Talk:Codex Alimentarius/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Addition to Controversy Section

The following text has been added (reverted, and re-added) to the article: Additional controversy has been expressed by proponents of ecologically and socially sustainable agriculture and food systems who view the Codex Alimentarius as antithetical to this goal. According to the Manifesto on the Future of Food, the Codex Alimentarius has “codified policies designed to serve the interest of global agribusiness above all others, while actively undermining the rights of farmers and consumers”. “The inherent bias of international rule-making bodies such as the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius toward large-scale, export oriented monoculture production in agriculture, as well as in all other production, is a direct cause of social dislocation, environmental devastation and the undemocratic concentration of global corporate power to the detriment of communities everywhere.” <ref>{{cite web | title=Manifesto on the Future of Food | author=The International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture | date=July 15, 2003 | url=http://www.farmingsolutions.org/pdfdb/manifestoinglese.pdf}}</ref>''

The addition is valid, is referenced, and should stay. Let's discuss improvements here before reverting it again. Greenman (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a very poorly sourced reference. Who are the "ecologically and socially sustainable agriculture and food systems"? I checked out The International Commission on Food and Agriculture and it doesn't appear to be a legitimate organization. Its entire purpose seems to be to put out an inflammatory report. Yes, they used the words "International" and "Commission" in their title but that alone doesn't mean that it's a legitimate source. As I look at the reference (both the Manifesto and the source www.farmingsolutions.org), who actually wrote this and . What page are these quotes on?

Proponents include Slow Food - I've added a link and reference to their involvement in drafting the manifesto. Greenman (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Manifesto states that it has codified policies designed to serve the interst of global agribusiness. Give me a single example of this happening or this being covered in the Codex. The Codex is a reference book on food standards. It doesn't speak at all as to who food is produced, and agriculture does include things that are not classified as food (such as cotton and linen). So how does anything in a reference book regarding what testing needs to be done on canned peaches have to do with agriculture?

Arguments in the manifesto include standards such as irradiation and standardised shrinkwrapping of cheeses. It stands to reason that these are obstacles for smaller suppliers.Greenman (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You say "The inherent bias of international rule-making bodies such as the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius toward large-scale, export oriented monoculture production in agriculture". Why is the Codex biased? Expand on the quote. I looked at the reference you provided and I find no support for this quote so I removed it.

This is a direct quote from section 16, not the editor who added it, so should be restored. As alluded to in the section above, certain food standards add to the costs of small producers, and can therefore be seen as biased. Greenman (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin. I agree that testing food products before it is put on the market adds costs to all businesses (whether small producers or large agribusiness), but that isn't an example of how the Codex is biased. In any business there are costs that don't directly add to profits, such as filing tax returns, doing payroll, and many administrative costs. These are all the costs of doing business, and when any business (large or small) decides they want to go into business they need to look at all costs and figure out whether they are going to be in business and if so, how does the company minimize costs. For small businesses, the costs of ensuring a safe product might be expensive. Small businesses want an easy way to figure out what they have to do to demonstrate their product is safe. That's why small businesses love to use reference material, such as the Codex Alimentarius. The Codex consists of the expert advice of some of the top food scientists in the world packaged at a costs that is affordable to any small business. The Codex allows small businesses to compete with large corporations. Now small businesses don't need to follow the Codex. If they want to differ from the Codex, that's fine, as long as they have the scientific backing to support what they are doing. Whether a business uses the Codex or some other reference source is a business decision, and that applys equally to small business and large corporations.

