Talk:Organic food/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Meta analyses that controvert this article

The following meta analysis shows that the micronutrient content was more frequently reported to be higher for organic vegetables than conventional vegetables: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21929333

Interesting and seems great to use under MEDRS. However (and it is a big however) the article is behind a firewall -- not clear if the level of micronutrients in food from conventional ag is less than what we need, and unclear if the higher levels in organic food matter - what is the actual health impact here? (I really don't know) This is exactly where the rubber hits the road when it comes to describing compositional differences versus making actual health claims. Seems perfect for compositional differences (just chemistry) - not at all clear what this means for health.Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a RS is behind a pay wall, it is still a RS. It can be requested for review by other editors if necessary. All of the sources in this article could be behind pay walls, it wouldn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi V: agreed on the paywall thing. That was an aside, literally, i meant "it is unfortunate" - I was not trying to rule it out with that remark. You didn't address the more important point, which is, that the health impact is not clear.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in that point. I'm interested in addressing how we use sources at a meta level. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to see the report and compare it with the sources already used to see if more recent research has superseded it. The abstract says that 56% of the time organic food had higher levels of micronutrients, on average 5%, and that further research is required to determine the health effects. TFD (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gathering up the discussion of this as a source, can we agree on 3 conclusions: 1) it is an acceptable source, 2) to support claims about the chemical composition of organic food; and 3) it does not speak to health benefit of organic food.  ? Additional note -- the question of reliable source really has 2 parts - 1) is the source reliable; and 2) does it support the statement you want to make? I have been dealing with 2 and as well as 1. Sorry if that is getting ahead of the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following meta analysis noted that chronic exposure to organochlorine pesticide compounds may contribute to type 2 diabetes and thyroid diseases: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20677670

This is a secondary source, good under MEDRS. Too bad it is in Italian. Seems that key points of this article are aimed not at residues left on food, which one might eat, but rather, at health effects of organochlorines (not all pesticides) on ag workers. If there is a section in this article on benefits/harms of organic farming vs Big Ag farmnig on farm workers, this could be useful. A quick note - one of the reasons why glyphosphate has been so widely adopted is that it is buckets (unscientific measure I know) less toxic than organochlorines.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The language of a RS has no bearing on its status as a RS. All of the sources in this article could be written in Chinese, it wouldn't matter. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that is true, about the language. Really, I am not sure what wiki policy is on that. Will look. But again you didn't address the key point, which is that this article if about farming, not food. If there is a section on farming, great!Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the relevant policies is WP:NOENG, but I think you will find common sense just as helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, how healthy can food be when the production method kills of the one who grow it? Earlier in this discussion I have already suggested to creat sections "Safety for consumers" and "Safety for growers". I will suggest that now again! The Banner _talk 23:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Gathering up the discussion of this as a source, can we agree on 3 conclusions: 1) it is an acceptable source but as per WP:NOENG, only if a) only the abstract is relied on, or b) the person who uses it provides an english translation of the relevant part (in a controverted article like this, I think English translation is essential, 2) to support claims about benefits to workers on organic farms compared to workers on BIgAg farms? (Banner your comment is rhetorically interesting but we cannot push a source farther than it goes) Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following meta analysis showed that occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of Parkinson's disease: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22698719

Misrepresentation in that it overstates the results. Conclusion is: "The present study provides some support for the hypothesis that occupational exposure to pesticides increases the risk of PD." Again, this is relevant to farm workers, not eaters of food with residual pesticides. Also, article is behind a paywall... "pesticides" is an incredibly broad class that includes, for instance, pesticides used in organic farming. The abstract does not make it clear whether the studies that were meta-analyzed included pesticides used in organic farming. If they did, how is this article relevant to the organic food article? Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is entirely relevant. The occupational exposure of farm workers to pesticides is entirely on topic. How we eat our food and how we produce our food is inseparable. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is a section on farming, great! But you again miss the larger point that it is unclear from the abstract whether it includes pesticides used in organic farming.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The study is not about pesticides used in organic farming. The study is about the health risks of pesticides to farm workers. It is relevant to the health and safety of farm workers, which would be covered under this topic. However, I would expect it to be covered more widely in other secondary sources, and not for Wikipedia editors to cherry pick as they may. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not close to consensus here. Viriditas -- what i was trying to say is that the source does not make clear what pesticides it is analyzing. Pesticides are used on organic farms. Pesticides are used on BIgAg farms. We do not know what pesticides the article discusses. For all we know, it is 100% about pesticides used on organic farms. So I don't know what kind of statement you would use support using it.Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

By definition, organic food does not involve the use of synthetic pesticides.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

first, this is actually not true, said in such a blanket and general way. in many jurisdictions certain synthetic pesticides are allowed under certain conditions. Secondly, the abstract of the article does not specify whether it is analyzing synthetic or organic pesticides - it just says "pesticides". Importantly, rotenone is an organic pesticide used in organic farming and there is research linking rotenone to Parkinson's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16243845), which is the disease that is the subject of the source under question. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A recent meta analysis of 19 studies where rats were given GMO corn and soy established the organ damaging effects of these alterations: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

This study is by the Seralini lab and was widely discredited. Not mainstream science.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in reading about how it was discredited. In the future, provide links supporting your claims. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, there is a serious section in the genetically modified food controversies article that discusses Seralini's studies and the responses to them. The links are there.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First, it is interesting how that "serious section" you refer to makes use of non-English sources, which I hopes settles the above issue. Second, the study was not "discredited", and the government/industry review panels in question emphasized uncertainty and called for further inquiries.[1] Your characterization of the issue appears to be biased. Viriditas (talk)

I agree with you, Viriditas. For problems with the reception of the Seralini study, the following provides insight (this is not a source appropriate for wikipedia, but is sufficiently documented): http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294#_edn8

The underhanded politics mentioned in the above article are known to occur in this area - the following Guardian story based on a wikileaks leak shows the type of politics Monsanto, et al., resort to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-cropsPottinger's cats (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The most you can say of the report is that it said results were inconclusive, hence the authors called for further study. Tests on rats do not necessarily indicate how humans will react, so we would need a claim that in this case they did. And the fact that the report was dismissed by the scientific community means it is not useful to the article. (Globalresearch.ca is not a reliable source.) Also, it does not mention how this relates to organic food. TFD (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that whenever Globalresearch.ca gets cited to support a claim, there is reliable source which directly contradicts that claim. Nonetheless, the fact that globalresearch.ca says things that other sources don't (IE. Global warming is a myth, HAARP is a weapon, the Gaddafi and Milošević and Assad regimes are peaceful victims of NATO aggression, 9/11 was an inside job, H1N1 is a government plot to kill billions of people, &c) guarantees that people will try to cite it in controversial areas. Surely we're not relying on globalresearch.ca as an independent arbiter on controversial science issues? Every time it gets taken to WP:RSN, it gets rejected.

The Séralini study was discredited. Meanwhile Séralini has refused to release raw data and pretty much anybody who points out flaws in the methodology is dismissed as having no "right" to review the paper. And then there's the conflict of interest problems. Putting any weight on Séralini's view would be a serious failure of NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The article given, with sufficient documentation, deals with the source you gave to claim that the Séralini study was discredited, showing how conflicts of interest and other factors led to that decision. It directly deals with the issues you brought up. Globalresearch is not a mainstream source, however, many of its articles adequately controvert mainstream views. Many of its views on international politics are corroborated by the following from Gen. Wesley Clark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

Regarding Global Warming, US Navy records shows that arctic ice volume has increased 25% from 2008-2010: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/

Regarding other opinions, they defend their stance on 9/11 on their website, so I won't go into it. The opinion on weather warfare is commonly cited as a "fringe" idea, but it is discussed as a viable option by the former National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in "Between Two Ages", relevant excerpts of which are here: http://www.earthemperor.com/2008/11/18/between-two-ages-americas-role-in-the-technetronic-era-by-zbigniew-brzezinski/

It is also noted in military literature: http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf

It is also noted in the following: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN

But the opinions of many writers are varying, and each article needs to be taken on a case by case basis. The article given about the Seralini study is totally relevant. The Guardian article cited below the article relevant to the Seralini study deals with Monsanto's actions and influence, and shows how it is rational to expect crony capitalism and undue influence in these cases.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The following overview corroborates the Seralini study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20011136

So does this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835

So does this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111655Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally, Genetically modified foods pose an immense environmental and health threat, because of horizontal gene transfer. Animal research published in 2003 in the journal of Environmental Biosafety Research showed that genetically modified lactic acid bacteria are capable of transferring recombinant genes sequences horizontally into a species of digestive tract bacteria that is found in humans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612415

