Jump to content

Talk:Organic food/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Proposed editorial outline: June 2005

I more or less reverted the last edit and reordering, with a significant rewrite of the lead. I believe the aim of that last revision was to make things more readable and relevant, by moving the "Is organic food better" and "Facts and Statistics" sections up. However, that move, and the trimming down of the introduction to a simple definition, with a focus on US certified organic, I think oversimplifies the subject, to the degree that fundamental aspects of organic food are put in the wrong emphasis.

IMO, the following points, in no particular order, are all key components of a thorough, well-balanced organic food article (among possibly others):

  • distinction between informal and formal (certification-based) definitions of organic food
  • distinction between fresh and processed organic food
  • the benefits sought from and ascribed by some to organic food (from food quality, food safety, environmental impact)
  • the formal scientific view of organics (largely unstudied and inconclusive)
  • an overview of the practical situation from the consumer side (is it better?; buying: how, where, how much?) NOTE: this is an important aspect, because ultimately, organic food is a consumer phenomenon, after all, certification is a consumer protection/marketing initiative on the part of industry and government, not primarily an agricultural one

Most of these elements are already represented, but the article is still somewhat cumbersome and perhaps not so easy to read. So editing is ongoing. --Tsavage 14:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canada first with national organic standard?

Can anyone verify the statement that Canada, in 1999 became the first country to establish a national organic standard? -- Sy / (talk) 02:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will shortly, according to american media they are. but foreign press sources :sing a different tune-I have to track down. but Germany and France both have had :Biodynamic certification long before that. Organic is nothing compared to that. :Japan also makes a distinction if the food was grown with compost or not, and :whether the harvest waste was added back to the field as mulch. and I've to :collect my USDA sources on soil testing done in 1949 vs. their latest report--in :essence it proves the B.S. hype of fertilizer farming. I also have happened to :notice that the english Justus von Liebig article fails to mention the last :part of his life where he renounced the long-term validity of his NPK discovery. :He died fighting the very chemical industry he created. Carbon is required to :keep the NPK from washing away, and provides the cellular walls of the plants to :actually absorb the soil minerals. The USDA reports show that in the last fifty :years are agricultural crops are virtually water compared to the past. Give me a :bit 140.160.178.207 20:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion started by JabberWok and Brian0918
Explanations of books:

  • Pesticide residues in food and drinking water includes such articles as
    • Environmental fate of pesticides and the consequences for residues in food and drinking water by Jack Holland and Phil Sinclair
    • Diets and dietary modelling for dietary exposure assessment by J. Robert Tomerlin and Barbara J. Petersen
    • Effects of food preparation and processing on pesticide residues in commodities of plant origin by Gabriele Timme and Birgitt Walz-Tylla
  • Pesticide, veterinary and other residues in food, info can be seen here
  • Pesticides in Fruits and Vegetables is, I'll comply and leave off the list

Information on pesticides, their toxicity, their history, their current use, etc, are relevant to the organic movement. This is because books on pesticides can be used by an individual to determine for themselves whether conventional farming (with pesticide/herbicide use) is better or worse for the environment and for people than organic farming.JabberWok 17:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Should information on pesticides be put under a different sub-section in the 'further reading' section? Perhaps a 'On Pesticides' section? JabberWok 17:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Banana ripening

I'm removing that line, since it seems that: 1. It is probably not true 2. Organic producers do the same thing.

http://www.omri.org/Ethylene_crops.pdf

A couple things. Why do you claim that it's false, and why do you claim that organic producers do the same thing? What am I missing here? It seems to be a controversial issue, and as it is currently in the news, it should remain in the article. [1] [2]. --Viriditas 11:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit to lead: "produced without (certain) synthetic pesticides"

I removed the recently added "certain" in the lead sentence as follows:

Organic food is, in general, food that is produced without the use of certain artificial pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The "certain" I think reduces clarity. IMO, there is a useful and important distinction to be made between "organic food" as a general term, and "certified organic food". The intro is not exactly an elegant piece of prose as it is, but I do think it conveys that message clearly. Of course, if there is editorial disagreement over that distinction, that's a separate thing. But if the general description seems valid, then the "certain" is unnecessary in that position, and it adds confusion, in that "organic is chemical-free" is probably (still) a generally held popular definition. --Tsavage 05:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the "certain" reduces clarity to some extent. I also agree that the popular definition is "organic=> chemical free". But I believe that this popular believe is a misconception and I wanted to challenge it by the word "certain". But I dont insist on it :-) Xmort 06:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
(Wow... from working on WP:FAC lately, any sort of agreement on anything now comes as a bit of a surprise ;) this popular believe is a misconception I agree with you. I think conveying this information—the difference between perception and rapidly-spinning-out-of-sync reality—is central to a fair and balanced organic food article. The trick is getting there in proper encyclopedia style. I'll keep plugging away. Hopefully, you will, too! --Tsavage 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: removed explanation of why organics more expensive 31 Dec 2005

I removed this section, which was added a couple of weeks ago:

However, the reason for these high prices has to do with subsidization rather than production. In other words, organic foods do not cost more because they are more expensive to produce or because organic farmers are trying to target a middle-class market, but rather because governments have refused to subsidize organic produce or meats as they do with non-organic products, thus making them more costly for the consumer.

