Talk:Organic food/Archive 3

Suggestion for an RfC question
It looks loud and clear that all parties are entrenching them. So, unlikely this is goning to be solved by discussion alone. I have suggested a RfC earlier, so here it is again.

The suggested question is: Is it necessary to apply strict sourcing according to Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to the article Organic food? The Banner talk 14:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this discussion of how we should phrase the RFC so that it is within Wikipedia guidelines. However the wording proposed is problematic as it is not specific enough:  The issue isn't that there is concern that WP:MEDRS must be applied to the whole article, but specifically to biomedical claims made within the article.    14:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * adding: It would be very helpful to provide a list of specific statements being made by the article, or being proposed for the article, plus the exact non-WP:MEDRS source proposed for use for each statement.    14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Partly, just partly, I agree with you. The new suggestion is Is it necessary to apply strict sourcing according to Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to the section about health and safety section of the article Organic food or are sources acoording to Identifying reliable sources enough?''
 * I do not agree with your proposal to add a lot of clutter to the question. A short explanation pointing to the prior discussions will be enough. Cherry picking statements will distract from the question at hand and can easily distort the discussion. But the explanation would not be part of the question, just a reading advice. The Banner talk 14:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you then agreeing without qualification that WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical claims made in all other sections of the article besides the Health and safety section?
 * We really need to provide at least like 2 or 3 examples of exact article content + sources for this RFC to be productive. Can't we do it in a very simple, clean way?  Without specified sources + content, there will be no clear consensus for any action at the article, and that's the whole point of the RFC, isn't it?    15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Summerized: no, no. At the moment, non-MEDRS sources are blocked out of the article. Then adding MEDRS sources into the question makes the question immediately biased towards MEDRS. So, in my opinion, it is not possible because we need a neutral question. The Banner talk 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's my proposed RFC question:
 * Should all biomedical content in this article be required to have sourcing that complies with WP:MEDRS? Specifically, should WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing be required for such article content as:
 * "There is an association between consumption of pesticide residues from conventionally grown food and cancer risk."
 * "Cancer benchmark levels for several toxic substances have been found to be exceeded in preschool children, and consumption of organic foods is recommended as one strategy for reducing risk."

Thoughts? 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Plain biased towards MEDRS, sorry. The Banner talk 17:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If we can't even agree on how to phrase the RFC, how about going to dispute resolution then?   17:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You can try. But I think I am going to launch the RfC as in my original suggestion. Take it or leave it. The Banner talk 21:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * DR will not work if you will not agree to do it. You can post your RFC as stated, of course, but surely I and others will be active in the RFC discussion bringing up exactly these points.  We have to agree together on a path to consensus.    21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you say that you are willing to sabotage the RfC to have it your way? You are not even trying to compromize? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not trying to compromise"?? I have already agreed that not every claim in the article needs WP:MEDRS, just the biomedical ones, and you rejected that as insufficient.  I suggested we take it to Dispute Resolution, an idea that Montanabw was willing to work with, but you rejected it.  I agreed to your counter-proposal to start an RFC, pointed out difficulties with how your RFC propsal was worded and suggested that it include both specific proposed content and sources, and you rejected that.  I then met you halfway regarding my suggestion that the RFC have both wording and sources, and agreed to have the RFC provide only proposed new article wording (no sources), you rejected that.  I then suggested DR again, and you rejected that, saying that you intend to start your own RFC your way with your own wording, "Take it or leave it." I think it would be very hard for an outside observer to our exchange here to come to the conclusion that I'm the one unwilling to compromise.  I could be a WP:DICK right now and start my own RFC here using my wording, but I'm not going to do that because it would be uncollaborative.  I am genuinely in good faith trying to work with you to find agreement on at least a path we can take that will be productive and lead to consensus so that we all do not revert back to the same edit-warring that was happening. The RFC as you are suggesting it above will not be productive because it is not specific enough.  Try this thought exercise:  Let's say you start the RFC and you have 100% Support !votes.  For what exact article change can you then say there is support?  None.  With your wording, the RFC would be an unproductive use of editors' time.  Pointing this out in an RFC with wording as you have suggested would not be "sabotage."  13:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The effect will be that also non-MEDRS sources can be used to support health and nutrition claims, making it possible to create a far more balanced article than the present one. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying then that if the RFC as you've stated it were to pass, you would be able to have the article state, "Organic food cures cancer." cited to a single peer-reviewed, PUBMED-indexed 1963 study done on rats?  15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you know you are talking plain nonsense now? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The point being: Instead of reaching for the stars here, and attempting to see if there is consensus support from the community for the most extraordinary statement supported by the weakest source (which is indeed included in the scope of the very broad RFC statement you are proposing), why not put forward a specific statement, and a specific source?  You would have a much greater chance of having your RFC succeed if it has a smaller scope. However, I feel like my good-faith efforts here are not being taken seriously.  The article is protected for another week, do what you need to do, let's see how far it gets.    18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never said that I want to outlaw MEDRS-sources. The RfC as suggested, makes it possible to add non-MEDRS sources. But it still should be reliable sources. Sourcing a statement with a quote of the website www.moongrow.ie (really exists) is plain nonsense. But an article, published by the Agricultural Department of the University of Whoknowswhere in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, should be allowed as source. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK an article published by a researcher at a university in a peer-reviewed scientific journal... good I'm with you so far, but we need to go all the way there... what kind of article? Results of a primary research study, or a review article?  Supporting what kind of article content, a statement about the effect of a certain kind of farming method on crop yields, or a statement that food grown in a certain way has this-or-that nutritional or health consequences in humans?  (And I hate to even point it out, but are you aware of WP:SCIRS?)    18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not aware of the very existence of WP:SCIRS. I will take a closer look at it later. I just took a glimps on it, good enough to see Respect primary sources. A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I will come back on this tomorrow. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not skip past "Respect secondary sources" (relevant quote, "scientific information in Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources") and "Use up-to-date evidence". Have a good one...   18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I only took a quick look. Yes, WP:SCIRS seems to be a step into the right direction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything about agriculture. So, I have asked there. No answer yet. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At best, my friend, you can say something about the risk of developing cancer, positive or negative. I would be very surprised when such an article even existed. I would be evenly surprised when there was a study that plain told that Agent Orange and RoundUp are the single source of diseases. But health is not alone about getting severe diseases. I can very well imagine (I did not do any research at this moment) that there will be sources out there that say that organically grown vegetables have more substances that are beneficial to the natural resistance against diseases compared with chemically grown vegetables. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for an RfC question - break 1