Other animal research on orally ingested foreign DNA shows that it is not only capable of transferring to, and altering genetic information within the animal consuming it, but is also capable of affecting the genetics of the fetuses and newborn of pregnant mice who are fed it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819049Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Folks, can we please stay on topic? Global warming is not relevant here. Nor is horizontal gene transfer. The topic is the Seralini article. I tried to make the point that it is not a reliable source -- it was discredited by all the major regulatory agencies. When I say "discredited" I mean that the alarm bells it wants to ring, saying that "GM food is bad" were found to be not credible. With respect to the desire for more knowledge, everybody wants that -- Seralini is not alone in that. It is also pretty unclear to me what kind of statement you would want to use this article to support, in an article about Organic Food. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a better defense of the Seralini study: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer, http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14217-scientists-response-to-critics-of-seralinis-studyPottinger's cats (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is not the famous long term two year study, but a meta-analysis of other studies. Again, see this: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

Under "purpose", it states, "We reviewed 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80% of all environmental genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. We have also obtained the raw data of 90-day-long rat tests following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings."Pottinger's cats (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying these references. This is off target as this really has nothing to do with organic food, but let me respond anyway. The guardian article doesn't deal with the key criticism. Let me explain it. These sprague-dawley rats have a very high rate of cancer over their lifetime (which is about two years). When I say very high rate, I mean that 70-80% of them get cancer over the two years. In other words, give them normal rat food, and that is what happens. So if you are going to do a lifetime feeding study on these rats to look for some effect (which no one has ever done on these rats, because it is insane), you would have to use many many rats to get past the statistical "noise" - to get statistical power to say something meaningful. He used about a sixth to a tenth of the number he needed, so his results have no meaning. Along those lines, if something is toxic, there is usually a dose-response. A higher dose kills you faster, up to a plateau dose. But there was no clean dose-response curve in his studies. This makes sense, since there were not enough rats to be statistically meaningful. The results are too noisy to interpret. Now Seralini likes to say "I used the same kind of rats, and the same number of rats, as Monsanto used in its tox tests. If my results are no good, theirs are no good either." Such a childish argument! The difference is, that Monsanto and every other tox testing firm does tests for 2 months. There is much less statistical noise at 2 months, and so fewer rats give enough statistical power. The public doesn't understand that, nor the issues about statistical power at all. See what I mean? Seralini has an ax to grind. He is blowing smoke in the public's face, in a very nasty and cynical way. And this is why some have said that he designed the studies to have the outcome they did, so that he could say exactly those words (same kind, same number, as Monsanto). He is not doing objective science anymore, he is doing politics in scientific garb. And since he had a book and documentary movie coming out the same week as his big press conference, maybe he also is doing money-making in scientific garb. And this is really unfortunate because we need good science to guide policy; we do not need ideology dressed up in science blowing smoke in the public's face. There are similar issues with all his studies along these lines, of which there 4 or 5, if I remember rightly. The regulatory agencies have dutifully reviewed all his studies (such a huge waste of our tax dollars, but it had to be done) and found them all to be overblown in their conclusions.Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The meta-analysis deals with 90 day periods.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I write this long answer about the 2012 study and that is how you respond? Fooey.Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It addresses your point about statistical noise - so your arguments don't apply to this meta-analysis. Also, here are scanned reproductions of some of the Food & Drug Administration's internal memoranda about the hazards of genetically engineered foods that controvert your position: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.htmlPottinger's cats (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood me -- the problems with the 2011 paper are also with his statistical analysis. Not with the number of rats, per se. I will say more about the 2011 paper after you have given me the courtesy of responding with respect to the 2012 paper issues, which I took a long time to describe. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The GM Watch article notes, in the criticism, response section: "CRITICISM: The statistical analysis was flawed. Didn't use standard methods. A "statistical fishing trip".

RESPONSE: The statistical analysis was one of a number of valid methods that could have been used to evaluate a diverse set of data sets. An expert statistician was part of the research team and this was certainly not a "fishing trip". Significance in many liver and kidney parameters are shown and highlighted in the Tables 1 and 2.

CRITICISM: Strain of rats used Sprague-Dawley (SD) is prone to tumours

RESPONSE: SD rats have been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of GM foods, and their results have been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products. They were used in the 90-day feeding trial that was conducted by industry to evaluate the toxicity of NK603 GM maize as part of the application for approval within the EU. They were also used in the original glyphosate two-year toxicity studies conducted in 2002 for regulatory approval within the EU.

The industry standard for toxicity tests performed by industry for regulatory purposes is the international protocol set out by the OECD (Organisation for International Cooperation and Development). This says that long-term carcinogenicity studies should be performed with the same strain of rat as used in shorter mid-term experiments, because this allows effects seen in the shorter experiment to be tracked to see how they develop in the long-term experiment, without the confounding factor that would occur if a different strain of rat was employed. Therefore, based on the past use of SD rats in trials of GM food and glyphosate it was scientifically correct and consistent to use this strain in Prof Seralini's long-term study.

The rats that consumed NK603 GM maize and/or Roundup in Prof Seralini's trial had an incidence of tumours, which was not just significantly greater than the control rats but also also significantly greater than observed in previous studies of SD rats. The tumour incidence in the test groups in his study was overall around three times higher than that the normal rate observed in the Harlan Sprague Dawley rat strain he used, as reported in the literature (Brix et al., 2005) including in the largest study with 1329 Sprague Dawley female rats (Chandra et al., 1992).

Furthermore, the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts.

Just to illustrate the point by analogy. We know that a small proportion of people who never smoke get lung cancer. If you smoke, the rate/risk of getting lung cancer is about 12 times higher than if you don't smoke. The measurement is called a "relative risk". So, imagine that there is an ethnic group of people with a higher rate of naturally occurring lung cancer. We know that if people in that group smoke, their rate of lung cancer will still increase like everybody else."

Yes I read that response by Seralini. Look Potter, I took a long to time to write an explanation about the main problem with the 2012 study and asked you to respond to it. You did not respond to it. (Seralini does not respond to it either, in anything that he has written). I ask you again, will you please read what I wrote and respond to it? Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your main argument is "The difference is, that Monsanto and every other tox testing firm does tests for 2 months. There is much less statistical noise at 2 months, and so fewer rats give enough statistical power. The public doesn't understand that, nor the issues about statistical power at all. See what I mean?" Well, that is dealt with in the above commentary, which notes, "the key is that there were both quantitative and qualitative differences in the tumours arising in control and test groups. In the control rats they appeared much later and at most there was one tumour per animal if at all. In the treated rats the tumours began to be detected much earlier (four months in males; seven months in females), grew much faster and many animals had two or even three tumours. Many animals in the test groups had to be euthanised under animal welfare rules due to the massive size of the tumours; none of the control animals had to be euthanised but died in their own time. One should not ignore these biological facts." Also, my response to that was a direct response - The Meta-Analysis, which I initially cited, does not apply to your argument about statistical noise, as it deals with 90 day periods, and not a 2 year period.Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not my main argument. My main argument is that if you study animals that have a huge likelihood of getting cancer over the study period, you have to use a huge number of animals, and he used only 10. So anything he saw was not interpretatable - it is just noise. These so-called differences he sees are not statistically meaningful - they are just noise. You and Seralini both keep wanting to talk about Monsanto. The topic is the Seralini study and whether it is provides any information. Sure there is data but the data is not interpretable -- there is no information in it - it doesn't mean anything. These words "faster", "later", etc. are all interesting anecdotes but they are not information that anybody should rely on. It is like if you just start out dating and the first person you meet treats you like crap so you just give up on the whole effort to meet somebody. That is just not rational decision and all your friends would try to talk you out of that decision - one person is not everybody. This is really not a complicated point. It is just that people who believe that GM is bad will not look at it, simply. Somebody might do a valid study one day that shows that GM is bad for you. This is not that study. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you stated "So if you are going to do a lifetime feeding study on these rats to look for some effect (which no one has ever done on these rats, because it is insane), you would have to use many many rats to get past the statistical "noise" - to get statistical power to say something meaningful. He used about a sixth to a tenth of the number he needed, so his results have no meaning." Still, among test groups and control groups, there was a difference. The way he did this study may be problematic. Still, my advocacy is of the meta-analysis, and I do not see how it has similar problems. It seems to be entirely appropriate to cite.Pottinger's cats (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

there is a difference in the data -- but the data cannot be interpreted -- we cannot draw any general conclusions from it. Like the bad first date thing. Do you understand that?Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In an email to me, a speaker for Seralini's institute noted "This is exactly the kind of stupid arguments since these people appear to forget that these kind of "normal" rats do not eat organic food but GMOs and numerous pesticide residues because the feed is not controlled like for our controls. Our controls develop 10-30% tumors along the essential part of the study, long term tests for drugs being always done and recommended on these rats, our treated rats 70-100% tumors (females). See attached and below." He then copied a press release, which is also located here: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14580-toxicity-confirmed-for-gmo-and-roundup-seralini-press-conference Seralini responded to many of the criticisms of his work, including some not brought up, here PMID 23146697Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out below that you responded. I didn't notice. I will ignore the insult from Seralini's "speaker". Thank you for pointing out the recent publication by Seralini responding to critics. I had not seen that. Neither the speaker nor Seralini actually addresses the point I made above, about the 'statistical need for more rats per arm. Seralini writes that the OECD regulations call for 10 per arm for tox studies, completely missing the point that those regs are designed for 2 month studies, not 2 year studies. So, point is not addressed. Not by him or his speaker. More importantly, not by you. Think, man! What is your response? Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also of relevance is the following UK Independent article on Monsanto banning GM foods from its staff canteen: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html