It is a broad generalization that is probably not very accurate on any level, and is unsupported, and doesn't fit in that section of the article. --Tsavage 05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thnaks for removing it. It's not only generalization, it's plainly wrong for most european countries. Organic farmers get higher subsidies than non-organic. Xmort 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In the united states, non-organic agriculture is heavily subsidized, and this is a highly relevant fact that most people are unaware of, and significantly effects the price of conventional vs. organic foods.20:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Dan, unregistered

Yield Levels Misleading

Some of the information cited for the crop yields is very misleading. The specific Swiss study mentioned actually found crop yields varied from 90% of non-organic totals for wheat yielded, to only 58% - 66% yielded for potatoes. And this was during tests in what is considered fertile, high quality soil. I'm new here but I believe this violates NPOV. [3][4] Furthermore the section on energy efficiency is also misleading, while organics may be less intensive petrochemically, they're far more labour intensive during production. Also, more organic foods spoil during transit by default and as a result of the difficult methods of transporting them create no 'net environmental benefit' when not purchased locally. Basically, anyone in the city eating organics is accomplishing nothing environmentally. [5]

I'm not going to make the changes yet, this being my first post and all I'll wait to see what people have to say. I'd just like to say, don't pat yourselves on the back yet hippies. Yay Wikipedia. --SpeedDial 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In assuming good faith on your part, I suggest in the first instance of the Swiss study, you take a closer critical look at the two articles you cite. The first quotes Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, refuting or arguing against the various studies published in Science and Nature. The second is written by Avery. To try and avoid a long debate about the father-son Avery team (Dennis and son, Alex), I think it's safe to say that they are well-known proponents of conventional ag, specializing in outspoken, often sensationalistic criticisms specifically of organic farming. As one might look cautiously on the statements of organic food activists, in the same way, Avery views should be examined closely from the other side. They are by not an objective, scientific source, rather, a political one. Their views aren't in academic journals, but as quotes in news stories, and as articles in generally "right wing" vehicles.
The second concern, about long distance organic food being "net no better" is probably true, and not only environmentally, but as far as food quality as well. There is a problem with the way the "Claimed advantages over conventional farming" section has evolved in this article, and it needs a...readjustment (with regard to yield as well). This article is about "organic food", distinct organic farming. Much certified organic food is processed food, and therefore involves a lot more inputs than the original farming inputs used to produce get raw ingredients. IOW, "organic food" and organic farming are not even nearly synonymous. So, with regard to both transport costs and yield, it really doesn't make sense to mix up arguments about farming, with issues about food industry infrastructure and the marketing of products called "organic food". If you read the organic farming article, this stuff is covered there.
I'll try to quickly clean up the problems here, that'll hopefully make things...better... --Tsavage 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a local food paragraph that addresses the energy/enviro concern. The entire article needs tightening up, but it's also still expanding as people tack in bits and pieces. Overall, I think it's...net improving. I'll try rewrites on sections as I get time. --Tsavage 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You can assume good faith. I was unaware of the Avery connection, so thank you for turning me on to that. I apologize for my selection of articles, as in retrospect the Avery articles were poorly informed. That does not however negate the fact that there are many other opponents to Organic food production who have cited similar production loss statistics. I'm doing research into the topic, and only hastily grabbed the Avery articles off of the internet because they came up on a Google search for "swiss organic food study" and seemed to support my argument. There is quite a bit of peer-reviewed research supporting the idea of much lower crop yields, including John Emsley in the Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge who in review of the book "Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food" said that a total organic food conversion would result in the deaths of some 2 billion people world wide. A variety of reasons presented by groups of peer reviewed writers for lower 'real' crop yields include many things, like the fact that organic crops require lower crop density as each plant requires access to more nitrogen rich soil without artificial nitrogen sources present in conventional growing, longer crop germination times (albeit slightly) can also prevent the opportunity to dual-seed a crop in a single year (ex. wheat and soy beans which have different growing seasons), further cited are wider required intercrop margins and lower resistance to pests. In fact 'natural' pesticides show only a transient decrease in the number of present insects and outside of very specific experiments organic crops very frequently yield much lower amounts. While I'm not debating that in many cases if you planted 20 wheat seeds and grew ten organically and ten conventionally you'd likely see about 9 grow for each the real world applications show much lower yields for organics. I wish we had infinite space for crops, as organics are truly a nice idea, but we simply don't.
I have citations for these statistics, from either peer reviewed journals or books. Unfortunately I'm working off of the university's E-Resource library, so if someone could explain to me the methods for linking (and citing, there aren't really page numbers in full text format) than I'd be very thankful (Again, very new). I'm more than willing to start an oppositional section of this article. --64.229.30.111 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That'll be fun. :) See WP:CITE for info on citing sources. Along the lines of "organics can't feed the world", you should also check out environmental vegetarianism (a well-cited argument against the sustainability of conventional meat production), the more loosely constructed factory farming, and, for a wider view, The Skeptical Environmentalist. --Tsavage 03:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

New "Counter Arguments" section (Jan-2006)