 * I think the issue is that the article does not appear to be balanced and we should address that rather than getting distracted by details. The lead for example says that organic food is equivalent to conventionally produced food in terms of safety, nutrition and taste, which is misleading, and ignores other reasons people buy organic food.  TFD (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree the article has other, serious problems... just trying to work through one at a time...  13:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Misleading in what way? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To use an example, an organic chicken from Wholefoods tastes better than an ordinary chicken from a large grocery store chain and probably has better nutrition. However a chicken of the same breed as the organic chicken raised in a similar manner will be indistinguishable from an organic one, except perhaps for trace amounts of chemicals well below unsafe levels.  And farmers who raise superior meats are increasingly obtaining organic certification.  Saying that there is no difference in taste between organic and non-organic is only telling part of the story.  TFD (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. You appear to be deciding the way things are beforehand without any sources (OR). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need a citation for every hiccup on the talkpage, Wolfie. And to put your opinion into perspective: it was a good idea of you to state that you are part of WikiProject Rational Skepticism. As organic food is clearly not mainstream science, it is clear that we can never ever convince you. And as such, I will not bother to even try... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop the bad faith charactertizations. Wikiproject rational skepticism is just a project that covers a specific subset of articles. I'm also a member of wikiproject astrology. What do you infer from that? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm also a member of WikiProject Ottoman Empire; but I try not to show any bias towards the farming methods used in 18th century Anatolia.
 * Deciding that the content is "biased" and then engineering a change in sourcing rules in order to support your preferred content is back-to-front. (Although, admittedly, it's been a problem on other articles covered by Wikiproject rational skepticism, so IRWolfie knows the drill). Sources should determine what we say about the topic; not the other way round. bobrayner (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree that all sourcing must pass WP:RS. But I soubt if WP:MEDRS is the right measure to judge the sourcing for an articlle about organic food. Zad68 suggested a look at WP:SCIRS, and that seems to be better (although not perfect). Main problem at the moment, but I did file a request for clarification, is that is says nothing about agriculture, only biology. I hope to get an answer soon, so we can go on. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not ok for the claims about cancer. That still needs MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Banner, sorry, I am afraid you have misinterpreted my mention of WP:SCIRS. I did not at all mean that WP:SCIRS is a Wikipedia guideline that could be used an alternative to WP:MEDRS for sourcing for for biomedical claims.  WP:MEDRS is the Wikipedia guideline that covers the sourcing for biomedical claims in all Wikipedia articles, including this one.  I mentioned WP:SCIRS in reference to sourcing guidelines for scientific but non-medical claims.  For example, any claim in this article regarding the health effects of organic vs. conventional food must have WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, but non-medical scientific claims, such as claims regarding the efficiency of organic vs. conventional farming, must be WP:SCIRS-compliant.  I apologize for any confusion I may have caused you by not being clear.    00:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie, I can only access one of the two sources for the claim that there is no significant difference in taste between organic and conventionally grown food, Organic Production and Food Quality. It actually says that organic chicken does taste different from conventional chicken and is higher in healthy fatty acids and other nutrients (pp. 147-149).  However, the source also mentions an experiment by Zhao et al. (2007), where vegetable produce was grown organically and conventionally on side by side plots, and a panel of 100 consumers was unable to distinguish the taste (pp. 51-52).  But as explained in "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", there were "changes in cultivated varieties between 1950 and 1999, in which there may be trade-offs between yield and nutrient content".  There is no reason to assume that organic farmers would use the varieties developed for conventional farming, especially since traditional varieties have more nutrition.  Sorry that I assumed that the chicken from Whole Foods tasted better, I thought it was common knowledge.  But the success of KFC may mean I am in a minority.  TFD (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what way you are reading that book because the conclusions seem to suggest the opposite (taste differences with vegetables and fruits, not chicken). The book has a section called "Conclusions", pg 259, where it says: "Organic and conventional foods are fairly similar in terms of their nutrional quality and freedom from harmful chemical residues". On taste, it includes a quote from an organic group: "Most studies that have compared taste and organoleptic quality of organic and conventional foods report no consistent or significant differences between organic and conventional produce. However among the well-designed studies with respect to fruits and vegetables that have found difference, the vast majority favour organic food." I don't have access to the rest of that section, so I can't see what he concludes. What is the relevant of mentioned the "Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999", it appears to be your own original research that this has any impact or relevance to taste. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, all the references supporting the statements that organic food is no different in terms of taste, safety and nutrition either lack any page references or are sourced to wide page references. In the case of taste, for example, there is a reference to  Organic Production and Food Quality, but not which page of that book supports the statement.  Could you please add the page references so that we can move on.  TFD (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OR refers to claims added to articles, there is no injunction against discussing what claims are made by sources and where claims are not clear we should search for clearer ones. The source clearly says that organically raised animal products taste different and have more nutrition than conventionally raised ones.  Therefore the statement that there is no difference between organically and conventionally raised food is wrong.  The source you could not find about fruit and vegetables is on pp. 51-52 as I clearly stated, and can be found by clicking here.  That claim appears to be that the same varieties of fruit and vegetables are indistinguishable regardless of the growing process.  Whether or not it is realistic to assume that organic farmers grow the same varieties as conventional farmers however is not something that we should assume without evidence and it would be helpful to find a comparison between what conventional and organic farmers actually grow.  It is a fact that conventionally grown produce today is less nutritious than food grown in the past.  Whether or not organic farming has corrected this is something that should be included in the article.  But of course we need sources.  TFD (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You said, "It actually says that organic chicken does taste different from conventional chicken and is higher in healthy fatty acids and other nutrients", the text I showed from the reference does not support that; please include a quote to that effect from the source so that I can see (I do not have access to the page you mentioned). The text on page 51 does not support there being any major difference in taste; rather that any difference is due to freshness of any particular produce, whether or not its organic (the text I pasted earlier was a quote from an organics group, not the authors of the book as I noted). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this link to pp. 147- On p. 147, it says "Differences in meat quality have nevertheless been reported."  It then describes a number of studies to support this finding then concludes on p. 150, "As with other classes of farm stock, the trend in organic chicken production is to use heritage breeds rather than fast-growin hybrids and to grow them to higher weights. The research and consumer findings suggest that the result is a slightly tougher meat but with an enhanced flavor that is preferred by some consumers."  If you cannot access this section, other sections on meats reach similar conclusions.  Also, you say "the text on page 51 does not support there being any major difference in taste [for fruit and vegetables]."  I actually said "the same varieties of fruit and vegetables are indistinguishable regardless of the growing process".  I question though whether the typical organic farmer would grow the same varieties as conventional farmers and if there are any studies comparing what is actually grown.  TFD (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It still means that the lead is an accurate broad summary; all things being equal, interchanging organic with non-organic does not noticeably change the taste. If the reason, specific to chicken, is due to different breeds that organic/free range farmers may use then that could be mentioned in the taste section with the reference. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We are going nowhere now...
By now the discussion is absolutely going nowhere. So let us try another approach.

I suggest to split up and reorganize the chapter "Health and Safety" to the following:
 * 1 Food safety
 * 1.1 Proven facts
 * 1.1.1 Safety for producers
 * 1.1.2 Safety for consumers
 * 1.2 Claims and perceptions
 * 2 Positive effects on health?
 * 2.1 Medical view
 * 2.2 Agricultural view
 * 2.3 Claims and perceptions
 * 3 Taste