This isn't a forum for us to debate our point of view, rather, to apply and improve the article. But your point doesn't really hold, as if a hypothetically biased organisation introduced a standard that carrots must be wrapped in clingwrap to be safe, it's understandable how some could view that as biased towards clingwrap producers, and an obstacle to small business. You're assuming the Codex is unbiased and consisting only of expert, neutral advice. Others disagree. Greenman (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are already covered in the first few sentences of the Contraversy section. Some people view the Codex as mandatory, but it is in fact a voluntary standard. The Manifesto that we are talking about refers to the Codex as a rule-making body and a beaureaucracy. It is neither. The Codex could introduce a standard of requiring clingwrap to carrots, but there are no consequences (such as tarriffs, fines, or sanctions) if a country doesn't require companies to follow it. As long as companies have a justification for their safety practices, which could include following other standards, they don't need to follow the Codex. This has been debating quite a lot in previous discussions. Given that this reference's idea is already covered in the first paragraph, I am inclined to shorten the comments even more and put it in the first paragraph.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If your arguement is that small businesses shouldn't have evidence that their product is safe, then I would caution you to reexamine your stance. Just because food is coming from a small business doesn't mean the product shouldn't be safe to consume. I'm sure the parents of the 300,000 victims of the 2008 Chinese milk scandal would agree that regardless of the source, food should not be harming or killing people.DivaNtrainin (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is anyone's argument, rather, the argument of opponents seems to be that the standards presented are inappropriate and biased towards large agribusiness, as the source states. Greenman (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DivaNTraininAs I said at the start of this discussion, why is the Codex biased? The reference that we are debating provides no explaination as to why they believe the Codex is biased despite the document being several pages long.The biasness of the Codex is the point of this discussion. I'm not debating that people believe that it is biased, but if we are going to put this in the Wiki article we need to provide better references and a better explaination that allows the reader to understand and expand on the biasedness of the Codex. This reference doesn't provide this.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This entire quote is completely different than everything else in the article and is in direct contradiction to other parts of the article. This quote needs to be expanded on and a better explaination is needed for the points that is raised. It feels like the author really doesn't understand what the Codex is about. Here is a link to the [Alimentarius]. Take a look at see what the Codex is really about.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is partly true, but is a widely-held view (as seen by the regular edits to this page). As Wikipedia is a resource for readers, the criticism needs to be here, sourced, and placed in context. Where it's mistaken, such as in confusing rules with standards, this needs to be stated. Other views are perhaps harder to prove one way or another, such as the bias towards global agribusiness, but the view is widely held, and needs to be there. If there are reliable sources counter to this view, by all means contextualise and include them too. Greenman (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That the quote takes a completely different stance and is in direct contradiction to the rest of the article is actually irrelevant, DivaNtrainin. To exclude text on those grounds would directly contravene the requirement for articles to be free from editorial bias, per WP:NPOV. Instead, the question that we should actually be asking ourselves here is whether the text and references meet WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. Vitaminman (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify what is in contradiction, the reference states that the Codex is a rule-making body and that it is a bureaucracy. This is in direct contradiction to the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, which states it is a collection of standards and codes of practices. I do agree that in some situations, you should present contradictory points of view and different stances. However, when the alternate stance contradicts the basic definition of the item being discussed, that should not be presented. It would be akin to editing the page United States of America, by saying that the USA is a purple dog that runs around the North Pole. If I did that, it would not be considered "presenting a different stance". It would be considered vandelism.DivaNtrainin (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What the Codex states it is, and what it's seen to be can be two different things. Part of the controversy revolves around this distinction, which should be explored more in the article. The Codex may present itself as standards, but countries may adopt them as rules, and there may be pressure to do this, or not to do this. Greenman (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DivaNtraininI'm all for expanding this article, but we can't just put any undefended statement into the article. You say that countries may be pressured to adopt these as rules. Expand on this. Provide a reference, a link, an explaination or something. You say people believe the Codex is biased. Why is it biased? This is why I think the Manifesto is a poor reference. They just make accusations and provide no context or explaination or justification for their beliefs. There are no references throughout the entire Manifesto and no explaiation of their methodology for how they came to their conclusions. I don't think this document was ever intended to be a reference source, which is all the more reason not to have it in a Wikipedia page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not for me to expand upon this. If you Google "Codex Alimentarius", the first link is the official site, then the Wikipedia article. After that. the vast majority of links are critical. Attempting to claim that the criticism is invalid borders on original research. As an unbiased Wikipedia editor, the article needs to reflect the overwhelming amount of criticism accurately. If the criticism is invalid, it should not be hard to find reliable sources stating this. Greenman (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars, especially those regarding the Manifesto, and the edits done by DivaNtrainin

According to the "five pillars", "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and not presenting any point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view'. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics."

In other words, where controversy exists, multiple points of view, relying on verifiable and authoritative sources, can be presented even if (and perhaps especially if) those points of view contradict each other.