Made my edits, a little confused about how to cite references for my counter arguments without disturbing the flow of the article as it existed. Hopefully someone can clean up that whole mess for me. Also my spelling/grammar may be a little shoddy at parts as it is a painful 5am here. --SpeedDial 09:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions of the newly created "Counter Arguments" section:
  • In the 1st and 2nd paragraph there are no citations. It is important to put a citation after a sentence :that needs evidence to support it.
  • Also, the last paragraph: "...argued that a total conversion to organic food would result in 2 billion deaths worldwide..." It's strange that this is placed in a "Counter Arguments" section, considering that nowhere in the entire article is the argument made that the entire world should be converted to organic. So how can there be a "counter argument" when there is no "argument"?
The arguments in that last paragraph have their place, but at least as they are written, probably not in an encyclopedia.
Hmm...I'm leaning towards saying that perhaps the whole section needs to be re-worded. An encyclopedia isn't the place for advocacy one way or another as much it is a place to show current research. A whole section with the word "arguments" in the title suggests it has an agenda (advocacy) other than informing.
But definitely the last paragraph needs to go.JabberWok 23:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are some statements in the "Counter Arguments" section that could use references:
  • "Meat is widely recognized to be the least efficient method of cultivating protein"
  • "many organic farms rely on inorganic manure"
  • "there are no inorganic components added to the manure" (then what makes the manure inorganic?)
And the statement that "40 people would be better served by farming one hectare intensely with chemicals," is a very broad statement and ignores effects of chemicals on the land an on the people who farm the land and eat its food.
The whole intent of the "Counter Arguments" section seems to be begging for more agruments and more counter arguments. As the section is currently written it just doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. JabberWok 00:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I think this section belongs in organic farming, with a summary included here in the section currently called "Energy and environmental". In simplest form, it is an "organic farming doesn't scale" argument, which is part of the larger "'conventional' agriculture is needed to feed (and otherwise improve) the world, organics sounds nice, but it can't get the job done."
As for the content, the first two paragraphs need summarizing, the general idea is summed up in the organic farming article section on sustainability: "As the size of organic farms continues to increase, a new set of large-scale considerations will eventually have to be tackled. Large organic farms that rely on machinery and automation, and purchased inputs, will have similar sustainability issues as large conventional farms do today." IMO, the rest is interesting, and belongs in organic farming... --Tsavage 02:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The issue here, and what I was hoping to solve (although I'll admit my style was not encyclopedaeic), was that the majority of the article is made up of "Claimed advantages" of organic foods (More than half at least). This is inherently biased and not representative of NPOV. How does this slide by while the "Claimed DISadvantages" of organic foods are removed? Consider that the supposed positive externalities of organic food production, such as those in the "environment" section, are clearly represented while the negative externalities of organic food production such as starvation are sent to the "Organic Farming" article. What we have hear is a blantantly pro-organics article with very little attempt to maintain neutrality. Either all benefits should be removed from this article leaving a basic definition of organic foods and explanation of the certification process, or the negative aspects of the production of organic foods should be re-added. A short line in the summary section claiming the pro-organic arguments are somewhat unverified doesn't make this NPOV. Let's try to keep the systemic bias to a minimum here. I guess everyone else here milks their own organically raised cows or something, but I'm still buying my milk at the supermarket and I'd like my POV represented too.
--SpeedDial 22:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed the "Benefits" section. It actually seems pretty NPOV now. Many of those things were fairly unsubstantiated anyways. GMO free as a benefit? Prove it. Anyways, problem solved.
--SpeedDial 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re "Claimed advantages..." deletion & POV tag: Feb 2006

