Talk:Soil Association/Archive 1

The Soil Association and homeopathy
As described on their website, the Soil Association requires animals being used for organic food to be treated using homeopathic remedies unless actual medicine is absolutely required: http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Welfareandwildlife/tabid/216/Default.aspx


 * Sick animals are treated using homeopathic and complementary remedies, unless a vet says an animal needs antibiotics; in which case they must be given. To ensure that no residues are left, a set period of time has to pass before the animal can produce products for sale as organic.

I feel this should be at least mentioned in the article given the controversial nature of homeopathy, but am having trouble finding an in-depth source discussing it - any help would be much appreciated. ElijahOmega (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft material for potential incorporation
{| class="wikitable"

The Soil Association is the UK’s leading organic campaigning and certification body. A membership charity some 27,000 strong, it campaigns for a move away from intensive farming in favour of local, seasonal and organic food and farming. The association is notable for having developed the world’s first organic certification system in 1967. Its standards have since widened to encompass agriculture, aquaculture, ethical trade, food processing, forestry, health & beauty, horticulture and textiles and are among the most rigorous in the world. Its distinctive symbol is found on over 70 percent of all the organic food and drink sold in the UK and indicates to consumers that products have been produced sustainably, in harmony with nature and from animals bred in free-range, high-welfare environments.

Goals
The association's stated goal is to move the UK to 100% organic farming by 2050. It has similar ambitions abroad, campaigning for a global shift to organic agriculture which it believes can feed the world in a sustainable, low-carbon way.

Campaigns
Campaign priorities are to promote the benefits of organic food and farming, food security and lobby against GM, antibiotics and pesticide abuse. Many of its campaigns are led by scientific reports produced by its policy department. Currently, the organisation is campaigning to save the honeybee and to promote community supported agriculture.

Education programmes include:
 * The Food for Life Partnership is a £16.9m lottery funded programme led by the Soil Association which aims to transform school and community food culture across England by giving schools and communities access to seasonal, local and organic food and the skills they need to cook and grow fresh food for themselves.
 * Organic Farm School is a series of over 300 hands-on courses in growing your own food, rearing animals, cooking and rural crafts
 * Organic Apprenticeship Scheme is a two year course involving a work based placement with an organic farmer or grower and eight structured seminars per year.
 * The Soil Association website provides a wide range of consumer advice for those wanting to pick up tips on living sustainably.

Policy Reports
The Soil Association's policy department carries out research and releases reports to further its aims. More influential reports of late include:

Climate friendly farming
Ten recent reports, including the most significant:

An inconvenient truth about food - neither secure, nor resilient (2008) A report on Britain's food security summarising how UK food self-sufficiency has declined over the past decade and that there is no overall, future-proofed 'Food Plan for Britain'. Organic works (2006) The world's first report examining employment on organic farms and how organic farming is providing more jobs through organic farming and local food supply.

Welfare and wildlife
Eight recent reports, including the most significant:

MRSA in farm animals and meat (2007) This report focuses on a major new antibiotic-resistance problem in farming, which may have serious consequences for human health. In some countries MRSA has been found in a large number of farm animals and in retail meat. Batteries not included - organic farming and animal health (2003) looks at the major animal welfare benefits provided by organic farms, and the opportunities to further improve welfare for organic farm animals.

Health
Ten recent reports, including the most significant:

Georgie porgie pudding and pie (2008) The first detailed investigation into the state of food fed to young children attending nurseries in England and Wales. Not what the doctor ordered (2007) This report, sponsored by Organix uncovers a glaring contradiction between the Government's policy on healthy eating and the dominance of junk food on sale in many hospitals and leisure facilities. A fresh approach to hospital food (2006) This report sets out the Cornwall Food Programme, which pioneers tasty, healthier and environmentally friendly hospital meals. The real meal deal (2006) This report from the Soil Association and Organix takes a look at what's on the menu for children at 10 popular family restaurant chains and 14 major visitor attractions.

Genetic Modification
Four recent reports, including the most significant:

Land of the GM-free (2008) A briefing on the launch of a major new non-GM labelling initiative in the US, the latest on US farmers rejection of new GM crops and the staggering collapse in the market for Monsanto's GM milk hormone. Silent invasion - the hidden use of GM crops in livestock feed (2007) An investigation into the use of GM animal feed which finds that large quantities are being used in the UK to produce our food. This means that most of the non-organic milk, dairy products and pork sold in the UK is from GM-fed animals.