An out of date hoax (story dates from 1999; Monsanto has not been in the pharma business for years now). Disappointing lack of critical thought in trying to pass this off as a reliable source.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, a source documenting an event does not lose currency. What do you mean by "Monsanto has not been in the pharma business for years now"? Your misreading of our RS guideline and misstatement about Monsanto is problematic. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They sold their pharma business back in the early 2000s. The article at the link is posted as though the date is 2012 but if you take two seconds and google for infomation the hoax becomes clear.

Not very interesting even if true. So a caterer contracted to one Monsanto location did not serve GMO food. TFD (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. A bit off topic for this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What does "they sold their pharma business back in 2000" mean in relation to the news article posted above? Could someone explain this for me? I am standing outside Montsanto right now and they are working hard on GM crops. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They sold their drug business in 2002, so they no longer own the location that served non-GMO food. GMO is not a drug or pharmaceutical, it is a food product. TFD (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see that this point was part of Jytdog's currency argument. Nevertheless, an event doesn't lose currency, only study results do. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we agree that this source is outdated and irrelevant to an article about organic food? Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The following Reuters article on the safety of the Roundup Herbicide is also of relevance: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224

Right, the "electron microscopic pathogen"... Not mainstream science.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but questions about the safety and efficacy of these herbicides has been addressed by mainstream science. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am a bit speechless. This is like the "ionized water" thing.. crazy land.Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how you get that from the above report or from my comment. You are, however, parroting Monsanto's press release. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is true that nature is fighting back against all tricks Monsanto is throwing at it (and Monsanto will loose at the end) but it needs a better base than this article! The Banner _talk 23:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of Monsanto's press release. I have come across this Reuters story before and I have the same reaction now that I had when I first read it. Some poor sod cannot get his research published in a legitimate journal so he writes a letter to the USDA and apparently brought the story to the press too. The idea of an "electron microscopic pathogen" is just so ludicrous-sounding. If the guy ever publishes it in a legit journal, let's see how the scientific community reacts. Heck maybe he wins a Nobel prize. But no, findings reported in a letter to the USDA and given to the press is a) certainly not science that is discussed in a secondary source (e.g a scientific article) and is not even a legit primary source (a scientific journal) - this is pretty much WP:SELFPUBLISH. And again, unclear what kind of statement you would want to use this source to support in any case.Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Following up on this, I did some more reading and found this: http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1358.dangerous-glyphosate.html which says: "In an open letter, the President of the American Phytopathological Society (APS) made it clear that in this case Huber was not representing APS, and criticised the fact that the findings relating to the new pathogen had not been published in a scientific journal. There was no verifiable evidence available to support the claim. Scientists at Purdue University, where Huber lectured until he retired, also refuted his theories. Although they shared his general observation that glyphosate can make plants more susceptible to individual pathogens, they said that this fact had been known for some time and was also true of other herbicides. Glyphosate has, they say, been used on a large scale for more than 30 years and there are no indications of any general increase in plant diseases or associated yield losses as claimed by Huber."

Also, the journal Archives of Toxicology published a study showing that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450 times lower than what is normally used: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a primary source, not a secondary source. Under MEDRS it can still be used but judiciously. As above key point of this article is aimed not at residues left on food, which we might eat, but rather, at health effects of roundup on ag workers who spray it. If there is a section in this article on benefits/harms of organic farming vs Big Ag farmnig on farm workers, this could be useful.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This study is totally relevant to consumer safety. Farmers are exposed to much more of it, and the following studies are relevant to their exposure and the health effects of it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998747, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12148884, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18623080, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20818537, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15626647, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20012598, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23000283

This study also directly addresses your points: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21640371

The following environmental study is also of relevance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19697445Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, can we please stay on topic? Question here is the Koller VJ study in Arch Toxicol. 2012 May;86(5):805-13. called "Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells." The article does not speak to pesticide residues left on food; only on worker safety. To tie this to food residues you would have to violate WP:OR, I think. It seems to me that it can be used, judiciously, to support a cautious farm worker safety statement. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You need a source linking roundup ready crops to organic food. My understanding is that these crops are limited to corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugarbeets, and alfalfa, and are mostly avoided through healthy eating choices. Individuals may choose to avoid products containing GMO crops without buying organic food. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

but Deuces, this article does not speak to food. It speaks to production of food - specifically, farm worker health. Farm workers on organic farms as well as BigAg farms are exposed to far higher concentrations of pesticide than consumers of the resulting food are. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Again you need a source that connects it to organic farming. Please read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Deueces, if by "you" you are referring to me, you would be missing my point. I have been arguing that this article, directed to toxicity of roundup to farm workers (it was known to be toxic anyway.. not clear what this article brings to the table exactly), doesn't speak to residues on food and it cannot be used that way -- I agree that using it that way would be WP:SYN - that is what I have been saying. :) Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Extensive discussion of farm workers would seem to be more relevant in the Organic farming article, than here. Yobol (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a constructive way forward. However, for round-up ready we would need a source that makes an explicit connection to organic foods. For example it should both explain the dangers of round-up ready pesticides and contain a statement such as, "x % of conventionally raised fruit and vegetables use round-up ready pesticides, while organic farms do not." TFD (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Having no read the comments and looking further into it, only the review study on micronutrients appears relevant to the article. Of course someone would have to obtain a copy, and we would have to determine that it has not been superseded by later sources that are used in the article. And it does not provide any comment on health issues. TFD (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed citation related to "organic production and food quality"

TFD noted:

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 I am using it to say that "evidence is equivocal".Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also two organic farming movements - the small scale movements using unorthodox agricultural techniques, and the large scale movement. I feel that current reviews have not taken this into account in an adequate way.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I also have reference somewhere to an EPA overview listing many pesticides as carcinogenic - I will see if I can locate it.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For the "organic production and food quality" book, on taste, a review noted in the end that the text discussed " differences that probably lead some consumers to prefer organic products despite the price often being higher. These include, for example, taste and longer storage life of some fruit and vegetables, leaner but less tender beef with less marbling, lower nitrate and higher antioxidants, higher contents of polyunsaturated fatty acids, pig and poultry meat slightly tougher with enhanced flavour and some slight differences in milk and eggs. He concludes that the main differences between organic and conventional foods appear to be in the area of taste, freshness and the issue of nitrates and phenolic contents. He urges more research in these areas and also, on the basis of limited evidence to date, on the production of meat, milk and eggs from animals and birds raised on organic feed or forage.": http://www.soilassociation.org/motherearth/viewarticle/articleid/4763/book-review-organic-production-and-food-quality

So I have updated the article to take that into account.Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Also - I updated the response to the 2012 Seralini study above, in this talk page. At any rate, it is controversial, and including it would give undue weight. With that said, I see no reason why this 2011 meta-analysis of 90 day tests is invalid, the criticisms leveled at the other study, which were responded to (see above), do not apply to it. I would like any future dialogue on this to deal with the meta-analysis: http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10Pottinger's cats (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As usual you bring up way too many issues at once. With respect to your proposal to use "equivocal" this is not OK with me, as I mentioned in the comment when I reverted this. The data so far is NOT equivocal -- it is insufficient to make health claims for organic food (lack of clinical trials which are mostly impossible), and when you drill down and try to make claims just about differences, a lot of it becomes very detailed and somewhat contradictory, which again makes it insufficient for making broad claims. Those are very very different things from "equivocal".Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just one question before further engagement on the other issues - is there any valid objection to the Seralini 2011 meta-analysis? (not the 2012 long term study)Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Section - negatives of conventional food?