I reverted a deletion of the large "Claimed advantages of organic food" section. The supposed advantatges are the reason for organics as alternative food choice, so, a critical part of the article. Please discuss and/or edit rather than mass delete... --Tsavage 04:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to admit that with only an "advantages" section this article is not NPOV. An advantages section really has no place WITHOUT a disadvantages section. Presenting one side of an argument SHOULD create a desire for the other side to be represented. Further, I would suggest that the cited benefits of organic foods are extremely arguable, especially "tastier". I understand that the positive aspects of organic foods are an important part of organic food as an alternative food choice, but this isn't an advertisement... or at least it isn't supposed to be. How can a single facet of an argument be considered the entirety? If we're not willing to discuss the negative side of an "alternative food choice" then perhaps it isn't a true alternative and the article should reflect that. Neutral implies balance, so let's work towards that. Either benefits move to "organic farming" as well or we're going to have to work towards developing a more complete argument. --199.212.67.162 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I entirely understand what you're saying. However, respectfully, it doesn't seem to me that you've really thought this topic through. I agree there is much work to be done on the writing (including choice of examples), and on citations. However, I don't think there is a significant bias at work here. Nothing is hidden, there are no assertions of fact, explicit or implied, simply a section title "Claimed advantages of organic food", and this is perfectly consistent with a reasonable description and encyclopedic definition of "organic food". Please consider:
  • "Organic food" is defined by "conventional" food - We didn't discover subsistence farmers growing food without "chemicals" and say, "Wow, this is a cool alternative way to farm, no chemicals, let's call it organic and import it and sell it." Organics came about in developed nations as a reaction against conventional farming practices. Right now, it's only maybe 2% of "all food", and I don't think we're arguing that "all food" is "bad", only that some people say that it is "bad", and that the food they think is "better" is produced by "organic farming" and called "organic food". That is the basic premise. Therefore, an article describing "organic food" should logically explain what it is that is that is thought to be "better" about this stuff. That is all the section is about. It simply fills out the description started in "Identifying organic food" and the rest of the article. It answers the question, "OK, so some people like 'chemical-free' food, but WHY?" The answer to that is "Claimed advantages"
  • The "Claimed advantages..." section essentially contains no bias It does need editing, rewriting, and the choice of examples and how they are presented could be more "neutrally" structured, but even as it is right now, it does not put forward one POV over another, or unfairly represent examples from "one side" not the other. The title is "Claimed advantages", not "Advantages". The Summary says, none of this is scientifically proven (or disproven), and there are arguments on both sides. The subsections simply list the perceived and claimed advantages: "taste, environment, health and safety (GMOs, nutrition, toxicity)". These are the basic reasons for eating organic as uncovered in numerous marketing surveys and whatnot (yes, citations are required, but IMO that's a matter for editing and improvement, not deleting). I don't think there's anything controversial about those as stated reasons. They are not presented as assertions of fact. You could present opposing views for each, which is fine. But as it stands, not having them does not (IMO) make this POV, because it is simply an essential description of the meaning of "organic food".
There are lots of ways to go about editing WP, within the policies and guidelines. You can certainly challenge every point, delete stuff based on WP:CITE, WP:NPOV or other "rules", if the whole thing turned into an edit war, then these "rules" could be further used to argue between opposing sides in some sort of disciplinary action, and so forth. Or you can see whether there is a reasonable "other side" to the side you see yourself on, and work to improve. In my case, I do try to explain my position (as above), and to actively...improve articles. In the end, this editing process really depends on the position and style the parties involved in any one situation take... :) --Tsavage 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying as well, and in order to keep this article both appropriately encyclopedia styled and neutral I propose that the "Claimed Advantages" line be scrapped entirely in favour of something more neutral perhaps "Characteristics of Organic Food" or something along those lines. While you're correct that people would be interested in knowing why people like organic food, the way it's phrased isn't really suited to this article, but should instead be in an article like Organic Movement where those reasons are discussed. If in an article on "Organic food" we're going to discuss why people want to eat something we have to then discuss why people don't. However, a title change, or the creation of seperate sections as I proposed earlier would allow for discourse on subjects such as the environmental and safety aspects of organic food to occur without the blanket assumption that organic food is a positive thing being cast over it all. My primary concern was that the disadvantages were not being adequately represented, especially if you just have an advantages section. This seems to skew the article. This is why I originally proposed a disadvantages section, but I think in retrospect the solution proposed above would be more effective. To be clear I'm not saying that whoever wrote the "benefits" sections of the article necessarily said "These things are all true" but when counterarguments don't exist, or are presented as anecdotes within the advantages section it creates the impression that opinion on this issue is fairly one sided which I think we'd both admit it isn't.
In regards to citations the article does need more, and they need to be reputable especially in an issue so contentious. Currently, because of the relative recency of the topic, the long term scientific data just doesn't seem to exist in any unbiased format. Either we have petrochemical groups saying organic foods are poor producers, expensive and labour intensive or we have pro-organic groups saying that organics are healthy and delicious. Obviously the only available way to reach an NPOV here is to represent both sides.
I understand the WP policy and I certainly hope this doesn't come to page protection or other forms of arbitration. I'm not interested in an edit war, but I would like to see things represented fairly.
I'm also pretty certain I was aware that nobody stumbled across organic farming and imported it, but in case I had forgotten thank you for the brief history lesson. I mean the 18th century was so long ago I can hardly wrap my mind around the concept of there being a "beginning" of chemical pesticide.
Sarcasm aside, I think incorporating ideas from articles existing within WP such as Green Revolution where the positive achievements of chemical farming are shown as well as the criticisms would be a good idea. I'll try to add more science to this article when I get a break from mid-terms. --SpeedDial 09:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made significant edits to this page, including the ones proposed above. There is still a lot of work to be done on this article however, and I'd like to address the issue of the yield levels next. --199.212.67.162 14:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, those edits were all me, for some reason wikipedia signed me out. --SpeedDial 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
In general, your edits seem fine to me. Really, though, not much has changed as far as the general article outline: edits have been made, information added, tone adjusted, which by and large is good. I have a choice here of leaving it at that, and we all edit, WP as usual, see what happens, OR I can continue this particular discussion, which is perhaps more argumentative, but may be helpful to the article as well. I'll do the latter. Three points:
  • Using pro and con studies to "balance POV" helps turn encyclopedia articles into debates. This is common to many WP articles, but not necessarily good (beneficial to the reader), nor "encyclopedic" (summarizing, not confusing). By citing pro and con in too literal a way, reader focus is diverted from the core topic, to the generic "he said, she said" mode. Specific to this article, citing this study vs that study, as opposed to summarizing (and perhaps using notes for details), is misleading, as the basic fact is, there is is no scientific consensus here. Most modern agricultural research has been concerned with (and used in) "conventional ag". Organic studies are still few and far between. Picking a report here and a study there is absolutely arbitrary, and does not further basic statements like "scientific arguments exist on both sides, nothing's conclusive, the jury's still out", unless a full survey of the literature is included, summarizind the dozens or hundreds of relevant studies that exist. You can't pick, on either side, a couple here and there as representative of anything. It sounds good to say, "Well, we're presenting the facts, both sides of the story", but in this case, selected studies don't do that and only help establish POV. The small exception is that, because there is comparatively so little organic research, the studies that do exist are notbable in that particular respect, regardless of their conclusions. Much more effective is to establish a solid editorial outline (see my attempt at the top of this Talk page), and fill it in. This isn't a court case, piling on citations and counter-citations does no-one any good in a current and controversial topic like this...
  • The focus of this article is easily confused with organic farming, when it is entirely not. IMO, a main practical reason for a separate organic food article, alongside organic farming, organic movement, organic farming methods, and organic certification, is to make clear the difference between "farming" (raw ag products) and "food" (consumer goods). Yes, organic consumers may invest organic food with the supposed advantages of organic farming, but that is only an increasingly small part of the food picture. As we've seen with the (rushed, almost clandestine) US Congress ag amendments last November, where a first wave of synthetic ingredients (38, I think, plus a broadening of the USDA ability to certify products) have been legislated into the US organic standard (which to some greater than lesser degree drives the world), the farming component (raw ingredients) is only one item on the list for producting "organic food" (and processed organic food is the moneymaker). Another aspect: pricing pressures affect production. For example, the case of Wal-Mart requesting a 20% wholesale price reduction from its main organic milk supplier. Faced with having to substantially change the way in which the milk was produced, the supplier declined and lost the account to a more "industrial", but still "legally organic" producer. Applying farming arguments to organic food as the primary basis for a discussion of pros and cons (does it yield better? is it really safer? more environmentally friendly?) is misleading. I think the article should ideally describe what "organic food" is...which is, largely and increasingly so, a wide variety of quite differently produced products, all sold under a "certified organic" label, along other products (again, increasingly, albeit on a much smaller scale), products not legally defined as organic (for example, by producers who choose not to certify).
  • On a specific point, characterizing raw animal manure as the central and necessary nutrient component of organics is misleading. Raw manure may be the primary fertilization method in organics (I'm not sure), but it is not necessary. Green manures can be and are used to mainly or exclusively replenish nutrients. Nutrient level requirements depend in great part on the cropping goals. If you want to grow vegetables to commercial standards of size and weight, by a certain date, to fill contracts (as in large scale organics in the current, conventional food industry), you're depleting nutrients heavily and need to replace them in kind. But growing crops with more reasonable production targets does not require heavy blasts of manure every year. So to characterize organic farming (again, a farming issue) as using "manure" is not exactly right.
On a side note, my comment about the "history" of organics wasn't meant to be condescending (and I'm certainly no student of ag history). I just try to make my discussions as self-contained as possible, for the convenience of other browsing readers and editors. On the history point, while I think most people understand that organics are created by and for people who "don't like conventional/chemical food", I don't think that means they also understand that organics came about from dissenting ag experts of the day--scientists and farmers--and not as some sort consumer movement or based on popular sentiment. I don't think the general public knew or cared about organics for the first 30-40 years of its 90-odd-year existence. But that's also a farming issue. --Tsavage