Standards
Soil Association standards set strict benchmarks for organic food production, packaging, animal welfare, wildlife conservation, residues and additives in order to reassure the buying public over the quality of products labeled organic. Its standards are some of the highest for organic production and processing in the world, often going beyond minimum UK government requirements, particularly for animal welfare and use of pesticides and fertilizers. Standards on conservation, fish farming, textiles and health and beauty care products have been established in the absence of government or EU regulations in order to establish confidence in organic products of this nature. Soil Association organic standards online are recognised to exceed statutory organic standards, such as those set by the European Union, and the UK government. Compassion In World Farming regards Soil Association standards to offer the best guarantee of high animal welfare standards in the UK. Standards are regularly reviewed by independent committees and go through a rigorous consultation and approval process to ensure they are kept high, but attainable. The Soil Association also works at European and international levels to help achieve consistently high organic standards across all bodies and authorities. For example it is a founder member of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

Standards cover:


 * Agriculture
 * Aquaculture
 * Ethical Trade
 * Food Processing
 * Forestry
 * Health & Beauty products
 * Horticulture
 * Textiles

Certification
Soil Association Certification Ltd (SACL) is a not-for-profit subsidiary of the Soil Association charity, independently providing organic certification services and advisory support on all aspects of organic certification. SACL is one of ten approved organic certification bodies in the UK. SACL inspects and awards organic certification to over 4,500 farms and businesses around the world. It inspects each licensee at least once a year and carries out random, unannounced spot inspections and inspections in response to complaints or concerns.

Business support
The association provides general, legal, trading, marketing and training advice and support to existing businesses and those considering going organic. This includes tailored support for livestock, arable, horticulture, processing and forestry.

The Soil Association has been at the forefront of establishing alternative routes to market for organic produce, including the creation of producer groups to optimise trade in conventional market systems, nurturing farmers’ markets and box schemes around the country, a wide range of community supported agriculture schemes, public catering and encouraging farms visits to a network of over 100 farms.

The Soil Association provides a host of financial and economic information, including yearly [www.soilassociation.org/Businesses/Marketinformation/tabid/116/Default.aspx market reports] and monthly agricultural price data. It created Organic Marketplace, the UK’s largest searchable directory of organic livestock, feedstuff, forage and grazing, a free online service available to all.

Data and organic action plans are available for each UK region.

The Soil Association is a major supporter of the Organic Trade Board. The board is a commercially focused body, representing about 100 organic businesses and acting as an industry voice. The Soil Association complements the board by acting as the voice of the organic campaign movement.

Governing structure
Council of Trustees

A Senior Management Team consists of Molly Conisbee, Tom Andrews, Roger Mortlock, Robert Sexton, Helen Taylor, Emma Noble and Paul Benfield.

Certification Scrutiny Committee A committee of independent representatives ensuring the association’s certification processes are operating with integrity. All members are elected and meet six times a year.

Processor Technical Group A group of industry experts that represent processor licencees on technical and certification issues. All members are elected. Eight standards committees made up of trade representatives that suggest changes to standards. They are the first step in a chain of groups that are responsible for changing standards and do not have this power alone. All members are elected.

Farmers and grower board A board made up of producer members which represents their interests within the association. All members are elected.

There is a Scottish division called Soil Association Scotland, which is based in Edinburgh.

Who’s who
Director Patrick Holden CBE

Chair of Trustees Orna Ni-Chionna

President Monty Don

Honorary Vice-Presidents Jonathan Dimbleby, George McRobie, Charlotte Mitchell Charlotte Mitchell, Trudie Styler

Royal Patron The Prince of Wales

Communications

 * Organic Farming magazine


 * Producer E News


 * Members E Newsletter


 * Members' supporter magazine - Living Earth


 * Its website is viewed by an average 80,000 people per month.


 * Today’s News is a daily media digest delivered to over 2,000 recipients, including supporters, academics, journalists, civil servants and other interested parties. Anyone can join the list by emailing aleech@soilassociation.org


 * The association’s Facebook page had over 1,100 fans in October 2009 when the association began efforts to ramp up its e-communications offering to members and supporters. Its Twitter account had over 1,600 followers at this time.

Members
The Soil Association is growing rapidly. It had 27,000 members in October 2009 and grew 8% during 2008. Members of the public can join either as concessionary members (£13), individuals (£24), joint (£33), family (£36), overseas (£44), life (£650), or non-licensee producer (£80). Licensees automically become members. Membership benefits include the quarterly Living Earth magazine, up to 25 percent off organic farm school courses, discounted rates at special events and the Organic Baby and Toddler Cookbook for family members. Producer members receive Organic Farming Magazine, technical guides and briefing papers.