WP:MEDRS should cover 2.1; WP:SCIRS should cover 1.1 and 2.2; WP:RS should cover 1.2, 2.3 and 3. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide specific proposed article content and sources for 2.2 that would be a representative example of an "Agricultural view" health claim with WP:SCIRS-compliant but not WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing.   16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as an example: . We have to work this out later, as this is just a line of thinking. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a health claim but a claim about nutritional content. I think agricultural science can be accepted for that type of claim, so long as we do not infer that there are any health benefits.  The same goes for levels of toxins.  TFD (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a health claim. It's a claim that the food is healthier or safer. The suggestion that you can claims something is more nutritious or safer but is not a health claim is preposterous. Yobol (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish to add the claim that regular food causes cancer or contains poison you require MEDRS sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I object to this suggestion. The notion that there is a "medical" view and a "agricultural" view about the nutritional effects of food makes no sense - agriculturual views of agriculture are notable, not their view on medical issues. Changing heading from neutral wording such as "nutritional value" to "positive effects on health?" and "proven facts" is a non-starter.  Any significant discussion about safety for growers of organic food belongs in Organic farming, not here.  Any discussion about perceptions needs to be integrated into specific sections (perhaps a separate paragraph in that section) without any hint of implication that those views hold any weight as far as validity is concerned. Yobol (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit says, "[writers of a study] point at the significant higher levels of secondary metabolites and vitamin C. According to the scientists, they found a 12% higher level of secondary metabolites in organically grown vegetable-samples compared with non-organically grown vegetable-samples." Nothing about health or safety and certainly agricultural scientists are competent to analyse the chemical content of agricultural products.  It may be though that there are other reasons why the study should not be included.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not about safety or health then it does not belong in sections called "nutritional value" and "safety", then. The relevance of chemical contents is largely due to their nutritional value and safety (otherewise we wouldn't be talking vitamin content, we would be talking other things).  The cited text was used and phrased specifically to rebut discussion about how organic food are not more nutritious; if we aren't discussing nutrition or safety, we shouldn't be using that text to rebut discussion of it, either. It was clearly the intent of the editor to imply that organic food was more nutritious, despite what WP:MEDRS compliant sources say.Yobol (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Before we start fighting over it, could splitting up the chapter be a useful thing to resolve the problems of this article and the existing disagreements among editors? We can talk about the actual content of the sections later, my suggestion is purely to find a way to make progress in solving the issue at hand. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't we start with one subject, such as your claim that MEDRS doesn't apply to this page, and move on from there once it is resolved. Adding more issues when previous ones are not resolved is not helpful. Yobol (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that some of you rather die than accept other sources. My name is The Banner, not Don Quixote. With the current sourcing-issues of the chapter "Health and Safety", it is clear that we can discuss another 25 years and reach nothing...
 * But should everything present in that chapter be covered by WP:MEDRS? I don't think so. Should health claims always be covered by MEDRS? In my opinion, only when there are clear claims on health issues (i.e. chemical farming causes diseases, organic farming not and that type of claims). Claims that organic food contains more healthy substances, could quite well be covered by scientific reliable sources (WP:SCIRS), no need to apply MEDRS on that. Any claims and perceptions, not backed up by scientific or medical evidence, can go to a seperate section regulated by WP:RS. "Taste" should also be regulated by WP:RS, as taste is rather personal and hard to quantify. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC) BTW: the disappeared nutrition falls in my opinion under 2.2.
 * You specifically added text about cancer risks, you then denied you did this. Do you now accept that this requires MEDRS sources? If health claims aren't backed up by MEDRS, why should we include them. Specifically when they appear to be selected to try and contradict MEDRS content. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not add that claim, I reverted a prior removal. So don't blame me. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for the content you choose to add to articles, whether or not you do it by reverting another editor; you did add the claim, and the diffs show you adding the claim. Do you accept that MEDRS was required? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are deliberately distorting this discussion. Please stop and try to be cooperative. hammering on a point that is not mine, will not work. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All health claims, including discussion about nutrition and safety, need to be sourced to MEDRS, as all health claims should be. If we can't get past this particularly important point of contention, I see no reason to move on, as sourcing is the foundation on which everything else is built on. Nutritional content, with the implication that it organic food is healthier, is obviously a health claim, and attempts at wiki-lawyering around MEDRS is transparent here.  To be clear, any discussion in sections that deal with nutrition or safety should be sourced to MEDRS.  Attempting to get poorer sources accepted to push a POV should not be accepted. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is clear that you use WP:MEDRS as a policy, while it is only a guideline. And on top of that page stand the following text: This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. May I ask your attention to the phrases "is best treated with common sense" and "occasional exceptions may apply". And for your information: you won't find the word "food" in the text. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a guideline, like just as WP:RS is a "guideline". The fact that it is a guideline means it is a generally accepted and has achieved consensus. It seems very common sense to me that health claims about foods are still health claims, and therefore still fall under WP:MEDRS. There is no "food" exception to MEDRS.  You seem to be expending a lot of energy trying to get around WP:MEDRS rather than finding WP:MEDRS compliant source, which in an of itself speaks volumes. Yobol (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion may be a distraction. The Newcastle study was not acceptable because it is a an isolated study and we should use reviews to determine its degree of acceptance before including it.  Presumably though there should be no conflict between the consensus of opinion between agricultural and medical scientists on the levels of vitamin C in fruits and vegetables.  TFD (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors have claimed that MEDRS does not apply to articles about food (see above). Clearly that is incorrect. Until we get a consensus on what sources we should be using, there is no point to further discussions. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is the disputed section:, which is about cancer risks. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop distorting the discussion! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the sole reason you deleted reference to "Cancer and non-cancer health effects from food contaminant exposures for children and adults in California: a risk assessment" is that it failed rs? It was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health and appears on the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, part of the United States National Library of Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.  Does that mean that environmental health articles are never rs for environmental health?  TFD (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also a recent primary study that had not been reviewed by a secondary source, meaning it fails WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS and WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know and we are going in circles. If it were published in a medical journal those same issues would apply.  But IRWolfie's comment implies that the journal cannot be used as a source for claims about environmental health period.  Do you agree with that?  TFD (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that journal (agricultural journals who try to present health related materials, I do have a problem with). I do have problems with the article for the above reasons, as it still fails MEDRS (which is the point I think IRWolfie- was making - The Banner was trying to add a source that failed MEDRS). Yobol (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you have a problem with agricultural peer-reviewed journals making health claims (in the wide sense you like to see)? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For the fiftieth time, agricultural journals are reliable for agricultural information (farming techniques, etc). Medical journals are reliable for medical information (nutritional information). Agricultural journals are no more reliable for medical information than medical journals are how to farm (that is to say, not really reliable). Yobol (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, without looking at content and quality, you disqualify them just based on their field of work. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If material in an inappropriate source contradicts material from an appropriate source, I will dismiss the inappropriate source. If you are trying to add material saying that organic food is healthier, when the MEDRS sources say they are not, you cannot use an inferior source. Sorry.  The problem here is that people are looking for material to back up their conclusion and trying to fit/wikilawyer in those sources any which way they can, rather than do the appropriate thing, which is gather the appropriate sources and summarize them in the article. Yobol (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, in fact you are wikilawyer a whole range of quality sources out because it does not fit in your ideas. You are dismmissing a range of sources of institutions specializing in food and how to produce that, about what is in the products that they research. That is rather weird! It is in fact saying research by Roche Diagnostics is not qualified to feature in article Vitamin C. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And we're back to repeating ourselves over and over. So tiresome. I suggest we move along in the WP:DR process, as further discussion now appears to be headed towards WP:IDHT territory. Yobol (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your obstruction, wikilawering and refusal to look for a solution in this conflict are indeed tiresome. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Banner, are you now agreeing to participate in the WP:DR process? If so, that would be fantastic, and let's get started.    14:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt if it is of any use, seeing the stubborn resistance of Wolfie and Yobol and their total lack of cooperation to solve this by discussion. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is sad, but it is your choice. Everyone here agrees this conversation on this Talk page is not going to end up in unanimous agreement, so further discussion here does not seem productive either.  At this time, there is no consensus for your proposed changes at the article.  Perhaps it's time for all of us to go work on something else.  Cheers...   15:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ho, wait. I sincerely doubt if it will yield any result. I am not unwilling to participate! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I have opened a dispute Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case opened for our discussion at Organic Food.  The direct link to the WP:DRN discussion is:  Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.  Appreciate your participation!  Thanks...   19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Expect slow responses due to real life commitments. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, although please do try to make some kind of comment, no matter how small, to the DR discussion every day. If there isn't visible ongoing participation, the DR folks will close it as 'stale.'    19:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose there was no choice. But oh goody, now we will be debating this for another six months.  Sigh...  Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation closed