The International Commission on the Future of Food's Manifesto quote not only meets WP:V and WP:RS, as required above, but it also meets WP:NOR.

WP:NOR (No Original Research)

It is not original research on the part of Wikipedia editors. It is a direct quote from the Manifesto.

WP:V (Verifiability)

It is easily verified, despite the assertion by DivaNtrainin that it is original research, that it is not a direct quote from the Manifesto, or that a link to the Manifesto has not been provided.

The assertion that a link had not been provided to DivaNtrainin is clearly false, as the numbered reference itself that she removed had a link to a pdf file of the Manifesto.

The assertion that the material is OR and not directly quoted, made on the talk page, has been refuted there.

WP:RS (Reliable Source)

The question, then, comes down to whether or not it is a reliable source.

According to this statement, the President of the organization that published the Manifesto is Vandana Shiva, who is a Ph.D., has many achievements, and has a significant article here on wikipedia that contains no significant criticism of her work.

The Manifesto itself states that "the Government of the Region of Tuscany actively participated in and supported the Commission's work":

The International Commission on the Future of Food was created in 2003 out of a joint initiative of Claudio Martini, President of the Region of Tuscany and Vandana Shiva, Executive Director of Research Foundation for Technology, Science and Ecology/ Navdanya, and is composed of a group of leading activists, academics, scientists, politicians and farmers

This claim is again repeated on their web site and other sites (for example, the UNESCO's web site).

The FAO, a UN agency, has at least four articles by the International Commission on the Future of Food posted on their web site.

All of this information was ascertained in roughly 15 minutes. Unless DivaNtrainin can come up with other justification for removal, the Manifesto quote should remain untouched.

---

Let us take notice that DivaNtrainin, on the talk page, claimed that the Guardian was a "sub-standard reference", a point on which every commenter except one disagreed with her on, and that her edits on that dispute were "reverted [by f]our editors," according to the talk page.

In this edit, despite her self-proclaimed (in the talk page of this article) revulsion towards op-eds, she is defending the use of an op-ed piece by "continuously remov[ing] the 'citation needed' edits" because "[t]he paragraph is a good representation of what is said in the editorial, so why do we need more references?"

If DivaNtrainin does not cease such duplicity, I will turn this into a debate not of the Codex, but rather of whether said user is fit to edit wikipedia articles at all. TPaineTX (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin: The discussion page is not a place for personal attacks. I raised some valid points in my arguement, both in relation to the Manifesto and in relation to the Guardian editorial. If you had actually read my comments, then you would realize that my arguement was that the particular editorial (not the entire newspaper) and the Manifesto doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable Sources. This is a valid arguement to raise.

In relation to the option of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policy. Including a neutral point of view doesn't mean that you need to include every unsupported, poorly referenced, poorly explained source that's on the internet. I like to point to the example I raised earlier, that it would be considered vandelism if I edited the United States of America by saying that the USA was a purple dog that ran around the North Pole. There might be an individual who has a website stating that this is his belief, but Wikipedia's neutral point of view doesn't mean it has to appear in Wikipedia's USA article.

I have raised some points for editors who may have not been part of previous discussions on this talk page and the editors of the Codex page are in an active debate on how to deal with the Manifesto reference. I welcome you to participate in the talk discussion, but I am reverting your edits until the discussion on Codex is over. Please don't turn this into an edit war.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote is not "unsupported" nor "poorly referenced". It is, instead, a properly referenced statement by a reliable and authoritative source that holds a Ph.D., is supported by numerous experts in the field and regional governments in Europe, and has documents that are hosted by the UN, which were released publicly in coordination with UNESCO.

I can't imagine how the discussion isn't yet "over", as the vast majority of participants in the discussion and the facts have disagreed with you. You bring up some "purple dog" argument, but that's a straw man argument. You aren't going to be able to find statements such as those supported by respected Ph.D.s, governments, UN agencies, and UNESCO. Even if you could, a "purple dog" statement might possibly warrant citation. After all, there does exist on wikipedia statements about how the earth is actually flat -- a belief rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists and the general population.