OK, i just want to open a section on this. Several folks, mostly Pottinger but I think some others too, have introduced sources and ideas in earlier Talk sections, related to chemicals and GMOs used in conventional farming being bad for you in one way or another -- sources for example that say that glyophosate is harmful, or GM food is somehow harmful. That sort of thing. I have no idea why these ideas and sources were suggested, on this Talk page for Organic Food. So I am opening this section to provide an opportunity for interested editors to make suggestions on what kind of content could be in this article, to be supported by these sources. So that is the question - what CONTENT would be included in this article, and in what section or sections, about a) negative health effects (would require MEDRS); b) with respect to chemical analysis, "more bad stuff and less good stuff"? Some sources were brought up that have to do with supposed toxicity of glyphosate (I don't think about any other herbicide/pesticde) - again I don't know what kind of content would be in this article about that. (Pottinger, please don't dump a ton of sources here - the question is, what CONTENT about "negatives of conventional food" should be in this article on Organic Food?) As for me, I have a hard time seeing why there should be any content that solely describes negatives of conventional food, that does not explicitly compare it to organic food.Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Content: - problems with some conventional pesticides and herbicides, and problems with irradiation.Pottinger's cats (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We are talking here about Organic food, not conventional food. So we must emphasise the positive sides and the negative sides of organic food. Discussing the negative sides of conventional foods will only bring in a lot of drama and denials plus a cluttered article. So, please don't! The Banner talk 03:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Motivations for organic agriculture

Hello all,
I'm concerned that Motivations for organic agriculture mostly overlaps with Organic food and Organic farming. It risks becoming a pov-fork. I think the best solution is to merge it into Organic food or Organic farming (or a little of both). What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

FAVOR. Great idea. I became aware of the "motivations" because someone added a "see also" link to it here. Seemed mighty redundant to me. I went over and cleaned it up a bit (following in your footsteps, bobrayner) - and even copied some content on Health from this article into that one. but favor dismantling it.Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Support dismantling Does not seem very neutral to me either. The Banner talk 03:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

done.Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed content from Europe section

I removed the following from the article:
": Spain

• Spain is now the EU member country with the largest surface area devoted to organic agriculture, according to Eurostat.
• The number of organic producers in Spain rose steadily from 17,509 in 2005 to 20,171 in 2007 and to 25,921 in 2009. This figure is expected to rise even further.
• Around 80% of Spanish organic produce is exported, mainly to Germany, the UK, France and Holland, according to the Spanish Society of Organic Agriculture (SEAE). "

The reference it cites seems to be a promotional website, and the Eurostat source it links to just leads to the home page. I tried to search for the article it was citing, but couldn't find it. Although it's a few years old now, other sources, like this one indicate that it is possible that that might not be the case. Also, there are some indications that Spain may be more GM crop-heavy compared to other EU nations - See, e.g. 08:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Environmental impact"

I don't undertand why this section is here. This article is about food, and "food" comes existence after the farming is over. I intend to move this section to Organic farming. I'll wait a bit for comment, though. Please let me know if you object, and why.Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I think there are pluses and minuses to keeping it here versus the farming article. Happy to go along with whatever the community decides is best... bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good enough for me. The Banner talk 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good improvements

I participated in the drawn-out dispute resolution etc. that occurred several months ago - just wanted to say, the article looks vastly improved over the version that existed several months ago, nice work to any of the recent editors. Krem1234 (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, re Organic Food article, reference #69 does not work. Am very interested in reading the reference. Help please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.93.11 (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Taste Edit

I have altered the taste section to reflect the language from the 2002 study cited, and removed the reference to the 2009 "literature review."

The language used, "there is broad agreement ...(that) most studies that have compared the taste and organoleptic quality of organic and conventional foods report no consistent or significant differences between organic and conventional produce. Therefore, claiming that all organic food tastes different from all conventional food would not be correct. However, among the well-designed studies with respect to fruits and vegetables that have found differences, the vast majority favour organic produce," was not only misleading, it was generated by an organization with the stated aim of creating "a marketing tool providing sensory information on organic food," according to the Ecropolis website. The quote essentially says that, while most studies are inconclusive, a "vast majority" of the minority of studies that were not inconclusive favor organic produce. Because they provide no numbers and do not define what is meant by a "well-defined study," this could amount to saying that a majority of the (hypothetical) 1% of studies that found a difference favored organic produce. In fact, the results analyzed in the 2009 review include a number of studies which found that conventional produce surpassed organic produce in color, taste, and other desirable sensory qualities (p. 78-92). The 2009 review is not peer reviewed.

The 2002 study is a peer reviewed, scientific source, making it the better choice according to WP:IRS. It also agrees with the statement made in the 2009, without the addition of unsubstantiated, POV language.

I would also recommend that the references to various individual studies which claim that organic produce has a better taste than conventionally grown produce be removed. There are three listed, giving the impression that there are many examples of such studies and no contrary examples. There are also many studies which claim that organic produce is less tasty. These sources have been specially chosen to serve someone's pro-organic agenda. I will be adding an equal number of references to contrary studies to try to round this section out.

150.135.115.31 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

too much content based on primary sources

today in this dif I deleted a whole paragraph of content based on primary sources, related to the taste of organic food. in my next dif I deleted another one. We do not base huge chunks of content in Wikpedia on primary sources. This is train wreck land. Please see WP:PSTS. If anybody wants to put this back, please explain here why it is valid under RS to do this and please explain how this is not just a catalog of cherry-picked-for-positivity, primary studies. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bt

• This morning, in this dif, Gavin.p.lynch removed "though organic pesticides, such as Bt toxin, are still used." from the lead with edit note "(removed line on organic farming using Bt toxin as it is both inaccurate (org. farmers use Bacillus thuringiensis, the bacterium, not the toxin produced by the bacterium) and is also a minor aspect of organic farming, not worthy of inclusion at this point.)"
• I reverted in this dif with edit note, "not true. commercial preparations of organic pesticide nclude spores and protein crystals"
• gavin re-reverted in this dif with edit note "minor aspect of organic farming not worthy of inclusion in the 1st sentence of article"
• I re-reverted in this dif with edit note: "as per WP:BRD if you are bold and make a change and are reverted, the right thing to do is to open a Talk discussion, not Edit war!"
• and now i will ask, Gavin, please bring a source that says that use of biologic agents is minor part of organic, and that among biologic agents, Bt is minor. That kind of data would be useful to include in the body and would provide a verifiable basis for your assertion and for the edit you want to make. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Jytdog, that was my first 'attempted' edit, I didn't mean to be so brazen. I was trying to open a dialogue but couldn't find a way (just figured it out when linked to this talk). Do I present source material here for discussion? Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please provide your source here. TFD (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

European Council Regulation No. 834/2007, point 13; "The essential elements of the organic plant production management system are soil fertility management, choice of species and varieties, multiannual crop rotation, recycling organic materials and cultivation techniques. Additional fertilisers, soil conditioners and plant protection products should only be used if they are compatible with the objectives and principles of organic production." I would also refer to Articles 4 and 5 of this regulation, in particular Article 5 (f) "the maintenance of plant health by preventative measures, such as the choice of appropriate species and varieties resistant to pests and diseases, appropriate crop rotations, mechanical and physical methods and the protection of natural enemies of pests;". This is the legal framework governing the production of organic food in Europe and it is quite clear that the use of natural biological agents in organic production comes well down the line from the other management practices encouraged to maintain healthy organic crops. Similarly, this policy on intervention therapies applies to organic livestock production. As EU and US organic standards are now (with a few exceptions) harmonised, I would presume the same emphasis is contained within US standards. Jytdog Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for talking! OK. Regulation in the US and the EU allows use of approved pesticides. You made a claim about the real world when you said that use of biologic agents is minor. So my question is - what source can you bring, showing that in the real world, use of (approved) pesticides is indeed "minor"? For example, here is an NPR story discussing results from a survey conducted by the USDA -- 20% of the organic products tested had residue of one of the approved pesticides. Is 20% "minor"? Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted links on your talk page to Wikipedia policies. In this case you need to provide a reliable secondary source, such as a book or article from a reputable, preferably academic, publisher. Your source is a primary source and does not say what organic farmers do but what they should do in the EU. You cannot generalize from the EU to the U.S. The regulation does not say that organic pesticides should not be used, but that pesticides should only be used "if they are compatible with the objectives and principles of organic production." Does that mean that organic pesticides should not be used? TFD (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Jytdog and TFD. OK, here's a source on prevalence of organic pesticide use - Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 21(4), pdf here. Relevant info is on 2nd to last paragraph, p26 "Use of pesticides is minimal - fewer than 10% of OFs use botanical insecticides on a regular basis,". The USDA report upon which NPR story was based only analysed organic lettuce (relevant info p26) and Bt was not one of the detected pesticides. I would still contend that biological pesticide use in organic farming is minor and that mention of Bt toxin is unwarranted in the first sentence of this article. Should there not be a burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with my edit to show that use of Bt toxin is widespread? Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