 * DR closed, with recommendation to use an RfC - which typically are a month. Before an RfC is opened it would be healthy to discuss proposals for focus, method, and wording. One comment though, until the 20th century all food was organic food, so it is in fact organic food that is "regular food", not the plastic that is sold as food in grocery stores today. FYI, looking over the article, there is a ton of work needed to bring it back up to GA status. Delphi234 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your opinion, although what you're saying would be more appropriate at a forum for discussing History of organic farming rather than here. The scope of this article is food from producers recognized as 'organic' by meeting the appropriate standards of the several governments that establish such.  I guess it's time to draft an RFC.    21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The challenged chapter contains in fact three main subjects: consumer safety, nutritional value and taste. Do they all need MEDRS? I can imagine that a claim by Wolfie that organicically produced food causes cancer surely needs WP:MEDRS. But nutritional value or taste are both not health claims, so should not be covered by MEDRS. Quality sources (at least WP:RS) should be enough for those. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How is nutrition not health a health claim? AIR corn (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutrition and levels of toxins are chemical claims about foods. Whether or not it is advisable to consume or avoid a food based on these levels is medical advice.  For example since, 25 ml of 40% alcohol vodka contains 56 calories, 20 to 40 servings will meet all your daily calorie requirements.  20 to 40 servings taken at one sitting may be fatal, but occassional light usage is not.  It does not become medical advice unless the effects are mentioned.  In this case the calory and alcohol content provides no advice on whether or how to consume vodka.  TFD (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * IN other words, will RS or SCIRS apply some claims, and can we say something like this:  "pesticide residues have been found on conventionally-raised foods. (SCIRS source)"?  And then,  a statement with no medical claims such as "organic food advocates are concerned about pesticide residues on food (RS source)"?  Finally, can we say, "They are concerned (RS to show their position) because some studies (MEDRS source) have linked pesticide exposure to cancer (MEDRS source)?"  Montanabw (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem too bad as long as it is expressed as a viewpoint and ties into the second paragraph of "Consumer safety". AIR corn (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Telling people what is in a vegetable is not a health claim, in my opinion. That is why it is called "nutritional value". Or do you think that "Carrots contain Carotene" is a health claim? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Carrots contain carotene needs a SCIRS source, while saying carrots help prevent cognitive decline due to high levels of carotene would require a MEDRS one. I am not sure about going the Carrots contain carotene (SCIRS) and carotene prevents cognitive decline (MEDRS), therefore carrots prevent cognitive decline route (normal RS source). This seems somewhat analogous to the pesticide/organic situation. AIR corn (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to unprotect the article for the time being. Please be aware that edit warring is a blockable offense.  Please do not make any potentially controversial changes to the article without establishing a consensus first.  <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#774477;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#444444;">| prattle _  22:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to remind everyone what MEDRS says, right at the top of the page (my emphasis added): "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply...." So henceforth, let's also make our comments refer back to whatever section of MEDRS we are invoking, as to simply say "MEDRS" is a nice long page with many caveats and exceptions.   Montanabw (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Like everything else on Wikipedia, common sense always applies, and the proposal that something deserves to be one of the "occasional exceptions" requires consensus support. If there's a proposal that something should be an exception, we'll discuss it and see if there's consensus support for it.    03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wolfie?
Could you please stop adding nonsense to the text? I would say that a conclusion The evidence does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods, although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork may reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. (, p. 11, left column, last paragraphis) is contrary to the statement in the text Reviews of the available body of scientific literature have not found that organic food is any safer or healthier than conventional foods. What you do is plain WP:SYNTH. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with acces to
...this article? Could it be useful for the section about taste? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Full text is right here: link but it's a letter to the editor and can't be used for anything other than the writers' opinions.   01:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a pity. It looked interesting. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks this is in fact the article I am looking for. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't dig into it too deeply, but that looks like an interesting primary source study. On Wikipedia we are looking for secondary sources.  It actually looks like an earlier version of that study (Peck's Masters thesis) was used by Smith-Spanger et al. in  "Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: a systematic review."  Can you find another secondary source that uses it?    03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, secodary sources are preferred, not mandatory. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy at WP:PSTS says:"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."Both WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS have large sections titled "Respect secondary sources" that explains why passing over secondary sources and hand-choosing individual primary results will lead to bad articles. Because there are high-quality secondary sources that cover these topics and in fact reference the individual primary sources you are talking about, there is no reason to use the individual primary sources here.    15:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be useful to explain that I had a short list of examples in mind... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most peer-reviewed articles ARE primary sources if you want to be really strict about it. Seems to me we solve the problem by explaining the context; it is not SYNTH to say:  "X studies in (year) and (year) have concluded Y and Z; however no meta-analysis of these studies has been conducted to date and studies Z and A reached the opposite conclusion; thus a consensus within the scientific community has yet to be reached."
 * It's not a matter of 'being strict about it,' all primary research journal articles are, by definition, WP:PRIMARY. Any journal article where somebody runs an experiment him/herself, collects data, and reports the findings is primary research.  What we want in Wikipedia articles are the review articles and systematic reviews that pull the data from the primary research article results and summarize and analyze them, and provide context and evidence confidence evaluations.  The review articles and systematic reviews are the secondary sources we need to be using.    20:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Check this out: TRIP database...   20:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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

Article improvements - non-controversial?

 * Proposal one: Anyone object if we give all editors until a couple days after Xmas (or maybe a week) to fix or find new cites for all sources tagged "dead link" and if not fixed by then, we toss all material, whatever it says, that has a "dead link" source on it??   Montanabw (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Only when you add dodgy sources like this one to the kicklist: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/11/17/it-s-official-organic-really-is-better.aspx It's Official: Organic Really is Better] Only WP:MEDRS allowed? This looks like a major blindspot (or double standard)  <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting a posting on the website of the alternative medicine practitioner Joseph Mercola, that refers to an unnamed report mentioned in a newspaper article that is no longer available is unhelpful, since it does not meet rs for any articles. TFD (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dead links should not be removed merely because they are dead. See WP:LINKROT. Yobol (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Not to be rude, but WP:LINKROT is only a how-to page, not a guideline or policy and also says nothing about removing deadlinks. So fix the dead links or see them kicked. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed what I can. It's a how to guide describing practice on Wikipedia. You don't get to ignore Wikipedia's practices just because you don't like them. If you don't like the page, get a consensus to change it, but you don't get to ignore it. See also WP:DEADREF. Yobol (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just a manual, nothing to do with policy or guideline. You can throw in as many pagelinks as you want, as long as you refuse to take a sensible approach we will keep clashing. To avoid a further editwar over your POV-pushing, I have requested page protection again. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the article for 10 days, which should give you a break over the Christmas period. How about you set up that RfC and then agree not to edit the article or the talk page for a week or so? — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 17:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Why are the sources for this article measured along Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? Organic food is, as the name says, food, not a medicin. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources used for medical information, in any article, is governed by WP:MEDRS ("specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article"). Since the section you are adding the information to the "Nutritional value and taste" section is obviously health related, so sources used in this section need to meet WP:MEDRS.  The source you want to use, published here has multiple problems. The journal is not MEDLINE indexed, which is a huge red flag for medical journals.  The journal's stated scope is "the areas of cell biology, plant pathology and physiology, genetics, classical botany, and ecology, to practical agricultural applications"; it specifically is not a journal that published medical information.  Using a journal that is out of its stated scope to rebut information from journals that are in medical journals is not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not very likely that an agricultural journal will be indexed by a medical index. So it is blatent nonsense.
 * Secondly, Medline is an American index. This agricultural journal is from the United Kingdom. To my opinion. you try to hijack this article by focusing on the medical side of it, instead of the food side of it. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have informed WikiProject Food and drink of your stance and hope to get some input of them. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's inevitable that an article on organic food will touch on health - since nutrition (or avoiding consumption of pesticides &c) is often perceived to be an advantage of organic food. It's reasonable to expect a MEDRS for that kind of content, especially due to the neutrality problems in this area (there are lots of lower-quality sources making very dubious claims). Outside that - say, content about farming techniques or the economic side - then of course we don't need a MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So you lock out loads of scientific sources, even agricultural science, as soon as it contains health claims? That you need reliable sources, true. That there is a load of garbage disguised als articles, true. But starting to measure ONLY along the lines of a notorious difficult accessible medical index, makes no sense. That gives undue weight to the medical side of the article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking at the papers that cite the one you added. One review says: "The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods", . It comments that your study "reported differences in nutrient levels without assessing the statistical significance of those differences or weighting outcomes by sample size". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of comments to The Banner: 1) Pubmed is an international indexing, not an American one (as would be clear to anyone who searched the index for journals with the word "British" in the title - hundreds of results come up). 2) We should be using medical journals for medical information, and agricultural journals for agricultural information. I would have the same objection if someone tried to use the The New England Journal of Medicine or BMJ for purely agricultural info. Yobol (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that food quality and food nutrition is an agricultural concern, not exclusively a medical one. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * factorfizzle.com appears to be self-published, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, on a second look it did not seem to be very reliable. But the part I added was based on a university study by an agricultural department. Not so likely to be included in een medical index, but, as far as I can tell, not an unreliable source, certainly not in its field of expertise. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