Other activities
Soil Association Business Circle The business circle to encourage and develop corporate social responsibility among businesses.

Land Trust A separate charity with the Soil Association as its parent body, The Land Trust acquires organic and traditionally managed farms and land through gifts, bequests and purchases and works to safeguard their future by managing them in trust in perpetuity, organically and sustainably.

Advertising Standards Agency rebukes
In more than one instance, the UK Advertising Standards Agency judged that the Soil Association’s claims about organic produce can not be substantiated and demanded that the Association pulls certain advertising materials.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhunter (talk • contribs) 14:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

History
The Soil Association was founded in 1946 by a group of individuals concerned about the health implications of increasingly intensive agricultural systems] following the [[Second World War. Their principal concerns were:
 * The loss of soil through [[soil erosion|erosion and depletion]
 * Decreased nutritional quality of intensively produced food
 * Animals welfare in intensive units
 * Impact of intensive farming systems on the countryside and wildlife

For the first thirty years the association was based on a farm in Suffolk and was primarily involved in basic research as well as building a membership base. The farm was divided into three units, one farmed using the new intensive techniques, one farmed traditionally and one with mixed system. At the end of this period the results were not as clear as had been expected. However, the trials allowed a clearer understanding of how to combine the best of old and new traditions in land husbandry.

In 1967, the first Soil Association standards were drawn up. Ultimately they stated that the basis for the success of any organic enterprise is the creation and sustenance of a living soil. "The use of, or abstinence from, any particular practice should be judged by its effect on the well-being of the micro-organic life of the soil, on which the health of the consumer ultimately depends," the standards say.

During the 1970’s, demand grew among consumers and producers for a way of identifying foods grown to Soil Association standards. The certification system set up in 1973 is now used to provide an independent audit and tracking system from the individual field through to the final packing. About 80 percent of UK organic food is certified by the Soil Association.

In the mid-1980s a number of supermarkets began to stock organic food and this, combined with Pat and Tony Archer from the Radio Four series The Archers becoming organic, brought a new credibility to the movement. However, the numbers of organic farmers remained small until the launch in 1995 of the government’s Organic Aid Scheme helping farmers through the difficult conversion process, which takes between two and five years. Soil Association employee numbers grew rapidly at this stage. Organic land in the UK now accounts for nearly four percent of all agricultural land and organic farmers now receive on-going support in recognition of the environmental benefits they deliver, which is in turn encouraging more farmers to manage their land organically.

About three quarters of organic food is currently sold through supermarkets. However, over the last few years the amount of organic food sold through box schemes, farmers' markets and independent shops has been growing quickly as concerns over freshness and food miles have grown.

In July 2009 the Food Standards Agency published a report which concluded that there were "no important differences in the nutrition content, or any additional health benefits, of organic food when compared with conventionally produced food." The Soil Association issued a statement criticising the report for not taking into account existing studies on the subject and noting reasons other than nutrition for consumers to choose organic food, such as environmental and animal welfare concerns.

Timeline
1940s

Promoting positive health

Husband and wife team, doctors George Scott Williamson and Innes Pearse publish their research from the Peckham Health Club, 1935-39. Their survey of 950 families, The Peckham Experiment, demonstrated how a preventative approach that builds positive health through education, nutrition and exercise is more effective than curing ill-health. Williamson and Pearse join Lady Eve Balfour and others as founding members of the Soil Association in 1946.

Alerting the public to the perils of pesticides

In its first issue, the Soil Association journal, Mother Earth, questioned the use of insecticide DDT in agriculture. “By the wholesale use of powerful insecticides of which far too little is yet known, we may well be upsetting the whole balance of Nature. We are like schoolboys rat hunting in a munitions dump with a flamethrower.”

1950s

Making links between soil fertility and food quality

The Soil Association’s first annual conference, Health and the Soil, makes connections between soil fertility, the presence of trace elements and minerals and human health.

Positive health

Widespread use of antibiotics to control disease and promote animal growth begins on US intensive farms. Over the next few decades concern grows over their role in reducing the effectiveness of antibiotics used in human medicine. The Soil Association’s first organic standards, published in 1967, prohibit the routine use of drugs and antibiotics in livestock, and the use of antibiotics in animal feed.