So would you think the text should read something like "though organic pesticides are used, although to a lesser extent"? I do not see any mention of Bt bacteria being used in organic farming in the book used as a source, although it says GMO farming splices a gene from the bacteria into plants. TFD (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point on the lettuce thing; the USDA testing also seems to only have been about conventional pesticides, which is not what we are talking about. On the Lotter source, it is over 10 years old, and the papers he cites are even older. The whole quote (with emphases added) is "Use of pesticides is minimal - fewer than 10% of OFs use botanical insecticides on a regular basis, 12% use sulfur, and 7% use copper-based compounds (Walz 1999). OA is not immune to the inadvertent use of dangerous pesticides, and dependence on natural origins is not a guarantee of safety. Rotenone, a botanical insecticide commonly used in households, has been linked to Parkinson's Disease in rats and poses a risk to humans. Pyrethrum, a botanical pesticide, has recently been listed by the EPA as a likely carcinogen. However, a survey of organic vegetable growers showed that only 5.3% use rotenone and 1.7% use pyrethrum (Fernandez- Cornejo et al. 1998). So this is not a great source. It also atomizes the results - if different farmers use different chemicals, the numbers there add up to about 35% of organic farmers using chemical inputs, but we don't know how many overlaps there are among chemical users. If the user-groups do overlap, what this says is that about 100% of organic farmers who use pesticides, use botanical insecticides! Altogether, too old and too vague to be useful. In general this is an interesting question and I appreciate it being raised; it comes down to what data is available. And the problem is, that there is not much. For the US, data is hard to find, since the US doesn't require reporting on pesticide use by organic growers, so things are pretty anecdotal here. In the UK there are annual surveys and you can query them (http://pusstats.fera.defra.gov.uk/myindex.cfm); the database includes organic-approved chemicals so you can find them there, but I have not found secondary sources (yet) discussing the data. I found this - article about a agchem company that has introduced an organic line and has seen sales grow 20% a year. Am still looking for good sources, with recent data, to resolve this question. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this Jytdog. You're right of course, data is extremely hard to find on this issue. Having looked at DEFRA pesticide monitoring site, most recent figures put Bt usage in the UK at approx 2,150 ha treated using approx 57kgs of Bt. Even if we were to presume that all of this Bt were to be applied on only organic farms, this would still only amount to 0.35% of the entire UK organic area (most recent figures) . Regarding the company seeing 20% growth in sales of organically certified pesticide; that could be based on selling 10 litres one year and 12 the next. Might I suggest that in the absence of recent information to the contrary of my suggested edit (or in support of the status quo), that the available information we have is used to guide this. I think the mention of organic pesticide use should be confined to a separate paragraph or section; its relevance to a broad description of organic food is certainly not worthy of inclusion in the lead, let alone the first sentence. Organic standards permit the use of natural fertilisers and soil conditioners, animal remedies, even limited use of antibiotics to treat sick livestock; should these facts also be included in the lead? They would bear equal relevance to the use of organically approved pesticides in organic food production yet to include these facts would be entirely off topic when providing a brief overview of what 'organic food' actually is. My proposed edit is just a simple deletion of "though organic pesticides, such as Bt toxin, are still used.". Of course this information is true and very worthy of inclusion in the article, but it is not of significant enough relevance to appear in the lead. TFDJytdogGavin.p.lynch (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the Bt data in that database, and holy cow those numbers in the database under ""Bacillus thuringiensi" are amazing! From 8,352 in 1992, decreasingly steadily to 44 in 2007. Just wow. BUT if you dig in a bit, you see that the data is weird - The Bt data ends in 2007, and three other entries start in 2007 and go through to 2012. So if you look at "Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki" it was 2,096 in 2012, and if you look at the entry for "Bacillus subtilis" it is 6,651 in 2012, so there is no drop at all from 1992. This is why I said that we shouldn't rely on the database - it takes time and thinking to make sense out of, and we cannot do that under WP:OR - we need a secondary source that does that.Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The source supporting the use of Bt does not actually mention Bt, so I think it should be either sourced or removed. TFD (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That data is weirdly presented Jytdog . Post 2007, they cease measuring Bt as one pesticide and begin measuring use of both strains (kurstaki and israelensis), the total application of which amounts to approx 2,150 ha treated with 60kgs in 2012. Bacillus subtilis is a separate species and is used as a soil inoculant (and in bomb disposal too it seems!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_subtilis#Uses . I understand your point in relation to OR but my main point in seeking to make this edit remains that this fact is not of significant relevance to a broad description of organic food. Thanks for engaging in this JytdogTFDGavin.p.lynch (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ok, just copyedited the lead. i think the changes addressed Gavin's concern that the definition of "organic" should stress the wholistic stuff and only mention pestices as a backstop. I agree that there is no specific need to reference Bt among the organic pesticide options. So.. good now? Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that copy reads much better now Jytdog. I'm happy with it, and again, apologies for my rookie inadvertent edit war. Just one minor edit I would suggest is to add the word 'natural' or 'naturally based' before the mention of pesticides allowed in organic, just to make a clear distinction between synthesised pesticides and the type of pesticide allowed under organic standards.Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

all good, thank you so much for talking!!! on the "natural" thing, i say hmmm and have 2 responses. first, certain synthetic pesticides are allowed under most countries' regulations. secondly, nothing that is processed and sold is "natural" anymore. "natural" is just pretty cynical marketing language. (oy) when i was making the edit, i debated whether to provide an adjective for "pesticide" in the lead, and decided it was too much detail and nuance for the lead to flesh it out there; the lead (as per WP:LEAD) is just meant to be a high level summary.... Does that make sense? If not we can puzzle together more about what to say here, adjectivally. and congenially of course! Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You might be right on the 'natural' thing actually Jytdog. It's a bit fluffy and carries certain connotations now due to it's hijacking by marketeers. Perhaps 'organically approved' might be better and it could reference the relevant sections on permitted inputs in organic standards?Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

if it is in the body, it can be in the lead. if it is sourced in the body, it doesn't have to be sourced in the lead. "organically approved" is in the body and sourced, so it can go in as the adjective. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a go!Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

New section about pesticide residue and GM food

Today, User:Cboudre7 added a long section on pesticide residues and GM food in these difs, with no edit notes. I reverted in this dif with edit note: "discussion of genetically modfied crops are not relevant to organic food, as organic food is by definition not from genetically modified crops; please bring to talk as per WP:BRD" Cboudre7 undeleted in this dif again with no edit note. I re-reverred in this dif with edit note "Please do not edit war! As per WP:BRD please come to Talk. Thank you."

As stated, this passage is not about organic food and does not belong in this article. Cboudre7 and others, please respond. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm so sorry for the mistake I made. I'm doing this for a genetics course in school and I totally thought the page was on GMOs...obviously it's not. I blame the sleep deprivation of fourth year university. Again, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cboudre7 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Funny note. :) Please do not sleep-edit wikipedia - people watch these articles and care about them, so please do make an effort to fit new content into what exists, on this page or others. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But in the mean time, you did put it back in (after your reply, that is). I kicked it out again, because I have no clue what the relevance of this piece is for Organic food. The Banner talk 21:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Economics

I've deleted a line in the economics section that stated "According to the USDA, Americans, on average, spent $1,347 on groceries in 2004; thus switching entirely to organics would raise their cost of groceries by about $135 to $539 per year ($11 to $45 per month) assuming that prices remained stable with increased demand." because it contains OR and seems of questionable relevance to an economic overview of organic food. Also, the extrapolated data is of such a range as to be quite useless. I'm happy to let this revert if sources of meaningful data are provided.Gavin.p.lynch (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Comments like that should only be in the text if they are attributed and need to be significant. One could equally say that by cutting out prepared junk foods one would save money by switching to organic food. TFD (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

EPA regulations on pesticides

Possibly incorporate a section with information pertaining to the EPA's tolerance for pesticide residue. I think it is important for consumers (whether buying organic or not) to know that the tolerances set are exceeded less than one percent of the time. Tperki10 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC) (further edited Tperki10 (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

Organic Farming

Organic farming goals are to prevent soil fertility and/or pest issues. Eliminates groundwater pollution because synthetic pesticides are not used. GMOs are not permitted and as the potential health risk are not completely understood- organic farming takes a precautionary step forward by eliminating it. Tperki10 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Tperki10 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Certified Organic Catagories