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


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


 * Utter nonsense. Wrong policy. MEDRS is not applicable here, as this isn't a medical article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  16:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The policy says "biomedical information in all types of articles". Whether people who eat organic food are healthier for doing so or not, is biomedical information.  Most importantly, we want the article to be great, to withstand the scrutiny of a person from any side of the debate on this.  I looked over some of this thread that last night...  There seems to be some misunderstandings about what kind of journal can be used under WP:MEDRS.  Toxicology is a very important medical science.  You find individual toxicology studies all over the place -- in ag journals, for instance. You also find individual nutrition studies all over the place.  The journal type is not the focus of WP:MEDRS -- the focus is on stating the scientific consensus, based on the best secondary sources one can find; primary (individual) studies are to be used only with care.   If there is an awesome review of the state-of-science in a reputable ag journal, that is arguably fine under WP:MEDRS.  I hope that helps.   To those who celebrate it, merry christmas; to all - have a great day. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree and thank you. I am having organic prime rib dinner today.  Merry Xmas.  TFD (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no "biomedical" information in this article. This isn't a medical topic, and this isn't a medical article. Pretending otherwise is simply a smokescreen to give cover to a misapplication of policy that favors POV-pushing. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 04:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See the lead, "scientific evidence has not shown a consistent and significant difference between organic and more conventionally grown food in terms of safety [or] nutritional value...." Also the section Organic food. Nutrition and toxicology are medical issues.  TFD (talk) 04:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, but those are not medical claims. This article is about food; it's not about drugs or medical treatment.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You could argue over nutritional value, but food safety is most definately a medical claim. AIR corn (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While the nutritional analysis of food is not medical, whether or not a food is a good source of nutrition is. TFD (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutricion isn't medicine. It's science, but not medicine.  There's a difference.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Medicine is both an art (the practice of medicine) and a science (the study of medicine). See also: clinical nutrition and medical nutrition therapy. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but here the nutritional value is more used as food labelling. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've thought this argument through. Sourcing guidelines for WP:MEDRS are what all of our topics should aspire to regardless of subject matter.  Food labeling refers to organic certification.  Any argument for such food labeling has implicit arguments for human health attached.  This is academic. Instead of fighting against WP:MEDRS, you should embrace it. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Another attempt for the RfC
Progress is by now totally zero, so let us try again. In basic I think we will create a lot of hassle and drama when we try to solve everything with one single RfC. As I have learned years ago, big problems do not exist, they are always clusters of small(er) problems. Without bothering about the exact formulation now, I think the following approach might be useful:
 * Step 1: General clean up and neutralisation of the whole article except the present chapter "Health and Safety"
 * Step 2: A RfC about the question "Does taste need WP:MEDRS sources or can it moved out of the chapter?"
 * Step 3: A RfC about the question "Does nutritional value need WP:MEDRS sources or can it moved out of the chapter?"
 * Step 4: A discussion about the split up of "Consumer safety" in more sections that can be dealed with separately. I think (no suggestions, just a line of thinking) of sections like "Perceived health effects", "Chemical residues", "Health and safety for growers and producers" and so on.
 * Step 5: A RfC about the question "The guideline WP:MEDRS allows exceptions on the general rule. Should Organic food avail of such an exception and allow non-MEDRS sources beside MEDRS-compliant sources?"

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

Peace on earth and let me hear what you think. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I think that the MEDRS guideline discussion may be a diversion. I have not seen anything that should be in the article that the guideline disallows.  Whatever topic we edit about, we should not use old studies that have received no attention or newspaper reports about new studies that have not yet received any recognition.  And certainly we cannot put in our own opinions.  There is also nothing to stop us from reporting claims made by supporters of organic farming provided they have received notice and we are able to report the degree of acceptance of those claims.  And no taste is not a MEDRS issue, but we still need reliable sources that are not just the opinions of isolated writers.  TFD (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should you start searching for alternative sources knowing that Yobol and Wolfie will remove it as soon as possible when it does not meet their own personal standards? They use MEDRS as a policy, while it is only a guideline. They demand secondary sources, while these are only preferred. The latest incident was when Yobol was cherrypicking part of a conclusion to make it more negative than it in fact was. I really try to maintain good faith about them, but they make it seriously tough! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that we have a behavioral problem here with POV-pushing on the part of Wolfie and Yobol that no longer will AGF on Banner's perfectly reasonable edits. The "my way or the highway" attitude needs to go.  I think the only way an RfC has any possibility of resolving anything is to present a clear alternative.  So, to that end, Banner:  My suggestion is that you create a sandbox off your talk page, feel free to send the link if you wish, and then insert the relevant text (or even the entire article) into it, then at your leisure, edit as you see fit, (I will also help, as can others you invite; it's YOUR sandbox) adding high quality sources and doing the cleanup work that is needed.  Then we can basically present option A or option B to the RfC, allowing that both versions may yet be work.  No sense banging our heads against the wall here.   Montanabw (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good way forward; however, for someone like myself who is new to this discussion, I would like to be briefed on the passages in dispute, perhaps with a list of points followed by diffs. The Banner's focus on MEDRS is the wrong way to go.  Whenever possible, we should demand the best sources available.  On the other hand, there are serious conflicts of interest at work, and there is a close relationship between the companies responsible for conventional agriculture and the medical industry, sometimes resulting in propaganda efforts like this—a study by a team of clinicians outside their fields of expertise, allegedly funded by undisclosed agribusiness money from Cargill, cherry picked results, produced a straw man, and then proceeded to knock it down.  This is a classic example of the manufactured uncertainty PR tactic, and it is not surprising that one of the key players from the now debunked uncertainty previously created by the tobacco companies, Ingram Olkin, was on Stanford's team.  No surprise here, folks. Science is not immune from manipulation, but our judicious use of sources will in practice, eliminate bias and spin.  On this point, MEDRS cannot eliminate reliably sourced criticism or counterarguments within their field of expertise. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is nice to see this Huffington-article refer to Kirstin Brandt and her report. Interesting, when I added this report it was shot down by the duo as a non-MEDRS source so unusable... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When you read the talkpage, you can see that it are Yobol and Wolfie who regard MEDRS as the Holy Grail and follow it with complete tunnelvision. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of those lines of inquiry are unproductive. Let us focus only on contributions.  What is the primary point of contention at this time?  Please be specific and brief in your reply.  I am only interested in solving problems not talking endlessly about the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

brief list of some allowed pesticides and herbicides?
Do you think it would be useful to briefly recapitulate the section on pesticides and herbicides in this article? Some of the discussion above is making me think that some of the editors (and therefore probably some readers)  assume that no chemicals are used in organic production and this is not true. as the organic farming article says " Rotenone and pyrethrum are particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish and can induce symptoms resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals." And folks in organic are worried about their use of copper and while they are trying to move away from it, it is still a mainstay. I don't like the blanket statement in the article that chemicals used in organic farming are as toxic as those used in BigAg farming - it needs modulation and as someone noted, a source. But it would help point up the conversation, I think, if we had a listing of the chemicals and their relative toxicites as measured by the EPA. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like OR. Also organic food is big argricultural; it's a highly valuable industry. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not if the list provides sources derived from certifying organisations. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn 't OR, Wolfie, just needs sources. Jytdog is right that a blanket statement like "it's just as toxic" is as blatently POV in tone and phrasing as anything on the other side.  NPOV goes both ways.  The issue for this article is, though, the issue of pesticide residues on the harvested food, so the relevance would be if rotenone/pyhrethrum residues are still on foods and what studies have been done on human health implications.  Keep in mind, Wolfie, that there are, in essence, two "organic food" movements; one is somewhat "big agricultural" though much smaller than mass agribusiness, while the other is the world of the local farmer and small-scale producer.  But for both, the relevant standards do need to be discussed, somewhere, either at the farming article or here.   Montanabw (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need a source that discusses organic farming and pesticides. The article on rotenone says it is being phased out and both articles say they are low risk and degrade quickly.  Mentioning that they are allowed is fine, but you need to establish the degree of their use.  TFD (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Deuce and Wolfie - Of course content has to be sourced. This page is truly polarized to a rather absurd extent.  And I assume we are working on this page together - that is why I brought up the question.  Wolfie,  I just use the term "BigAg" because "conventional" seems a bit biased to me... no good term that I know of for what most farmers do today, that doesn't sound biased.  The value of the "conventional ag" market dwarfs organic.   "U.S. sales of organic products were $21.1 billion in 2008--over 3 percent of total food sales" (http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx)...  so just over 96% of all food sales are "conventional" ag.  Since this page is so polarized, i will say the following -- if you have a look at my edit history, you will see that in past few months I have worked a lot on the genetically engineered crops/food/controversy/regulatory pages, as well as Monsanto's  -- mostly getting rid of a lot of negative BS that anti-GMO forces had piled in, and trying to add high quality, well sourced information - keeping whatever of the original negative content I could find reliable sources for.   The work has led me here.  I have no bias one way or the other in all this except to include content that is scientifically well grounded and is stated in a NPOV way as per the 5 pillars.  Some folks may consider the following a bias:  I trust regulators and I don't accept (what i consider to be) conspiracy theories about dramatic regulatory capture of food regulatory agencies.  Regualtors say that GM food on the market is as safe as non-GM food, and I have read their bases for saying that and find them reasonable.  They say that the level of allowed pesticide residues on food is safe enough, and I have read their bases for saying that and I find them reasonable.    I have read a boatload of the material regulators have produced and that they use, and I find it impressive - my sense is that a lot of people who are suspicious of regulators haven't done that.  And I guess this work has led me to agree with that the slate article about anti-GM people being the "climate change deniers of the left"  -- the amount of ignorance and - to the extent some of these same people are frustrated with actual climate-change-deniers ignoring the scientific consensus on global warming --  hypocrisy, has really surprised me; I have generally found the anti-GM folks to be disappointingly lazy, dogmatic thinkers (big generalization, i know, but i keep running into the same BS over and over).  I also find that scientists tend to be horrible communicators.  The world is messy.  While we know a lot more about food and health than we used to and our analytical instrumentation has gotten incredibly powerful, there is a lot that we may never know about food and health, as designing meaningful clinical trials of food - and paying for them - is incredibly hard, and it is simply unethical to test the toxicity of things like pesticides on people, so that in particular will never happen, which means that thinking about things like pesticide residues is a matter of managing risk based on extrapolation - the risk cannot be eliminated by knowledge.  And people in the ag industry (conventional and organic) are all trying to make money, feed the world, and manage risks in many different areas (economic, health, environment, etc) in many different ways.  In my mind none of the players are "evil."   I understand why people who farm and buy organic do it - they want lower risk to their health and to the environment.  I get that.  I buy little meat because factory livestock farming is ugly to me, on many levels.  I get it.  In any case, these articles must be nuanced, neutral, and well sourced.  Food is important, and reliable information in Wikipedia about food is important.  There, that was probably too much but that is where I am coming from.  I am not on anybody's "side" here, in the fight you all have gotten into.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Small detail, Jytdog, but not all non-certified growers are conventional growers. There are a lot of small farmers that grow organically, without taking all the hassle of becoming certified. As a result, they are not allowed to sell their products as organic. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue how big their market share is. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