1960s

Exposing the truth about agribusiness

British publication of Rachel Carson’s seminal book Silent Spring details the environmental costs of pesticide use, and generates a surge in environmental concern. Animal Machines, a devastating critique of intensive farming animal welfare standards, published by Soil Association member Ruth Harrison, turns the spotlight on intensive livestock farming.

Setting the standard – a world-first

Soil Association standards drafted for organically-produced food give guidance on animal welfare, soil stewardship and food quality. Farmers are required to sign up to follow a code of practice.

1970s

Creating consumer power

Soil Association president, Dr E.F. Schumacher, urges that organic philosophy be manifested by the commercial availability of "poison-free" food. The UK organic food and drink market is now worth over £2bn.

Symbol of trust

The association establishes Soil Association Certification Ltd to certify and promote organic produce. Its symbol, based on the plane of infinity by the mathematician Boy, is registered as a trademark. The first symbol for a processed organic product is granted to Aspall apple juices. The Soil Association now certifies over 70% of organic food and drink sold in the UK.

1980s

Avoiding BSE

In 1983, the Soil Association bans animal protein from organic livestock feed for cattle and sheep as an unnatural feeding cycle. Three years after the ban, the first case of BSE is confirmed in 1986. In 1988, the government finally bans animal protein from all ruminant feed. There are no cases of BSE recorded from cows born and raised on organic land.

Working for wildlife

A government conservation agency report published in 1984 details loss and damage to wildlife over the past 50 years with intensive agriculture noted as the main cause. In 2000, a joint report with WWF-UK cites 41 scientific studies showing that organic farms support more wildlife than non-organic farms.

1990s

Pioneering local food

Organic farmers Jan and Tim Deane create the first organic fruit and veg box. The first regular organic food market is established at Spitalfields in London. Today, over 500 organic veg box schemes are operating in the UK. There are 550 farmers’ markets with an annual turnover of £220m.

GM free zone

A Soil Association campaign to keep the UK GM-free attracts widespread public support and leads to a supermarket ban on GM ingredients from own-brand products.

2000s

Foot and mouth

The disease devastates the UK livestock industry. The Soil Association challenges the government policy of mass slaughter, recommending voluntary and selective vaccination instead – a position rejected at the time, but now official policy throughout Europe to tackle any future outbreaks.

Food for Life

The Food for Life campaign causes the government to pledge an extra £290m for school dinners. Now the Soil Association led Food for Life Partnership, supported by the Big Lottery Fund, is playing a significant role in transforming food culture in schools and communities across England.

Video clips

 * Soil Association YouTube channel
 * Patrick Holden, Soil Association director, presents Week In, Week Out for BBC Wales examining the implications of a carbon constrained world on agriculture

Category:Organic farming organizations Category:Organic food Category:Organizations established in 1946 Category:Organisations based in Bristol


 * }

Thorough overhaul needed
Hi all,

I'd like to propose a thorough overhaul of this page, which I do not think accurately reflects the Soil Association's activities or history. It appears that specific editors have chipped in with their personal interest areas, rather than considering the whole. This is fine and a good start, but rather lobsided. I'm a new Wikipedia contributer, so not 100% on the process. Below is my suggestion. Please let me know what you think.