Maybe this should go under first topic: Definition. There are four different levels or categories for organic labeling. 1)‘100%’ Organic: This means that all ingredients are produced organically. It also may have the USDA seal. 2)‘Organic’: At least 95% or more of the ingredients are organic. 3)’Made With Organic Ingredients': Contains at least 70% organic ingredients. 4)‘Less Than 70. Organic Ingredients’: Three of the organic ingredients must be listed under the ingredient section of the label. “USDA organic: what qualifies as organic?" Massage Therapy Journal Spring 2011: 36+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2014. Tperki10 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Two objectsions. 1. the USA has 300 million people, it's undue to give them more weight. 2. Your source is crap, Second Quantization (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

changes made in mid-July

in series of difs, Doc James made a series of edits that I mostly reverted today. Two main issues:

1. It is not true that in the scientific literature, differences between organic and conventional produce are controversial. Every serious review, including the most recent one, acknowledges that it is very hard to draw generalizations from the data at hand, due to variability in the actual things being tested (due to a) differences in how they are grown (soil, fertilizer, weather, seed, in any given region in any given year); b) differences in what transpires between harvest and testing (how far do they travel, what is done to them in the meantime), and c) what is actually tested for. Furthermore, everybody agrees that it is nigh onto impossible to draw conclusions about health effects between eating conventional and organic, due to the difficulty and expense of designing and running a meaningful clinical trial. So - nothing is contoversial from within science.
2. I object to the 2014 meta analysis being added to the lead. It found differences in cadmium and antioxidants, but again, it drew no conclusions about health effects. Different studies are going to find different things - this nutrient or that anti-nutrient are going to be higher or lower in this or that study. The key thing, and I again emphasize this - no study, not even the 2014, draws conclusions that organic food is healthier.

It is totally fine to cite and use the 2014 meta-analysis (of course!) but I fail to see why it belongs in the lead or causes any dramatic changes to this article.Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be in the lead. It's the most definitive meta-analysis to date. There is no rule that says only health effects can be covered in the lead. It's a fact that organic food has less pesticide residue, higher anti-oxidants, and less cadmium. Fine if it's not claimed that these are health effects, but odd to completely omit. TimidGuy (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

One problem here is that none of the variables mentioned here have been unambiguously tied to health. Antioxidants have variously been found to increase or decrease the risk of cancer/mortality, or to have no effect for example here, here, and here.Formerly 98 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

TimidGuy we don't discuss details of any of the recent reviews in the lead, nor should we (in my opinion... I don't know how we would summarize that mass of data, but i am open to suggestions). And if we are going to, it seems to me that we would have to provide detail about how they are not different as well, and deal with very recent reviews that found different things. You have provided no reason under WP:WEIGHT nor WP:NPOV to justify describing just the two positive findings for organic food from the 2014 meta review in the lead. Please do so. Also the lead does mention differences in chemical composition... Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

article structure

In the course of the discussion about how to handle the 2014 meta review, I just want to let new folks here know that the current structure of the article was the result of a looooong negotiation. (much of it is here but it is in other archives as well.) The crux of the conflict, was the conflation of two separate questions -- 1) is organically produced food chemically different from conventionally produced food in any generalizable way, and 2) to the extent those differences exist, do they matter for health? By separating those two topics carefully, we were able to settle the article content to the satisfaction-enough of all the parties involved at that time, which was a happy thing. If we want to revisit that consensus, let's do that consciously and carefully. Anyway, to maintain that, I moved content introduced by Formerly 98 in this dif, down into the health section. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, sorry to intrude. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

the content was great, thank you! just thought i should let everybody know about the structure thing - your edit just prompted it. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Taste section

The "Taste" section of the article ironically brings up the an issue related to the somewhat arbitrary line between organic and non-organic agriculture. While the paragraph refers to artificially ripening fruits with the "chemical" ethylene, ethylene is in fact a naturally produced hormone produced by most fruit bearing plants as part of their regulation of fruit ripening. We don't call vitamin C a chemical when it is extracted from citrus and compressed into a pill for human consumption at large multiples of any possible natural exposure, but concentrating the natural product ethylene and applying to to fruit at concentrations similar to those found in nature is "chemical"? It seems like the language of the paragraph needs to be modified, but I"m not sure how to do it without wandering into WP:OR. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

addressed that. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Perceptions

I had my edits to perceptions reversed apparently due to the claim it is original research. Actually the paragraph contains much original research and doesn't address where the perceptions came from at all.I was fixing that. To accuse me of original research when I claim that the source of the perception of organic food being healthier comes from The likes of Sir Albert Howard, Lady Eve Balfore and Rodale press etc.. is ridiculous actually. They are the principle reason we even have an organic movement. But if you want more. Why not read this:http://books.google.com/books?id=Qh7dkdVsbDkC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=sir+Albert+Howard+Knighted&source=bl&ots=w9euvIx-85&sig=XHLtq-Ql7sz506GMlnzCf8Z2On8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Wfv0U6GfBOGejAL24YHQBg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sir%20Albert%20Howard%20Knighted&f=false "Redddbaron (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

actually just the first sentence was unsourced. everything else is sourced. Thanks for pointing that out. Very grateful you are working to expand the article - please just follow WP:VERIFY. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

To explain, what needs sourcing is the claim that " This perception originated in the early days of the organic movement as a result of publications like The Living Soil, Gardening and Farming for Health or Disease, and later Silent spring and periodicals like Mother Earth News and Prevention Magazine." How do I verify that it is true that the perception originated from those publications? That is what you need a source for. Without a source, the content is indeed WP:OR. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

<cynical>And I guess that source must be WP:MEDRS approved?</cynical> The Banner talk 20:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Redbaron, really, I am glad you are improving the article. The section is public perception. lan's book makes it clear that "the living soil" Blafore, etc are important for organic movement "geeks", as it were but are not what made organic Important to the Public. Pollan talks about the Alar scare, about silent spring, and other stuff. Not Howard/Balfore/Rodale. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

and Banner, don't be a dick. You already made a pointy revert. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My friend, you removed sources without good reason. The Banner talk 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

There was no source given for the actual statement. Please see above. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, and the first sentence I didn't write, nor do I have any knowledge or belief it is even true or could even be backed up. I left it so as to "tread lightly" on other editors work. However, the public perception of the health benefits of organic food precedes the existence of an "organic industry" by many decades. In fact it is the perception that was already well established that marketers for the organic industry are attempting to exploit! The marketing wouldn't even exist if the perception wasn't there already! Marketing of organic by industry is simply filling a demand in the marketplace that already existed. As far as what I wrote, I just added a citation to Pollan's book where it explains the influence of early writers like Howard and Rodale. Is that enough? Shall I go find more?Redddbaron (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Redbaron, I mentioned the first sentence to acknowledge that you were correct that the rest of the paragraph was lacking in sourcing. What are you objecting to? As for the rest of what you write, I have been trying to tell you for a while now, that content needs sourcing. What is the support for the rest of what you added? The idea of WP:VERIFY is that a reader can go read the footnote you provide, to verify that what you added is true. (along those lines, if you cite a book, you should give a page number or reasonable range of numbers.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Redbaron, I want to go back to Pollan. Again, this section is about public perception. The "laity", not the "priesthood". Reading from the page you linked to above, it is really clear that there is "birth of the modern organic movement" around Alar (see pp 152ff). The "pure folk" Howard, Rodale, etc, and their ideology didn't really hit the public perception. It was Alar that made the public aware.. that made this boom. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea of WP:VERIFY is to make reasonable requests for sources. Asking for a source for every sentence and/or word is not reasonable. The Banner talk 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