You can read the abstact. I read it and found the whole article and found it nuanced and useful with respect to health claims. The article discusses things like higher vitamin C and the other things you would expect. The body says: "Consumers believe that organic pro- duce is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, but the research to support that belief is not definitive." And the intro sums up the author's conclusions concisely: "In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease.... However, current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. Studies also have not demonstrated any detrimental or disease-promoting effects from an organic diet."Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has only one citation, and not from a clinical perspective. Why use a paediatrics paper when we have clinical nutrition papers? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you want clinical sources on food? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

abstract says: Consumers are frequently urged to avoid imported foods as well as specific fruits and vegetables due to health concerns from pesticide residues and are often encouraged to choose organic fruits and vegetables rather than conventional forms. Studies have demonstrated that while organic fruits and vegetables have lower levels of pesticide residues than do conventional fruits and vegetables, pesticide residues are still frequently detected on organic fruits and vegetables; typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance. Similarly, research does not demonstrate that imported fruits and vegetables pose greater risks from pesticide residues than do domestic fruits and vegetables or that specific fruits and vegetables singled out as being the most highly contaminated by pesticides should be avoided in their conventional forms.Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncited, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another nice excuse to block a possible positive article. Congratulations, Wolfie, for saying your traditional no without using that word. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Positive? have you read the abstract? "typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance." It agrees with the MEDRS sources. It doesn't disagree with them. what exactly is a positive result? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I said "possibly positive". And please stop creaquoten, the full sentence is "Studies have demonstrated that while organic fruits and vegetables have lower levels of pesticide residues than do conventional fruits and vegetables, pesticide residues are still frequently detected on organic fruits and vegetables; typical dietary consumer exposure to pesticide residues from conventional fruits and vegetables does not appear to be of health significance." <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is that acceptable to you all?Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You would make me happy when you can ask a question before the two mentioned above. And that is the question: "Are there significant differences in nutrients, antinutrients and pesticide residues between organic foods and conventional foods?" without any medical claim whatsoever. Only when there is a significant difference, is is sensible to ask the question if that is also clinically meaningful. Question 1 can be answered by all reliable sources. Question 2 and 3 by MEDRS-approved sources. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 03:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed that chemical analysis, without drawing health claims (just description) does not need MEDRS.  The suggestion is interesting to separate it from health claims.  Would you please say why you want to do it that way?  I was thinking of couching the chemical description within the health claims, because the reason people care about nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticides is health.  So I am interested in why you want to separate it.  (It is a real question - please remember that I am not part of the past dispute!)Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first reason is that chemical analyses is a rather neutral way of showing differences between the two growing systems. The second reason is that, in my perception, chemical analyses will be wider available than in medical sources alone. Think about publications of Teagasc, Agricultural Colleges and so on. Most of them will be in easy reach of WP:RS, many will even reach WP:SCIRS. Third reason is that it takes our readers serious and that we believe that they can decide for themselves when we present them neutral and reliable information. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 06:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer! With respect to the sourcing thing, it doesn't matter where the chemical information is, non-MEDRS sources are fine.  It is only content (actual sentences) that directly makes health claims that needs MEDRS - we don't have to quarantine by sectioning, if that is what you are concerned about.   The other thing I think you are saying, when you write "they can decide for themselves" is that you ~perhaps~ don't want the scientific consensus to influence people's decisions about their health?  If so that is kind of.. I don't know...kind of anti-science-y.  Which I don't understand.  It is especially strange to me, since science's answer is "we don't know" which means that there is no recommendation one way or the other.  I don't mean to be offensive, I am just trying to have the conversation on the surface instead of glancingly.  All that said, I think organizationally it works to have a section on chemical differences and then a section on health impact. Jytdog (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "kind of anti-science-y" is not the reason behind it. It is more "anti MEDRS-stranglehold". I have strong the impression that two editors due to their personal believes, misused WP:MEDRS to prevent anything positive in the article. Exactly the same is happening at Organic milk (and is locked too). <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have agreed to the organization you suggest, so I don't want to get too tangled in this. But this seems to be right in the heart of where the past troubles came from.  To clarify my stance, the reason for the MEDRS standard, is to ensure that health-related information is based on the best science we can find - that is why MEDRS is more stringent.  It is very very clear to me under the various Source policies that descriptions of chemical differences between organic and conventional food will not be subject to MEDRS and I would be very surprised if anybody would say that.  It is only content that connects those differences to their relevance to health, that will require MEDRS.  I realize that the past was painful but let's move forward and not look backward.  I have sent a message to each of Yobol and Wolfie asking them to comment on this so we can lay it to rest. (wolfie seems to be taking a wiki-break so may not respond soon)Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Banner let's be sure we are on the same page. We can have a section on chemical differences supported by plain old RS, but it will not make health claims.  That is what you are I are agreeing to here?Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I have in mind. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great!  Hopefully we can gain consensus around this as a way forward.Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To use an analogy, orange juice has more vitamin C and more sugar than lemon juice. Yet people who drink lemon juice typically add more sugar than is present in orange juice.  Can we report that?  Yes.  Can we say that one is healthier than the other?  No.  TFD (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, it would be enough to just report that "orange juice has more vitamin C and more sugar than lemon juice". <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Chemical differences aren't covered by MEDRS? Please ... What if we had sources saying food X contains arsenic or some toxin. It's a chemical, but it's pretty damn obvious that it requires MEDRS level sourcing. Basically, it will be implying that it has clinical relevance without saying it; it's putting text into an article and hoping readers arrive at the conclusion that it's relevant for health. We already have highly cited, fully MEDRS compliant sources in this section which you can work from to expand the section. You have proposed no specific sources, but rather want agreement a priori on something vague that you have decided you expect you will see when you go get sources. To comment on: "Based on the scientific articles I have read, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "we do not know" ", then I suggest you read the MEDRS sources because there have been a fair amount of studies. The evidence just doesn't support it. There are minor differences, and they are mentioned by MEDRS sources, and thus can be added, given the proper context that they don't have health impacts. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Chemical differences do not = health differences. It is unscientific and wrong to say that every chemical difference makes a health difference.   About arsenic (great example btw) see here: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulteration/Metals/ucm280202.htm  Much of the food that we eat has low levels of arsenic in it.  So yeah, what if an article acknowledged this chemical fact?  It could say (chemical fact)Much of the food that we eat has low levels of arsenic in it. and then give the health fact:   High levels of arsenic are toxic.  Chemical description, followed by health description.  Simple, not complicated.  About MEDRS sources and health claims for organic food - they say that we cannot support health claims for organic food.  We agree on that.  We seem to disagree on what that means.  You seem to interpret it as meaning a statement of certainty: "organic food is not healthier than conventional food."  But this is not actually true.  I live in a regulatory world, and what it means is the following:  there is insufficient evidence to make the statement that "organic food is healthier" with sufficient certainty.  In other words, we do not know, scientifically, if organic food is as healthy, more healthy, or less healthy.   If you ask a scientist to make a statement affirming or denying any one of those three options, he or she would have to say, "I cannot."  In other words, we don't know. The MEDRS papers all make a point of saying that further  - and much better - studies are needed.  