Best wishes, Jackhunter (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Being honest, I do have concerns with the below. Main concern being the almost complete lack of references - while some Soil Association reports and projects have been linked to directly (albeit without any note of why said reports are of particular significance), the history and timeline sections are entirely unreferenced.
 * Similarly, there is a complete lack of critical information, such as the homeopathy issue referenced above, or the government report (and the Soil Association's response thereto). When combined with blatantly POV language ("the perils of pesticides," "in harmony with nature," "a glaring contradiction," etc.) this makes the article as a whole seem extremely biased.
 * My main concern, however, is that much of this seems to be directly copy-pasted from the Soil Association's own website (the reports section borrows extensively from this page, for example), which would seem to violate Wikipedia policy on several grounds - WP:COPYVIO, WP:PRIMARY, etc.).
 * Essentially this reads like an advert for the Soil Association far more than an encyclopedia article about it. That said, there's a lot of material here that, with careful editing, could result in a valuable article, and it does seem to provide a decent starting point. --ElijahOmega (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is good & probably a vast improvement on the current article, and the good can be kept and referenced and the bad winnowed out over time by future editors. Why not just go ahead and place this on the article and then see what happens? Be bold! (: thanks Peter morrell 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, the user has already been bold, and had the edit reverted. They are right to bring the text here for discussion as, a) readding the removed text would be edit-warring and b) it is a recommended best practice for editors with a conflict of interest to propose changes on the talk page anyway.
 * In it's current state the proposed changes are not neutral, lack references to reliable, independent sources and go against established guidelines on external links. The edit summary which notes that this text is approved by the Soil Association is troubling as it suggests a misunderstanding on the part of the editor about the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * Personally, I very much dislike the idea of adding nearly 20 kB of unsourced, somewhat promotional material with a view to 'winnowing out' the bad 'over time'. Better to gradually add that which is good.  AJ Cham  22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK sorry I hadn't seen that, well then I agree, it does need cites adding and editing here then as the next step. Hopefully that can be achieved. cheers Peter morrell 06:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits to the article to remove the POV tone as best I can. However, it still needs a great deal of work.
 * Specifically, on the history section I feel it is inappropriate to simply quote the Association's website on the matter. If anyone is aware of a reliable third-party source describing the Soil Association's history and development please add it to the article.
 * Similarly, while I did my best to remove the POV tone from the article, much information remains in it which is entirely unsourced, while the article as a whole is rather bare. I am going to do my best to flesh it out. ElijahOmega (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the history section is bias. I have now stripped the working draft article of bias/emotive wording, so hopefully it should now read in an impartial manner. I've also started incorporating the best of the existing material into this draft. Does this sound ok? Look forward to your edits. Best wishes, Jackhunter (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear all, concerns were raised by others that some of the text was emotive/bias, particularly the history/timeline sections. I have been through these and altered any such wording. I have also assimilated all material from the existing live page into this new draft so as not to impose a major re-edit on others' work. What hasn't been assimilated is what is already covered. There have been no comments since my November comment above, so I'm assuming everyone is relatively happy with the proposed way forward. I'll leave it another month from now and if there are no objections I will transfer this draft onto the live version. Please make any amendments to the below draft and post comment if you don't like this approach / suggest an alternative. Best wishes, Jackhunter (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Article development
Hello folks. A comment on the article, its development, and the draft material below. Firstly, I have added a citation, and created a 'Further publications' section, in which I've listed some sources. Such sources benefit the two main parties to any Wikipedia article. Firstly, any readers coming across an undeveloped article. Secondly, any editors wishing to constructively develop the article.

Constructive development requires not just input by proponents, but also acknowledgement of the arguemnts of opponents. Both camps - proponents and opponents - are likely to be driven by ideological agendas, and wading through this to create a descriptive overview is how you are going to achieve a neutral point of view. This is regardless of the overall picture painted by the article. Both a favourable overview - on say, a pro-social movement aimed at society's betterment - and an unfavourable overview - on say, an anti-social movement causing social disintegration - can be neutral if descriptive. It is a neutrally descriptive thing to say for example, that the Nazis under Hitler committed mass murder regardless of argument about the numbers. An article on this movement would be expected to outline that aspect of human history. And in doing so, the overall picture wouldn't exactly be favourable, but if emotively ideological rhetoric is avoided, it is entirely possible to create a neutral description.

Conversely, an article on a generally pro-social movement such as the organic farming one, may be overall favourable, yet still be describable as neutrally descriptive. The task for such an article is somewhat more difficult than one describing murderous wartime atrocities, because although the Nazi movement will elicit very strongly polarised views, any objective description cannot possibly omit certain facts, and the overall article will not be favourable, even while being neutrally descriptive. Movements such as the organic farming movement however, are much messier. Proponents will comprise pretty much the entire range of people, from objective scientists to ideologists of various persuasions, and everything in between.

Moreover, such movements will often capture, at some point in their history, the breadth of political ideology, as indeed the organic farming movement does. So for example, whereas the contemporary organic movement is popularly considered to comprise left-leaning political proponents, we find reference to one or two (or more, I don't know) post-war members having right-leaning, fascist politics. Now a neutral description of such a movement, or an organisation related to such a movement, will necessarily contain mention of this, regardless of what we think of it now. If it's historical fact, it needs mentioning, period. After saving this comment, I will add a title to the 'Further reading' section that prompted my commentary here.