Removed "Economic safety" section: POV, inaccurate

I removed the following. It contains unsupported and vaguely supported conclusions, and is poorly written. It seems to be an attempt to insert an "organic ag is unsustainable" argument into the "Characteristics" section, which is a farming issue. Proposing that organic food is "economically unsafe" because organic food production MAY be unscalable is speculative and kind of quite off-topic. The characterization of the Green Revolution is inaccurate, and the implication that the "Green Revolution" represents modern conventional agriculture is a huge oversimplification. Saying that conventional agriculture saved 1-2 billion lives, even with an "according to some", is unsupported and...kind of absurd in the way it is presented here. --Tsavage 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Economic safety

The relative safety of organic food is also debatable and the subject of large amounts of Western-centric bias. While it is true that organic foods can compete to some comparable degree in Western world tests the rejection of genetic modification and chemical pesticides may have significant repercussions for the developing, or "Third" worlds. Higher tranportation costs and lower shelf-lives aside there are serious economic and sustainability issues surrounding organic foods. During the 1960s there was a significant modification of food production methods known as the Green Revolution. During this period agricultural yields were greatly increased through the use of heavy chemical agriculture techniques and genetic modification. Wheat yields increased over 200%, and rice yields grew over 100% during the period between 1960 and 2000 according to UN data, presumably as a result of these techniques [6]. This aided in the struggle to feed large portions of the developing world that lived in arid or semi-arid areas considered poorly suited to regular agriculture. According to some, if it was not for the techniques employed during this period between 1 and 2 billion citizens of the developing world, primarily the Earth’s poorest, would have died. So, while in the long run the reduction of certain carcinogens present in convention food may reduce the risk of cancer or chemical contamination for some segments of the population, an organic conversion might greatly increase the risk of short-term death by starvation or malnutrition.