They also point out the difficulty and expense of doing such trials.  As I said before, I do not think that a clear health statement is going to be possible for a long time - at least not until we develop better technologyJytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When the scientific consensus is "we don't know, we need more research", why don't we say that in the article? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not that they don't know, of the many studies "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content". That's not the same. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All three of us are maddeningly close to the same idea! I don't think we have a real argument here.  Because so many people claim that organic food is healthier, it is important to say that there have been several review articles that state clearly that there is no scientific basis for that claim.   We should definitely quote from the articles to avoid getting into hair-splitting over wording.  The reader should definitely walk away knowing that anyone who says with certainty that organic food is healthier is BSing, or making a statement of faith, but is not making a statement of fact.  Ditto anybody who says the opposite.Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is: how reliable is the research done? Who paid for the research? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Re Basically, it will be implying that it has clinical relevance without saying it--I too share this exact concern. Especially in the case where we have 2 articles, one WP:MEDRS-compliant and one not, and they both state something about the level of a chemical generally considered to important to human health (e.g. vitamin or fat levels... even just the word "vitamin" is nearly exclusively related to nutrition and its health consequences), we need to go with the WP:MEDRS source and not the other.  And, take for example the case of a non-WP:MEDRS test result that found the level of some other chemical... what's the encyclopedic importance of including such a result, expecially in an article about food.  So I am struggling to come up with a legitimate reason here to use non-WP:MEDRS sources for findings of levels of chemicals normally associated with their human health consequences, in an article about a general class of product (food) that by its very definition is utilized for its health effects.    15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, chemical difference is not necessarily a health difference.  I am a bit surpised to see your last sentence - most people in the developed world eat from habit and pleasure.  Something like a drug is "by its very definition is utilized for its health effects".   Food is way to huge a thing, both culturally and chemically, to be "primarily utilized for its health effects."   What I am trying to do here is find a middle path between you guys and Banner so that we end up with explicit health claims that are MEDRS and no health claims anywhere else.  I am committed to there being no "back door" and as you can see above, Banner agreed not to try to slip any in.  I think this is a good faith middle way.Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The arsenic article contains extensive information that is sourced to earth sciences, not medical science.  Since all chemicals have potential nutritional or toxic effects, the logical conclusion of your argument is that chemistry textbooks are not reliable sources for any articles. The point is moot anyway because there is no disagreement between health and agricultural sources on the levels of toxins and nutrients.  And MEDRS has no restriction about using peer-reviewed review studies by experts in their fields.  TFD (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between describing arsenic, and claiming food has arsenic in it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can see the arsenic pages sources are medical in relation to health effects with food (though not perfect sourcing). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Do I understand it correctly that mentioning the word "vitamin" is automatically and immediately a health claim in your opinion? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Words aren't claims, they are words. A claim requires a sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wolfie, MEDRS is not a policy carved in stone, it is a guideline, an advice. It is NOT mandatory to apply WP:MEDRS on this article at all. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Banner, for what it is worth, my advice is to not engage in this kind of general conversation - it is not helpful and the argument is not going to fly, in any case... I for one will not allow a statement with a health claim to stand without MEDRS. I think wolfie is being a bit crazy on the chemical thing but let's not open up the other side too, please.Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am getting increasingly frustrated by his constant attempts to put as much as possible under WP:MEDRS and his complete lack of cooperation. Is this a serious attempt to reach the best for Wikipedia or is this using MEDRS for POV pushing? You tell me... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes wikipedia is frustrating. Hell is other people.  And wikipedia is all about working with other people. Hang in there.Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are making proposals without sources. We currently have "Minor differences in ascorbic acid, protein concentration and several micronutrients have been identified between organic and conventional foods, but it doesn't appear that these have any impact on human health" in the article, what do you propose that is different? Chemical differences can be under MEDRS, because you could be saying something of relevance to health, such as the claims that conventional food had cancer causing toxins from pesticides. That's a chemical difference with large health implications. Now there are some trivial things that don't require MEDRS, but when you speak of such generality, it can't be known if it needs MEDRS or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not making proposals without sources. I think that every statement should be reliable sourced, but not everything needs to be WP:MEDRS-sourced. A chemical analyses can perfectly be sourced by a sourced conform WP:SCIRS (as it is chemistry). <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please you guys just stop it. I am going to draft some content about chemical differences and health claims, with sources, and will post it on this page, probably tomorrow, for us to consider.Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Pesticides
With so much being said about pesticides, and especially artificial pesticides, has anyone thought about how these artificial pesticides come on or into organically grown food? As mr. Pottynger already stated above, the use of artificial pesticides and herbicides is entirely prohibited (see the organic standards of the different certifying organisations). So much more important than the question how much is in it and if this is clinically significant, the question should be: how does it get there? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First it is not accurate (at least in the US) that organic food cannot be grown with synthethic pesticides. The regs specifically allow certain ones, in certain conditions.  But what are you referring to when you say "these" artificial pesticides? If you are referring to the lower level of pesticides found on organic foods, nobody said anything about them being necessarily synthetic.Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The impermissible ones, obviously.  Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are right. The IOFGA only comes up with In practice organic farming: Avoids the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and (c) The strict limitation of the use of chemically synthesized inputs to exceptional cases these being:. Indeed, that is not a blanket ban. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "These pesticides" refers to the pesticides found in the above mentioned researches. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * which could be organic ones like copper, as well as allowed synthetic ones.. right? Just making sure we are on the same page.Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May be worth noting if there are significant differences between nations. Not a comprehensive list, but a general overview.   Montanabw (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

sandbox
ok i have taken a stab at reorganizing the content, as discussed above, with sourcing as discussed above. let the fun begin! NOTE it is still pretty rough. i should also say that wolfie suggested i do this. so we are all trying. it is here:  User:Jytdog/sandbox Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no comment, so I went ahead and stuck it in the article.  I'm a little freaked out that the talk page went dead... don't know what to make of that.  Feel free to revert etc.  Just trying to move this along.Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still here. Indeed waiting what the "opposition" is going to do. But let me say that I appreciate your efforts. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note! Would you care to make any initial remarks on structure or content?Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had changed a few typos in the sandbox already. For the rest, it seems pretty okay to me. The article looks far more neutral now. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs a more radical re-write. At present it could just as easily be called "Common misconceptions about organic food".  The article provides the impression that an organic farm is a conventional farm that grows the same food using slightly different fertilizers and pesticides.  TFD (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * True, still a lot has to be done. But by now this is already an improvement. When I came across this article the first time, it could be summarized as "Organic food producing is a senseless exercise only for hippies and other out-of-this-world or misled people". But you can finish a marathon but making a lot of small steps! <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deuces, thanks for weighing in. Can you be more specific -- what information about organic food does it lack, or do you see as wrong?  Or where do you see undue weight?Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Article from 2008: New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant Based Organic Foods
http://organic-center.org/reportfiles/5367_Nutrient_Content_SSR_FINAL_V2.pdf