Regarding Jackhunter's proposal, the best way to utilise the material below is to incorporate the useful bits into the article content, not the other way around. The article will be a work-in-progress as long as it exists, and this applies even to articles that reach Good Article or Featured Article status. So you can never expect to get a draft on the talk page to a stage where you can copy-and-paste wholus-bolus into the article and it is done and dusted. No, what you need to do is thrash out some ideas, and just integrate them into the article here and there, and let it grow organically, to use an analogical phrase found in some academic disciplines (e.g. sociology, philosophy of science). For this reason, I have created a separate section for the draft as below, to make it easier to keep developing ideas etc., and to make it possible for people to comment without being co-opted into that particular approach.

On the article proper, you will probably find it difficult to get the article to an uncontroversially stable stage where editors of various persuasions, be they proponents or opponents, do not feel the need to overhaul it. This does not mean it's not possible. Indeed, the best way to work towards that is to do such things as acknowledge opponent arguments, and mention the uncomfortable bits of history. The overall result is still likely to be favourable, but the difference is that it will be descriptively neutral, and not subject to criticisms of bias. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Keen to get the article live!
Hello folks, I've taken over from Jackhunter and am really, really keen to get this page sorted. I too am new to wikipedia contributions so any help would be grateful!

Wotnow – Thanks for putting in the time with this– I agree with you that the page can't be too emotive/one-sided. I do however think we need to get more info up on the page proper as it’s no help to anyone as it is now - I’ve been speaking to a lot of people who are frustrated it doesn’t give the info they need. Indeed I think the pendulum has gone the other way now with the bulk of the page dedicated to the political leanings of it’s founders!

Can I propose uploading the draft below now and then we can work together tweaking it from there?

Thanks very much - look forward to working with you on this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhunter (talk • contribs) 13:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice Advert For The Soil Association
This article seems full of positive spin to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.47.197 (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Reads like it was written by their PR team. Chris Martin (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also agreed. This seems to be a recurring theme through the discussion above, but apparently the edits proposed over the last three years have not been "approved" for copy to the live page. As that's not how Wikipedia (usually) works, I've removed some of the most obvious biased language (e.g. "promoting the benefits of organic food" -> "promoting organic food") and marked the activities section (where each policy report comes with a glowing summary) as POV. Hope we can iterate to something more neutral. Some criticism of e.g. the permitted use of copper sulphate herbicide because it's not "synthetic", and the basis for exclusion of GM and nanotech from SA Organic certification would also be welcome. AndyBuckley (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two organic certification schemes
The SA seem to have two certification schemes - UK5 and UK15. I'm trying to find out why this is. 2.100.184.205 (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soil Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327163627/http://www.soilassociation.org/aboutus/ourhistory to http://www.soilassociation.org/aboutus/ourhistory

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soil Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120701113258/http://92.52.112.178/web/sacert/sacertweb.nsf/e8c12cf77637ec6c80256a6900374463/4d7054234b8da20a8025740b0012f83f?OpenDocument to http://92.52.112.178/web/sacert/sacertweb.nsf/e8c12cf77637ec6c80256a6900374463/4d7054234b8da20a8025740b0012f83f?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140121083010/http://www.soilassociation.org/aboutus/whoweare/chiefexecutive to http://soilassociation.org/aboutus/whoweare/chiefexecutive

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Innes Hope Pearse


Was wandering as george william scott is mentioned as a founding member surely Innes would be there too - they worked together..? Lee&there4;V 09:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Promoters of Woo
If you read the article, it's all good, and the SA are an environmentally friendly, green, wonderful organisation.

Why do we not mention the antiscience stance they take on animal welfare, promoting absolute nonsense as they do, in the form of alt-med practices like acupuncture and homeopathy treatments for defenceless farm animals. looks a little whitewashy. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * point us at some decent refs...Lee&there4;V 09:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why certainly. How about the Soil Association themselves - Soil Association StandardsFarming and growing Version 18.6: Updated on 12th February 2021. section 3.4.3 Treating disease and injury 3.4.3 Treating disease and injury -


 * "1.If an animal becomes sick or injured they must be treated immediately, if necessary in isolation and in suitable housing.
 * 2.When treating you must use phytotherapeutic and homeopathic products and the trace elements, vitamins and minerals listed in standard 3.10.14 in preference to chemically-synthesised allopathic veterinary treatment or antibiotics, provided that their healing effect works for the animal species and the condition you are treating."
 * -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 11:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Page review request
Hi there - I am trying to edit the page to both update it, and also provide a fuller overview of what the organisation does. At the moment it is sparse with information and out of date in many sections. I work for the Soil Association which seems to automatically exclude me from editing the page. Please advise on how I can update the page (or have it updated by a third party). user:Roxy_the_dog asked me to start a discussion here. DanMor0806 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)