Taste

Is there any hard evidence that organic food tastes better (controlled blind tasting studies with large numbers of subjects)? I find it difficult to believe that this is generally supportable, though obviously there might be cases where a particular organic product is generally thought to taste better.Gleng 13:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any scientific evidence. In fact, I think there was a study through New Zealand's University of Otago where a broad survey of the possibly relevant literature (dozens, hundreds of taste-related studies and whatnot) was done to see whether better taste was at all proven. It wasn't, although, (again, as far as I remember), the available material wasn't found to be overall directly relevant either, so it was all not supported, but inconclusive...
I think the point here is twofold: that organic supporters believe organic food is tastier--it's a claimed/perceived benefit by some, as establishd by surveys--and that, when purchased as locally-grown (very fresh) and directly from the farmer (and that farmer is selecting varieties for taste over other characteristics like field holding ability, shipping durability, etc), it WAS almost certainly the case that organic produce generally "tasted" better (taste, texture, consistency after cooking, etc). However, now, with the supermarket/big business mainstreaming of organic, "fresh" veggies shipped in from hundreds and thousands of miles away is common, and the distinction between "organic" and "conventional" is becoming almost academic (especially, ironically, since no one as "proven" the benefits of organics). So, this is a tricky article to balance... But it's not a black and white issue of unsupported claims from fanatics. I think, with "food" vs. "farming", as organic food gets bigger, many "new" consumers won't have a clue what "organic" is beyond a label and some vague concepts (like X toothpaste fights plaque, who has ever "experienced" plaque reduction?); whereas, "originally" organic consumers of 10-20-30 years ago were talking to farmers and getting "fresh, local, organic from the grower", not "mass produced, long distance shipped, supermarket optimized, legally certified organic"... I know how POV and biased that MIGHT sound, but it's absolutely not, I see this as a consumer protection/fraud issue above all. "Mass organic" being sold on the back of the original quite differently produced products... Whether organic farming can scale up, feed the world, be sustainable, etc, is a separate issue. Hopefully, this will continue developing into a well-balanced article that neutrally illustrates the situation. --Tsavage 14:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but mixed up in some good points is some awful stuff. The first part is reasonable and sensible (though has nothing to do with being organic) - fresh food produced on a specialist scale will (to its eaters) taste much nicer. Is this evidenced by being organic or does the relative speed-to-table and specialist products grown for taste play a factor?
Second point: There was not a chance in hell that when the big-firms got their hands on organic-produce the 'pro-organics' people would turn round and say "yes our job is done, we have made 'organic' food popular and helped drive about improvements in agriculture etc.". No, many decided to say "aaah but your version of organic is not as good as ours, yours is bad in comparison". Why? Because the debate of pro-organic people of this type is not about food, but about dislike of bigger business.
They ignore that these firms are now making produce to standards higher than previously due to consumer demand (and their awareness raising) because that is evidence of why the big-firms are so successful, instead they claim things "ain't like they used to be".
Organic-labelled food is little more than a 'premium' brand because many people think that organic=better rather than decided by the quality of the product they buy. This has nothing to do with supermarkets and everything to do with popular-conception. It reminds of something AA Gill wrote when reviewing a famous London restaurant - at the bottom of the menu, he explained, it said "we use the best quality ingredients available, organic or otherwise" - I rather agree with the policy - good food is good food, whether organic or not. ny156uk 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed benefits of..." section

I changed "Characteristics of organic foods" to "Claimed benefits of...", which is what it was earlier. The exact wording isn't important, but the compromise attempt, made a week or so ago, to make this more "neutral" doesn't work, only makes things confusing. The section is about the (real or perceived/claimed) difference/benefits of organic food over "conventional" food, not about established "characteristics". And the article isn't claiming these benefits (or advantages, or whatever), simply saying that that is what is "claimed". If this heading seems "POV" (and I can't see what's more upfront than saying "claimed"), any other wording would do that simply says: "these are the supposed advantage of organics". --Tsavage 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag: 18-Feb-2006

I removed the NPOV tag, which was placed by SpeedDial on 7-Feb-2006, for the following reasons:

  • The reason for the tag wasn't made clear. No comment was made in the tag edit itself. The general discussion before and after (see above) was centered around the section titled "Claimed benefits of organic food", which SpeedDial interpreted as listing advantages without disadvantages, therefore, POV. The gist of the debate (see above) was that organic food exists specifically to provide benefits over conventionally farmed food, so stating that is an essential part of the article. SpeedDial made changes to "balance" each of the "claimed benefits", by providing counterarguments to the claims (this in addition to counterarguments which had already been there, and an overall explicit, extended statement that there was no scientific proof or consensus, these were simply CLAIMS), and those were not touched. No specific instances of POV were cited.
  • The editor who placed the discussion subsequently made several edits to address the POV concerns ("I have made significant edits to this page, including the ones proposed above.) and these were acknowledged here in Talk, and currently stand, with the exception of one paragraph, which was quite clearly in error (see above). Other edits were also made clarify the claims section.
  • After making post-tag edits and participating in discussion, the editor who placed the tag ceased responding to the on-going discussion (see above) a week ago.

Basically, I don't think a clear reason for the tag was established, only a personal opinion (that using the words "benefits" or "advantages" makes the article POV), and changes and discussions well beyond that were made. Right now, it doesn't represent anything specific. --Tsavage 15:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty study

I tried to look up the Pretty paper; I couldn't get at the original, but read a commentary in the same issue of the Journal: this states "According to a paper published in this issue of ES&T (pp 1114–1119), poor farmers increased their crop yields by an average of 79% by using techniques such as crop rotation, organic farming, and genetically modified seeds." I do not see how this can be cited in support of organic farming without acknowledging that the farmers (or some of them) also used GM crops. I have accordingly deleted the statement referring to this study. The study seems to be about sustainable farming methods in general, not organic methods.Gleng 18:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that GMO foods are harmful for human consumption or to the enviroment. Three goals of GM crops that 'organic' farmers could support are production of disease and pest resistence; incresing yields in challenging enviroments; and increasing nutrient contents. It seems that GM crops are unfairly condemned along with pesticide aided farming production. If one can produce crops that require significantly less or no pesticide use to grow that can only advance overall human health, by removing the need for them. Of course producing crops with increased beneficial nutruients and higher yields would have tremendous benefits as well. It would reduce the pernicious effects of artificial fertilizer use and significantly reduce the wasteful use of water for agricultural production, and provide more nutrition per energy units expended and land used. [(User: John K.) 19, Feb. 2006, On. Canada]