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

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


 * They seem like good sources. TFD (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the 2 sources from the Organic Center would not be good sources to use; the Organic Center is decidedly biased toward organic foods and "sings to the choir".  Ideally we have sources that people on any side of disputes over organic food find trustworthy.   The findings discussed in the news release looks interesting -- I will look for the actual paper that they say had not published yet as of 2007 - if anybody finds it that would be great too..  looks like they did some press releases around this conference, where leifert presented some of the work discussed in the release http://orgprints.org/10417/2/leifert-etal-proceedings-qlif.pdf    If they were never able to get it published that would be too bad.    At first glance the review article by Lairon does look useful for the chemical analysis sections -- will have a closer look at it and see what I can incorporate into our article.Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And how many of the medical sources "sings to the choir"? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Banner, I am sorry but you are missing my point. A publication by the Organic Center (not in a scientific journal, but actually published by them) is outside the standard scientific publishing process -- it is "self-published".  And in that sense, somebody who is skeptical of the claims is going to say "hmm well sure they are going to say that."   I very, very much hope that by your comment above, you do not believe that there is some sort of conspiracy among scientists and scientific journals to exclude positive information about organic food... but I am not sure how else to interpret the comment. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sceptical about the neutrality of research organisations receiving massive donations from companies growing rich by or through conventional agriculture. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what that statement is based on. Here are the facts:  In the US most investigators at universities are funded by government agencies, not by companies.  see here http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13305/  (~3% funded by industry).   For the UK, see the left pie chart here: http://www.shef.ac.uk/finance/staff-information/howfinanceworks/higher_education/funding_of_research    (7% industry funded).   Please provide a basis for your statement.Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * According to Google Scholar, the article is cited 42 times]. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Citing" doesn't necessarily mean "agreeing with" or even "taking seriously". The first citing article (which is published in a peer reviewed journal) says "However, the herein reported results are not in agreement with a recently published comprehensive report, which concluded that, for example, ascorbic acid (in roughly 6 of 10 cases), total phenolics (in roughly 7 of 10 cases), and antioxidant activity (in roughly 9 of 10 cases) are often higher in organic compared to conventionally produced plant products (31)."  (ref 31 is the organic center report).   The second citing "article" is a book or report from a univeristy "eco-lab" in Australia advocating for more organic farming - it just quotes the statement in the Organic Center's report that "“yes, organic plant-based foods are, on average, more nutritious".   The third citing article in the list, just includes this article in a big list in the intro section of the paper (which is pretty interesting, btw).  So getting cited in google scholar doesn't mean that much...Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At least it means that 42 "articles" took it seriously enough to respond on it. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, Banner. In the work that I do on wikipedia I try to use sources that everybody finds credible. That is a reasonable goal, surely.Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the Lairon paper more closely. Not sure what to do with it, as it doesn't really synthesize the studies.  For instance Lairon seems to think nitrates are really important, and here is what he writes: Nitrates are naturally present in plants; they are absorbed through the roots and further used for amino-acid synthesis. They can accumulate in plant tissues, especially in vegetables. Several comparative studies have been performed on nitrate levels in vegetables.  At the level of a retail shop, we performed a study on ﬁve vegetables in spring and observed signiﬁcantly lower nitrate contents (–28 to –85%) in organic potato, leek, turnip and salad but not in organic kale (Lairon et al., 1982). A comparable study performed in Austria on 17 vegetables found lower nitrate contents (–40% to –86%) in organic ones except in spinach (Rauter and Wolkerstorfer, 1982). In Germany, a comparison on carrots showed 61% less nitrates in organic ones (Pommer and Lepshy, 1985).  At farm level, by comparing designated crops on matched farms, three studies provided interesting data. We performed one in Provence (Lairon et al., 1985) and found in the organically-grown samples –39% nitrates in lettuce, –46% in potato, –22% in carrot and a higher content in one sample for leek. In Switzerland, organic lettuces grown over two years contained 2.5 times less nitrates than their conventional counterparts in May–June, 1.2 times less in October and comparable high levels in November (Temperli et al., 1982; Vogtmann et al., 1984). In contrast, two other studies performed on tomato in Israel (Basker, 1992) and carrot in Norway (Hogstad et al., 1997) did not show noticeable differences."       So, what do we say?  Something like: A French review of studies published in 2009 found that nitrate levels in various organic vegetables compared to their conventional counterparts varied from having an unspecified amount more, to having 250% less, depending on the vegetable, the time of year, and the study."   Is that a useful sentence?   I don't think so.  (also, what exactly is "salad"?)  So I don't see what we can use out of this review.  Open to suggestions!Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Salad" is the winner of the uselessness prize as it is normally a mixture of several varieties of lettuce but often also includes Mustard greens (who are part of the Brassica-family).
 * Nitrate is important in organic farming, as it stimulates leave growth. The way I look at it, is that organic vegetables get the time to use up the nitrates available, while in conventional farming the plants are harvested long before the nitrates are used up. (But this is an opinion!) <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am bummed that Lairon didn't synthesize b/c nitrates are an "antinutrient" and the article is pretty thin on examples. I would have liked to be able to use something about that from this article.  But there is no meaningful takeaway.Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I looked to see if Leifert had published the findings from the conference. He has not done that yet.Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this meta-analysis, showing greater micro-nutrients, is not added to the header of the article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333
 * Also, all of the studies reviewed by the organic center in the initial article are valid, and there are a plethora showing greater nutrient content in this or that area, but it is better to refer to it rather than to the individual studies. Additionally, all of the scientists who compiled it have good profiles.
 * I remember putting forth two very important items showing the undue influence of Big Ag on policy and regulation, and this needs to be considered. Also, in the October 25, 1998 New York Times Magazine article Playing God in the Garden, Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, was quoted as saying "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job".
 * Yet the FDA's Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties states that "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.": http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm
 * In a report in the International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food entitled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise", Don Lotter noted that "the FDA does not test the products for safety (Mellon and Rissler, 2003). The regulators rely ‘almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review’ (Friends of the Earth, 2004)."
 * He also noted, "Despite the mutation problems with plant transgenics, thorough studies on the toxicology of transgenic foods are few. Domingo surveyed the literature on toxicology studies in a 2007 review article in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, and wrote that it is ‘quite amazing to note’ the paucity of toxicology studies on transgenic foods, and asks ‘where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies involved in commercial GM foods?’ (Domingo, 2007)."
 * He also noted, "Commenting on the lack of safety data on transgenic foods in the Journal of Medicinal Food, David Schubert, head of the Cellular neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute in California, wrote in 2008:
 * There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that ‘since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe’ is both illogical and false. there are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted (Schubert, 2008).": http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdf
 * The following reliable secondary source sources two large scale reviews that show superiority or organic foods in safety and quality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/30/organicsbetteradmitit
 * The reviews are from the Soil Association, a reliable source.They are as follows: 1) :::http://web.archive.org/web/20090116064938/http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/saweb.nsf/9f788a2d1160a9e580256a71002a3d2b/de88ae6e5aa94aed80256abd00378489/$FILE/foodqualityreport.pdf
 * 2) http://web.archive.org/web/20080314170203/http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/4042794258a20f4280256a680046b77e/7a54a18f894fee45802571bc00443124!OpenDocument
 * Also, the overview of concluding comments from a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Scientists Agree That Organic Farming Delivers Healthier, Richer Soil and Nutritionally Enhanced Food", is of relevance: http://www.organic-center.org/news.pr.php?action=detail&pressrelease_id=28Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pottinger, Why do you keep talking about GM food? This is an article about organic food.Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The metaanalyses omit relevant data that appears in the organic center articles. Books are mentioned in an attempt to dismiss organics, so why not add the other articles, by qualifies scientists, overviewing studies that support organics? Mentions of GM food are important, because in the US, it is not labeled, and organics are the only thing that explicitly avoid it. Organics are thus more necessary, and this becomes especially obvious when considering the following overview: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58
 * Also, the microutrient information is relevant, as it shows that organic food is more nutritious.
 * A review of 41 studies found higher levels of all the 21 nutrients analysed, compared with conventional produce. This included statistically significant higher levels of iron (21% more), magnesium (29% more), phosphorus (14% more) and vitamin C (27% more), and significantly less nitrate (a toxic compound). Organic spinach, lettuce, cabbage and potatoes showed particularly high levels of minerals: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11327522
 * And as TFD noted before, "As I explained above, Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis says that organic and conventionally raised meat differ in quality, nutrition and toxins. Yet it is used in the article to support the opposite claim. We also ignore that the book said organic food is fresher. An obvious problem with the tests is that it assumes organic farmers raise the same lower nutrition breeds of fruits and vegetables that were developed for intensive farming. While we cannot comment on that, nothing prevents us from presenting sources discussing whether the breeds actually grown by organic farmers are more or less nutritious." - so we need to not use that article to support a claim it does not make.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Problems have also been associated with food irradiation, which is absent in organic food: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427585/, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/28/2/130.full.pdfPottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


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