banner, you are just being pointy and you are not actually engaged in the discussion of content and sources, just disrupting it. please join, or go away. 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have all the right to be here and to be critical how you treat/strangle this article. You are clearly not here to improve the article but to prevent that something positive is coming into the article. So stop disrupting the article. The Banner talk 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a slower typer than you. :P Your reply came between me posting for the previous post! Sometimes you are getting in 2 or 3 posts while I am still replying to the first! :D Anyway, shall I cite a reference that prevention magazine has a readership of over 10 million a month and is a health magazine by Rodale press promoting that public perception? The influence of these publications is well documented on their respective wiki pages or they wouldn't have a wiki page of their own. I thought that same principle you talked about in the Organic farming page applied here as well? Any issues of notability should be addressed on their respective pages? The pages in Pollan's book that reference Howard's book and it's influence are above. (pp 145,146....) Oh and BTW "organic movement "geeks" is kind of uncalled for on a wikipage about Organic food don't you think? If that isn't biased language, I don't know what is. I am trying to show that the perception in the organic movement that organic food is healthier comes from the published literature produced by the organic movement and have been making that claim from the very beginnings of "organic" and provided references to some of the most influential of those publications. Actually Pollan makes similar claims about health too, as he is influenced by the earlier works himself. But his influence IMO is simply building on public perception that already existed, so I have to cut it off somewhere or we will end up with a whole dissertation on what influences public perception 10 paragraphs long.;)Redddbaron (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for continuing to talk, redbaron. prevention, mother jones, etc, talk about a lot of stuff, not just organic. the statement you wrote (which appears more and more to be based on your perception of the world, and not on any source at all!) says that those magazines drove public perception of the benefits of organic. I think the question of what drives public perception of organic is important, interesting, and not trivial. Why do people buy Mother Jones and Prevention at all? Are those magazines actually driving perception of organic, or (what i think is more likely) are there underlying forces that are driving consumption of both? ( is it really correlation, not causation? ... like the example of a survey finding that college kids who sleep in their clothes wake up with headaches. are the clothes causing the headaches? NO - the kids are getting drunk before they go to bed!). anyway, again, this is what I mean - what you added to the article appears to be your perception of what drives public perception. as far as I can tell, the content is not based on published work by people who have studied this. do you see what i mean now? we are supposed to find great sources, absorb them, and add content based on them. not write content, and then go find content that supports it..... thanks for continuing to talk! (and on the "geeks" thing, I am using that in a friendly way. (we live in an age where technology is driving change - "geek" is a good thing - geeks are the ones holding the reins and creating the stuff that we all consume; this is what i meant by "geeks" of the organic movement -- the ones driving change, not just the consumers). Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

redbaron, the citations you are adding, do not support the statement -- you are just adding references to the very things you are discussing, not to their importance. Here is an example: "Jytdog (ref:User:Jytdog) is one of the worst editors on Wikipedia" What I did there, was provide a source that says who Jytdog is.... but there is no source supporting the actual statement about Jytdog. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not just my perception Jytdog. I have been adding more sources. For example, the "silent spring" reference I added wasn't to silent spring itself, but rather an link that states, "Environment, conservation, green, and kindred movements look back to Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring as a milestone. The impact of the book, including on government, industry, and civil society, was immediate and substantial, and has been extensively described" Now this particular source I used to cite the public perception as it applies to pesticides. I also added a citation after "the living soil", but not to the living soil, instead to a PUBLIC speech made by Lady Eve Balfour about the results found in the haughley experiment (published in The Living Soil) including "the purpose being to assess what effect, if any, the different soil treatments had on the biological quality of the produce grown thereon, including its nutritive value as revealed through its animal consumers. This had never been done before.". So the citation isn't the actual book the living soil, but the influence. Oh and the omnivores dilemma itself is a good history of "organic" confirming these influences...not on me..but on others perceptions. I am trying very hard to stay out of it. MY perceptions are very different, with completely different origins, trust me.Redddbaron (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)PS remember, I am not writing NOR placing citations to support the first line of the paragraph, only what I wrote. Someone else, whoever wrote it, will have to support the perception is widespread beyond us "organic geeks".Redddbaron (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

respectfully, how does the speech by lady balfour, describing the science they were doing, tell the reader anything about her influence on public perception, in her time or ours? Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Remember, I am not the one who claimed this is a widespread public perception. What I did is trace back to where the idea came from originally. That's easy with pesticides and "Silent spring" because it was immediate and and significant. However, personally I don't even know if the nutritional benefits derived from organic soils is nearly as well known or perceived by the "widespread general public". What I do know is that idea came from the Haughley experiment, which was the first scientific study on the health effects derived from healthy organic soils, and they were positive. But just because there was a study doesn't place that information in the minds of others or show it's influence. The Rodale Press largely did that. However, a speech to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 34 years after publication does show some things. The experimental evidence did show health benefits and at least with the "organic geeks" the book is, was and remained influential, or she wouldn't be invited to speak about it 34 years later. Still need to prove the "organic geeks" at IFOAM have any influence at all on the public, and/or reflect "widespread public perceptions", or both. The wikipage says "The Living Soil (1943) by Lady Eve Balfour is considered a seminal classic in organic agriculture and the organic movement. The book is based on Balfour's agricultural and medical research, and the initial findings of the first three years of the Haughley Experiment, the first scientific, side-by-side farm trial to compare organic and chemical-based farming." but it isn't referenced well either. But again, I never claimed there is a widespread public perception(positive or negative). We still need some citations for that. Maybe an opinion poll? What I did do though is document where the idea that organic soil effects plant nutrition which in turn ultimately effects human health started. How, if, and/or how much that idea entered into the public mind, I can't say with certainty. I would love to see a reference for that first sentence, which I didn't write myself. That might help a lot. However, what I wrote is well referenced IMHORedddbaron (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

you do know that you added text to the section of the article called "public perceptions", right? sorry to ask. but how does the first scientific experiment matter, for public perception? thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You still need sources that connect what happened in the past with organic foods. I suppose Silent Spring made people aware of pesticides and that is one reason some people buy organic food, but you need a source that connects the two, otherwise it is original research. Note too as a result of Silent Spring environmental and pesticide regulations were introduced that arguably could have eliminated the need for organic food, so you cannot just assume the connection. And you also need to explain why organic food suddenly exploded decades after Silent Spring was published. TFD (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK I made a subtle change in my original edit that should put this to rest. (hopefully) I changed "perception" to "idea". This way it is up to the original editor to provide a citation backing how, when, if, and/or to what degree, the "idea" became widespread enough to be considered a "widespread public perception". All I did was show where the idea came from. Keep in mind though, this is NOT my opinion. My opinion on the public perception is there is no difference and I base my opinion on the fact that I grow and sell organic produce. Even the vast majority my loyal customers think there is little difference in taste, nutritional quality or safety between organic and conventional. They think my produce tastes better, is more nutritious and is safer, not because it is organic, but because it is fresh. This is nearly universal in my experience. The ONLY ones I personally have ever seen that say differently are professional chefs, not the public. But the wiki article has claimed the general public's perception is the opposite. So I have traced where the idea came from, without taking sides to whether the first sentence is even true or not.Redddbaron (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been stalking the conversation for awhile, but haven't really seen a source that's really concretely showing how public perception has been shaped. Since public perception here specifically is a fringe topic, having strong reliable sources directly commenting on public perception are even more important. Echoing TFD's comment about, the sources I've seen brought up seem to be used for borderline original research where we are connecting the dots here at Wikipedia rather than relying on a reliable source that connects the dots for us. Either way, my 2 cents is to be mindful of WP:Fringe for any additional conversation on this topic. That guideline does help inform how this topic should be addressed, and can explain why Redddbaron has encountered some difficulty in using certain sources or adding content here. It's difficult to comment on fringe topics while properly weighting and sourcing them, so that's all the more reason for really strong sources in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this source "The cost of this solution to the demand for plentiful cheap food has

been several major and minor food scares. The arrival of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the UK during the late 1980s was a turning point in the relationship between the consumer and the food industry. The link between BSE and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) a few years later was merely confirmation of what the majority of consumers already suspected." http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/1/254.full.pdf+html Which would explain why the jump in organic demand exploded long after the initial root idea was in the public perception.(That The Four Deuces asked) It also claims "The food industry is no longer able to move in the direction it would like without meeting stiff resistance from environmental pressure groups. This has led to some well-publicised clashes, where both parties have attempted to gain the support of consumers by manipulating" The environmental awareness factor I can also confirm in my experience. More consumers are concerned over the environment and how environmental degradation ultimately is the risk and safety factor behind industrial and organic food. So that media manipulation may have more to do with the perceptions than organic marketers. That of course goes back to silent spring. How we handle this (if at all) in the text I am not sure.Redddbaron (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What you quoted isn't discussing organic (BSE isn't particularly relevant to organic). The rest of your reply sounds like speculation and original research. Again, you'll need to bring a source that directly addresses the question rather than synthesizing information yourself. You're bringing a lot of information to this talk page, but a lot of it is tangential at best to the question of how public perception has been shaped. That's where you've been running into trouble in the above conversations. You need a reliable source that specifically addresses perception of organic food, not just food in general or other related topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You said, "BSE isn't particularly relevant to organic" and that is factually incorrect. There has never ever been a single case of BSE in organic animal husbandry. Two reasons, one is the pasture rule, second is the ban by organic in feeding animal proteins to herbivores. These rules existed before the first case of BSE was ever reported, so BSE was never a problem in organic. "There have been no recorded cases of BSE confirmed in any organic cattle reared and raised on fully-converted organic farms." http://www.soilassociation.org/aboutus/ourhistory/ourachievements BSE is caused by feeding dead cow scraps etc.. to cows. Grass and hay doesn't and can't transmit BSE. The general public knows this, why don't you?Redddbaron (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're going on a tangent. You aren't addressing public perception with any sources or content at this point. Also keep in mind you are crossing the civility line with your last sentence (this isn't the place for editor behavior issues, so I'll leave it at that for now). The more important issue is that like in your last sentence, you are making claims that the general public knows or thinks something, but you aren't providing sourcing for that. We need reliable sources that document public perception specifically for this discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the link I proposed?"Research has shown that there are many factors that modulate the