Agreed. But what you are advocating is a sustainable agriculture which tries to take full advantage of the knowledge and understanding that modern science and technology can provide. But this is not "organic"Gleng 20:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed mention of hormesis; hormesis (see article on hormesis) is when a substance has the opposite effect at low doses to its effect at high doses. The mention of hormesis here was apparently a misunderstanding of this.Gleng 09:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point trying to be addressed is:
"In other cases—such as lead and tiny particles of soot—new research indicates that doses once considered insignificant sometimes make people sick."
"'The real question is what is happening at low doses as opposed to what is happening at high doses,' Linda Birnbaum, the Environmental Protection Agency's director of experimental toxicology and incoming president of the Society of Toxicology, said in a news briefing this week."
"One thing toxicologists agree upon these days is that small doses of toxic substances really do matter. Findings in this developing science will dramatically change how society weighs the risks of pollution and existing environmental and public health regulations. It also will affect thinking about which pollution most needs to be cleaned up."
I'm not sure whether this is included in the definition of hormesis, but wouldn't similar low dose research (and mechanisms?) be involved whether stimulation is of something seen as good or bad? --Tsavage 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe to add

I tried to find some information on wiki on the differences between the use of the word all-natural vs organic. it seems to me, a worker in the food industry, that all-natural is always used to refer to meats (beef, poultry, pork, seafood, etc) and that organic always refers to other products and produce. if someone could either add some info on this or let me know. thanks

nello--Dantedanti 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Was this an acceptable link?

I note the link I added the other day has been deleted and replaced with something I think is inferior. The one I added was:

I thought this was a good addition because it provides quite a lot of background that works well to support the article. I appreciate that pages of links are not generally great to add as links, but I found this page really useful because it saved me time digging out the information myself.

The new link in its place is: http://www.organicfoodcorner.com

Although this is quite an interesting site, it isn't equivalent to the site that's been deleted. It's also not remotely objective. Consider the second sentence on the home page: "Food, in general, is diseased, poisoned, full of toxins and chemicals, and unfit for human consumption." Yeah, right :)

I would suggest adding my original link back in if no-one objects? Marcusswann 18:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears the author has updated the website (http://www.organicfoodcorner.com) because unless I missed it, I was unable to find that statement on the homepage. Rather I did find a disclaimer that states:

"Note: The views expressed on this website are generally that of the author and may not be considered "100%" scientific at all times. However, consider it good information and carefully check to see if it is so! (This is basically a disclaimer to say that if I'm telling you to feed your dog vegan food, I don't want to get in trouble for saying so!)"

While maybe not up to scientific journal par, it's a fun looking site and I found a few of the articles quite useful. It's inclusion here in WikiPedia may or may not be relevant. Perhaps there are more appropriate places to list sites that provide "author's perspective"? 4.224.237.160 11:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Big Apple image?

Although I like the apple picture that starts off this article, I wonder if it really needs to be such a big file? It's 112KB, or about three times the size of the text content. It takes ages to download on a dialup connection and -- perhaps more importantly -- is perhaps a bit of a drain on Wikipedia server bandwith? Ten users hitting the page consume a megabyte of bandwidth -- just on the apple! Could we maybe turn this into a JPG file (which would be a fraction the size) or use a smaller image? Just a suggestion :) Marcusswann 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I took that picture, and I agree it's a big file. You're more than welcome to download the image, use photoshop and decrease the resoution. Or maybe there's some automatic way of creating a smaller resolution image in wikipedia. I don't know, but you can always look at Wikipedia:Images, maybe they have some information on that sort of stuff.
For anyone with a digital camera, I say, "take a better picture to be the face of the organic food article!." Maybe a picture of all kinds of organic fruit on a table or something.
So yes, the image can be improved, so if you can make a better image for this article, do it! JabberWok 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is maybe an organic vegetable box? Don't how international they are but, in the UK, a lot of people get their veg that way. I'm thinking like the box shown on here. Marcusswann 13:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good? Let's make it great!

I've been watching and working on this page for almost a year now and I'm happy that it was recognized as a good article. That's a deserving title.

But I bet that this article, or an organic related article, can reach the ranks of featured article. Before that can happen some definite improvements need to be made. So I've decided to create a list here of small, definable steps that will give me and others and idea of what needs to be worked on to improve the quality of this article.

Feel free to add your own tasks, and if you work on one of them to the point where you feel you've completed it, use the strikethrough thing to mark it off the list like this. So here we go! JabberWok 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tasks for greatness

  • Images -- Replace the image of one organic apple with a picture that shows more types of organic fruit, or an organic farmer's market -- something that captures organic food and is more interesting to look at!
  • "Citation Needed" notices
    • Sentences already with them - Try to find a reference online for them and put them on this page. If a reference can't quickly or easily be found...delete the sentence?
    • Sentences that need them - Find sentences that are debatable, controverial, or something a proponent of factory farming would argue with and list them as "citation needed". Then follow the previous instruction right above.
  • Combine "Price at Store," "Identifying Organic Food," and "History" - These three sections seem to have a little overlap. Either they should be combined in some way or somehow organized in such a way that they're more seperate in terms of topics. (Maybe the entire "types of organic food" section should be added in too)
  • Make "Benefits of organic foods" into a separate page? - This is my favorite section, and probably the most important because it answers the question "why is organic better?", and it does this by showing us up-to-date research. But it's also a long section, and parts of it are repeated on other organic pages. Look at organic farming, and you'll see that we need to get rid of the redundancy! Lets make a whole new page that compares organic farming to conventional farming, and critisism of using pesticides, etc. In the main articles we would then just have a summary of the benefits, hitting the main points, and leave the details to the new "Benefits" page.
  • Edit "Facts and Statistics" - Specialize this section to be just about statistics, with more references, and more up-to-date.
  • other ideas....?