Whether the Manifesto's statement is correct or whether the Manifesto gives evidence supporting the statements within it are issues that I personally believe you can raise within the article, but you can't simply erase the statements just because you don't agree with them. TPaineTX (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DivaNtrainin This discussion isn't over because I have raised many points which other authors are struggling to answer. The reason that I say this Manifiesto is poorly referenced is because there are no references in the Manifesto. There is no explaination regarding the methodology the authors used to come to their conclusion. There is no explaination as to how the author made their accusations. Have you looked at the document in question? The Manifesto covers a lot of things, but the only portion relevant to our current discussion is the Manifesto accusing the Codex of being mandatory and the Codex being biased. There's no explaination or references or sources as to how the authors came to that conclusion. In the case of the Codex being seen as mandatory, we've already covered that in the first paragraph of the Contraversy section. Why do we need to repeat that? In the case of the Codex being biased, let's provide more information on this so that the Wikipedia article can be better written. The original quote accusing the Codex of being biased is not a good quote. A summary the author's point on the Codex being biased would fit much better into the Wikipedia article. I wouldn't have a problem writing it this way but the way this is presented in the Manifesto is such that I'm not sure what justification the author had.

You say that the author is a Ph.D. So what? Having a Ph.D doesn't mean everything you write down should be taken down as the word of God. Wikipedia's guidelines on Reliable Sources still apply. When you look at the last page of the Manifesto at the participants of the Commission meetings, you aren't seeing the respected Ph.D.s, governments, and UN agencies that you claim there are. They include people who identify themselves as farmers, authors, and a socialogist. Now granted just becuase you don't have a Ph.D. doesn't mean your writing isn't a respected reference, but that also means that having a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are a respected reference. If you want to use the arguement that the credentials of the participants determine whether this is a reliable source, how do you justify the fact that many of the participants don't have credentials?

In relation to the "purple dog" reference, you've obviously missed the point. The point is that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy doesn't mean that every single opinion that exists on the internet regarding a topic needs to be put into a Wikipedia article. There are some references that are well sourced and some that aren't. If the point of view expressed isn't supported by strong references, it shouldn't be included.

DivaNtrainin (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's try and stick to discussing the article rather. The point about the Purple Dog is not at all the same, as, while the majority of sources seem to be critical of the Codex (valid or not is not the point), I don't think there's one claiming the USA is a purple dog. These kind of debates and differing views often occur in articles like these, in which hard science and social science overlap to some degree. The criticism is not based on experiments in a test tube. It is based on a world view that is distrustful of initiatives such as these that are. It is counter-productive to argue about "methodology" in this context - the criticism is real and widespread. If it's mistaken, bring in the reliable sources state that. In the meantime, as a step forward, the criticism should be there. Greenman (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DivaNTraininI see your point Greenman that we need to expand what is a reliable reference beyond peer-reviewed, controlled experiments in a professional journal. However, when you look at this specific reference, you will see that the author doesn't explain how she came to her point of view regarding the Codex. In the two sections I can find relating to the Codex, she basically says "let's assume the Codex is mandatory and it is biased, here are the negative consequences". There is no explaination as to how she came to her initial assumptions. A good reference will expand on and provide greater clarification on the points raised in the Wikipedia article. That's especially important when you have a concept like being biased, where you can be biased in many different ways. This author just throws her assumptions out regarding the Codex without any context, past examples, or explainations. In the author's defense, this Manifesto really isn't about the Codex, which is all the more reason not to include it in this Wikipedia article.

The fact that there are critics against the Codex was apparant in the Contraversy section of the Wikipedia article before we started this discussion. I think everyone understands we aren't going to include every single critical website in this Wikipedia article. So, why do you think we should include THIS reference to the Wikipedia article? DivaNtrainin (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Section "General texts" is nonsense

The section "General Texts" is incorrect and fails the test of NPOV. It is an ideological position, without reference, validation or proof. Unless verified, it needs to be removed. Mari370 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you see that stuff again, please delete it on sight. I was reverting a POV pushing editor on that yesterday, but I must have mistakenly not gone back far enough. All of that info is unsourced polemic which cannot appear in the article. If there is well sourced criticism of the Codex, we may definitely including, but we need reliable sources, we'll need to clearly attribute the opinions, and we'll need to make sure we don't go beyond WP:DUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)