consumers perception of risk (adapted from Covello & Merkhofer1 ): • Trust (did this person tell the truth the last time?) • Receptivity (it happens to other people but not to me!) • Familiarity (the risk of Escherichta colt 0157 infection versus the risk of slipping on ice) • Understanding (the risk of genetically modified foods versus the risk of sunburn) • Scientific uncertainty (the risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from beef versus the risk of crashing the car) • Controllability (exposure to antibiotic residues in meat versus the risk of flying) • How voluntary (exposure to pesticides in food versus contracting cancer from smoking) • Impact on children (risk perceived greater if children affected) • Dread (a slow death from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease versus a quick death from a plane crash) • Media (source of popular understanding influences risk perception) • Benefits (risk versus benefit: the risks mvolved with taking the contraceptive pill versus the benefit of preventing unwanted pregnancy)" CJD is listed twice in specifically in the Perceptions of risk section and detailed discussion of the reasons discussed after. Including how that perception is causing the size of the niche market for organic produce to grow.Redddbaron (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not apparent where you're taking this content from (no link was given that has this information that I see), but now you're discussing consumer risk, not organic perception specifically. Again, we need to stay on topic for the specific content being discussed here. Given the amount of discussion that's gone on here, and no source that is supporting the sentence in question yet even after this amount of discussion, it's looking like the sentence should just be removed until it can be sourced properly. The question Jytdog posed at the beginning of this discussion about how we actually verify the sentence hasn't been answered yet. It seems like you're trying to answer a different question with the sources you are posting here since they don't really fit towards any answer. Do you understand that the sentence, "This idea originated in the early days of the organic movement as a result of publications like The Living Soil, Gardening and Farming for Health or Disease,and later Silent spring and periodicals like Mother Earth News and Prevention Magazine" is currently original research and that we need sources that document when the idea originated and that the publications listed are an origin of the idea in the context of public perception? That is the key question that needs to be addressed to move this conversation forward. Kingofaces43 (talk

Don't be confused Kingofaces43. The link to the source for the BSE was in answering a question here in talk. That source is not in the article. (and won't be put here unless it is approved here in talk) The most important link IMHO in the article showing the link between public perception of food quality and safety and organic and where that general perception originated is the Oxford paper. http://orgprints.org/22934/7/22934.pdf. Maybe if you kind of understand the structure a bit it would help. First the idea had to enter organic. That is establish by the sources from the early organic and biodynamic and other "green" movements. Then Silent spring came along and propelled that idea into the general public consciousness. Periodicals reinforced that perception. Later a few blunders made by the food industry like BSE reinforced this perception further and organic advocates taking advantage. (with soil society and periodicals like Prevention claiming "told you so"). The point is it is not original research or a synthesis by me to tie these together because the citations do explain each part of the chain of events in greater detail and the linkage for each step.Redddbaron (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the source you just listed does not discuss what you are proposing. It primarily discusses Carson, but not quite in the context of the first two sentences of the Public Perception section. It isn't appropriate as a secondary source for the entire second sentence because it is not intended as a review of the history of the organic movement in this particular context. With that, there is no source for saying that the idea originated in the early days of the organic movement, or where it originated from. That's what we need in order to have such a sentence. Your last sentence just described WP:SYNTHESIS. We don't tie things together at Wikipedia. We rely on sources to give an overview of the topic in this case and summarize what the specific source says. I'm definitely open to the content in general, but we need a source that actually supports it without synthesis on our part, and also explicitly makes such a statement rather than loose associations that are currently being pulled together. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read or understand what this means: "The impact of the book, including on government, industry, and civil society, was immediate and substantial, and has been extensively described; however, the provenance of the book has been less thoroughly examined." with a whole paper explaining the provenance and how it relates to the Organic movement. It is not a synthesis on my part. It is documented with a scholarly paper that has connected the dots. BTW The reason I DIDN'T add the citation to the BSE reference (though true) is I felt adding that might be construed as a synthesis until a better citation could be found connecting it. I simply posted it here for discussion in talk.Redddbaron (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I read that line, and that's exactly the issue I'm bringing up. That source is particularly discussing one book. It's not discussing the overall history of public perception of organic and most of the other content in the sentence, but instead is addressing a much narrower context with Carson (i.e. not connecting the dots, not an comprehensive review of public peception). If that's the best source we have (even if added to the content), we don't particularly have grounds for keeping the content. That is the issue multiple users have brought up so far that does need to be addressed to include the sentence as is. Normally we find an appropriate source first, and then add content summarizing the source here, not the other way around. The whole key issue is that the sentence isn't appropriately sourced, and after all this discussion, it doesn't appear anyone is bringing a source in that actually summarizes the topic. Until we get such such a source, there doesn't really seem to be much room for this conversation to go. Again, I'm entirely open to including content that documents public perception in general, but we need a source that's actually giving an overview on that topic rather than individual pieces like Carson, early pioneers in organic, etc. The former results in summarizing a statement or two directly from the source that gives a good general overview, while the latter results in piecing things together. Do you see the difference now? Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you stop the edit war, mr. Kingofaces43. It is quite annoying to see everything positive removed in this article with every time other rather poor excuses. The Banner talk 14:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Banner, the edits I've made so far have been in line with what we are discussing here. I'm quite aware you don't like to the removal of the content, but we are at the discussion portion of BRD, not the revert stage when you came in with reverts. You are more than welcome to join the conversation as I have suggested multiple times now. As I stated on your talk page, this has nothing to do with positive or negative content. If you do want to constructively join the conversation, can you bring a source that appropriately summarizes public perception of organic and what has influenced it? That's what we've been trying to do this entire time. If we don't find a source, then it's extremely hard to suggest the content stays. If we find a source, then we'll edit the currently removed sentence to reflect that source. Simple as that. This discussion has been relatively civil so far (and hopefully we'll get some progress), but we shouldn't be doing things to inflame the issue. The sentence is removed to take a step back and look at it. Either we'll keep discussing the removed content for awhile, not find a source, and the discussion fizzles out, or we do find a source and we edit the article appropriately. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is okay that you are in complete denial over this, but the fact is that you are on the brink of breaking the 3RR-rule, not me. So stop telling me to go away. It is better that you step back from this instead of continuing the edit war. The Banner talk 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you to join the conversation if you feel strongly, not go away. This isn't the place for discussing editor behavior. If you join the conversation about the content we are discussing, you are more than welcome. That's what I've been asking you to do all along with the rest of us.Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On Jytdog's edit, I'd say it's definitely an improvement in that section since those statements deal with history more than anything. It'll still be good to find a good overview source as suggested above, so if anyone finds one, let's talk about public perception content a bit more. For now it seems like we'd be stalled out in that topic with our current sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

as i had suggested above, i moved the contested content to History, where it fits better. Hopefully it can live peacefully there. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully it should. It's a lot easier to say something was notable from a historical context in general as the content sits now than to specify how public perception was formed. Out of the two different directions this could have gone, I like this low hanging fruit approach while leaving the public perception question open until we get better sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I too feel very strongly that you are obfuscating Kingofaces. There is no evidence what so ever that you have contributed anything positive to improve the article. Jytdog at least has a goal of improving the article as evidenced by his edits. I still feel that the article needs much work, and his compromise is not exactly sufficient to remove the inherent bias found here. Certainly it didn't remove the bias from the perceptions section. I will be nibbling away at the article as I find time. Unfortunately I do have my own work and any agriculturalist's busy season is the growing season. So I might not be able to do a whole lot until winter.Redddbaron (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

please comment on content, not contributors, redbaron. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Jytdog above, it's better not to cast aspersions. It typically inflames civility issues. I've been trying to address sourcing concerns and discussion about that. Nothing more. Best to let things be here for this conversation as it doesn't appear any new content or sources are being proposed at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)