.  MEDRS has these policies for a good reason - to prevent every tabloid health scare article based on one limited range study making up the content of our articles, but this is applying it beyond its purpose to restrict healthy and relevant sourcing.


 * Now, like I said, I don't have a particular view on this topic (despite Yobol seeming to think so), but I do have a strong view on biased editing. Nobody seems to be denying the other evidence of bias, and phrases like "based mainly on anecdotal evidence and testimonials rather than scientific evidence" don't help as that in itself isn't sourced to anything, and is contradicted by the existence of other peer-reviewed studies which could be mentioned in context. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And a little further, i've been rechecking MEDRS, and actually I think it could support the inclusion of some primary articles (including relevant weight etc. as i've said repeatedly) - "it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning, they should be described as being from a single study." Now that all sounds very fair, and could help address the perceived bias. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whether you have a particular view on the topic, as I am not a mind reader. I do think that your conclusion that the text as is violates WP:NPOV is incorrect for the above mentioned reasons: you have decided that the text is biased, not based on what the best sources say, but due to your own personal preference on what you think it should look like. That is not how we should be writing this encyclopedia. The reason why we don't use primary studies like this is because there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of health related primary studies done on organic studies, and we are not qualified to know which one are important or not based on our own evaluation. We depend on secondary reviews to make that decision for us, and to synthesize that information for us. MEDRS very specifically cautions us against using primary studies to rebut secondary reviews, which is what is being proposed here.


 * BTW, that phrase you mention actually is sourced (Magkos 2006, as indicated in the text) and is a paraphrase from the source (see the 1st and 2nd full paragraphs on page 24). As always, it helps if people actually read the sources before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, the whole terminology is already biased. About a 100 years ago, the whole farming industry was working on a way that today is called "organic farming". What is now called "conventional farming" is a relative recent invention that replaced the traditional style of farming. To remove that change, you have to be rather radical and rename "conventional farming" to "chemical and GMO-farming" and rename "organic farming" to "farming". But that would be such a major culture shock that at this moment the suggestion is not viable. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
OK. Here's the next question: Are we at an impasse? Has anyone changed their position from where they were several weeks ago? We have three or four primary editors and two or three other editors discussing this issue (endlessly) and I don't see anyone's position changing. And the neutral party here is getting accused of bias! Is there any place for a compromise on this issue? The organic food movement is not "fringe" even if it is not "conventional" and therefore, is there a place to carefully outline ALL more-or-less "mainstream" (NRDC is hardly a fringe group, and Monsanto, which funds research to "prove' their products are harmless, isn't exactly NPOV) views with the best sourcing available for each?  Montanabw (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends. Do you think agricultural journals reliable for saying what causes cancer? Yes or no. Do you think adding a synthesis is a good idea? Yes or no. (please stop with the Monsanto conspiracy theories, you were asked for evidence, otherwise stop it) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no hard and fast thing called "proof". There is "evidence."  I have evidence.  You are twisting my words.  Some evidence is better than other evidence, and what WP does is outline what is in the two lanes on either side of the middle of the road, but considers stuff that drifts over the fog line as WP:FRINGE.  Here, we just have info on one side of the road, and not the other.  "Mainstream" science denied the tobacco-cancer link for decades.  "Mainstream" science also once asserted with great certainty that the earth was the center of the universe.   Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I asked for your misinformed rant about tobacco cancer and the "evils" of science. I asked a specific question. Do you think agriculture journals are reliable for saying what causes cancer. Yes or no. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's your Monsanto info: evidence that Monsanto Corporation funds these studies that "debunk" organic food benefits. And, also add Cargill. There are other sources confirming the funding bias. There are also peer reviewed sources on the health risks of pesticides that can meet the MEDRS standard that are being completely ignored, see also, and Please don't tell me that a Presidential Report from NIH and another one won't pass muster here! Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "motherearthnews", "The Cornucopia Institute". Are you serious. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For a journalistic exposé that Monsanto and Cargill fund "studies" to debunk the dangers of pesticide use, absolutely! Let's also add reports from Huffington, and a discussion of methodological flaws from CBS News. My point is that your so-called "perfect" studies are as loaded with propaganda and bias as something from Greenpeace.  Peer-reviewed journals in fields other than medicine have much to offer, particularly when they have unbiased research that can't be traced to agribusiness.  Montanabw (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are using shoddy sources and claim this indicates anything. So what if EWG complained? Do you think they are remotely trustworthy for anything? Do you think a partisan group which isn't publishing peer reviewed material is somehow more reliable than the actual peer reviewed material (in a relevant journal that is)? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's reverse this: Do you think Monsanto and Cargill are "remotely trustworthy" for anything that prevents a cut into their profit margin? If you really think you can believe that they have the "truth", then shall we discuss pro-corporate bias? And don't you think that exposing peer-reviewed research as corporate-funded is not relevant?  "Peer-reviewed" does not equal "gospel from God and thus correct."  Even the 2006 study cited in this article (I just finished skimming the actual article) states the limits to their review and urges more research.  So yes, if a "partisan" group (Monsanto OR NRDC) points out flaws and errors in the other side's work, isn't that what NPOV is all about?  Showing both sides, explaining the quality of the evidence, and giving the reader balanced information with which to draw their own conclusions? I ask you again:  Are two reports from the NIH also "shoddy sources"?   (And Wolfie, did you REALLY call psychotherapy a "pseudoscience" as is alleged in that RFC going on?  Yes or no...)  Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We aren't using monsanto.com as a source. What monsanto funded source are you referring to. Point it out specifically so I can have a look at it. Did I call psychotherapy a pseudoscience? No I didn't, what the hell are you talking about, and what bearing does it have here? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think any credibility you had just went out the window by defending yourself using those sources. Seriously there are peer reviewed review articles that examine pesticide use and cancer, why are you resorting to ones that have no hope in hell of being used. Your anti science approach is not really helpful either, mainstream science is why we know the earth is not the centre of the universe. How about this, it says that "consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria." Haven't look inside in any detail, but surely you would be better off using these sources to base your argument on rather than motherearthnews. AIR corn (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable source? With this quote: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is an accurate summary of current studies, then what is the issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you ask me a review detailing its limitations in the abstract is a pretty good indication that it is reliable. AIR corn (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Passing comment (not watching this page): The disputed text does some unfortunate WP:PEACOCKing of the study. See WP:MEDMOS on writing style. It would be important point out the age of the study (You want us to highlight a study from 1989? Really?  Twenty-three years ago?), but the stuff about it being "peer-reviewed" and details like where the people live, is inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim that conventional agricultural methods lead to cancer while organic farming does not is a medical claim and therefore comes under MEDRS. Indeed Monsanto and other companies fund studies, but the reliability of these studies is how they are received by the scientific community, not who funded them.  We can always find isolated studies whose findings contradict mainstream thinking and we normally exclude them unless we can establish that they are noteworthy, in which case secondary sources will explain the degree to which they are accepted.  TFD (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Every claim that "something" causes cancer, can be dismissed straight away. At best you can say that that "something" gives a higher risk at cancer. But you should not lock the health claim on the risk of cancer, as there are far more factors involved in "healthy food" than the presence of "bad things". (sorry, not gonna try to find the right names) There are a lot of substances just working on the natural defenses of a person, thus enhancing the ability to fight off nasty diseases as the common cold and the flu. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW the recent study by the "Stanford researchers" which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and is used as a source that organic food is no more nutritious or safe, does not appear to meet MEDRS either. It is not a peer-re viewed report, but an article written for a doctors' magazine.  And its conclusions have not been substantiated, although they have been widely reported in the media.  TFD (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, what? Annals of Internal Medicine is one of the most prestigious medical journals, having an Impact factor around 16 (placing it in the top 5 of all general medical journals, in the same league as BMJ, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine), is clearly peer reviewed and MEDLINE indexed. Your assessment of this journal could not be more off base. (Doctor's magazine? Seriously?) Yobol (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just briefly glanced at the magazine. They provide a variety of types of articles, and has you point out this report was peer-reviewed.  But I wonder if this is missing the point.  According to "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", there have been significant reductions in the nutritional value of vegetables.  "We suggest that any real declines are generally most easily explained by changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content."  TFD (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest following the citations through, the first one states that there is insufficient evidence that there is nutritional differences. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * True, they say that, Wolfie. But they also say that it is likely not to be caused by how you grow, but by what you grow. Ergo, this source is useless for any healthclaim. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be assuming that there is something we should be saying about health claims. If the sources (and the MEDRS ones specifically) say not enough evidence, then that's what we should say. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)