Merging with Organic farming

The topics covered in Organic farming#Issues are closely related to the issues in Organic food#Benefits of organic food. The reasons for growing organic should be combined with the reasons for buying organic. Lets combine the efforts in both pages to a new page. How about...

Motivations for organic agriculture

Maybe a better article title can be thought up? JabberWok 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than a merge, I would suggest some editing of the "Organic farming" article so that a short summary remains there with a link to "Main article: Organic food." Would that meet your concerns? Sunray 18:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Attribute #5 of a featured article is that the article is tightly focused and uses summary style. Sections in both organic articles I've listed discuss issues, research, and motivations for growing and buying organic food. To reduce redundancy and to allow for more room to go into greater detail, I'm proposing this new article to display the issues about organic agriculture. JabberWok 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that there is precedent for creating an article like I'm proposing. Just check out Category:Comparisons, Category:Controversies, Category:Criticisms, or Category:Debates. JabberWok 21:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is just too much overlap to justify a third article. Sunray 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "too much overlap to justify a third article". There's too much overlap to keep the sections the way they are.
All I'm saying is that both articles are long: Organic food is 42.6 kB (6227 words), and Organic farming is 42.9 kB (6307 words). Following typical wikipedia style on article size, it would be beneficial to put summaries in their respective "organic issues" sections and then move much of the text to a third page. JabberWok 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess that wasn't clear. I meant that there is too much overlap in content in those three subjects to justify three articles, IMO. I know that there is currently overlap with the existing articles. I'm suggesting that this could be cured by some good editing. Sunray 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
However, I do agree with your last comment. The articles are overly long and could stand to be pruned in the manner you have suggested. Sunray 17:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me that this article ought to discuss organic food, while referring to the organic farming article to discuss the practices used to create organic food. This article fails to do so (which, incidently, makes me question whether it qualifies for "good article status"). Regardless, I have (for now) maintained the current structure and copied some of the arguments from the "organic farming" article in order to balance the pov in this article. I also changed the title of the "criticism" section as the term "criticism" is very pale as compared to the other section title, "Benefits of organic food". Basically, I think it's likely that this article has degraded due to pov edits, and I suggest an overhaul/mass revert to an earlier state... but I'm not sure about that, since I don't remember whatever earlier version I saw :). Jav43 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bio-Seal

Should this article include an image of the Bio-Siegel? --Hhielscher 14:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Organic products

This article comprehensively covers organic produce, but I'm looking for help building another article on other organic products. The broader article should cover such organic goods and services as cotton, seed, muesli and resturants. So far it's just a stub and is awaiting improvement. Little help? —Pengo 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

family farms

Farms that grow organically, do so in a sustainable, environmentally sound, manner, and more often than not, are small family-run farms.[1] These qualities of organic farming, among others, are in stark contrast to the more common industrial farm. from the article, this is in my opinion a misleading generalisation. this stark contrast organic family farm and industrial farm is simply not true. there might be tendencies. but not all family farms are organic and not all organic farms are family farms. --trueblood 13:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

preservative section

Preservatives Food with a long shelf life is the cornerstone of the food industry, providing most of the revenue and profits. Yet, there is little natural reference for preparing, for example, a precooked, frozen dinner. A "certified organic" label on products like this may be hard to understand. Because of the need to make food last, much of what is in supermarkets today can never be called "organic", in the broadest, "all-natural", fresh or minimally processed sense. And as demand for organics intensifies, agribusiness interests may dictate taking as much control as possible of the definition of "organic food", by including production practices that facilitate food preservation, in order to maintain the existing industry infrastructure.

i deleted the entire section. first i just wanted to take the pov out of it but realized there would be nothing left --trueblood 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest first voicing your specific complaints before deleting an entire section. Simply deleting work isn't as constructive as editing it, or making it better. So what parts, specifically, are "point of view"? JabberWok 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
there is a general undercurrent in the whole article, as in the organic farming article which goes like: small family farm good, big busisness bad.
why is it hard to understand a certified organic label on a precooked frozen dinner? it tells the consumer the ingredients where grown to organic standarts eg pesticide free, gmo free etc.
to be certified organic there is no limit to the size of your farm, it does not matter wheather it is family owned or not.
'much of what is in supermarkets today can never be called "organic,' in this sentence, do you find it difficult to spot the pov?
is that enough or do you want more>--trueblood 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
oh and before you put me in the wrong box. i spent the last 10 years working on organic farms in three different countries.
i am all for organics. but people have very sentimental conceptions of farming in general and organic farming. this article should not argue but describe.--trueblood 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable.
Oh, and don't feel like you need to justify your edits by stating who you are. Everyone is free to edit around here. JabberWok 19:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

just thought i add that because there is a kind of wikipedia article that attract attention mostly from people that supportive and people that are sceptic, articles on permaculture, veganism, organics etc.--trueblood 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisting

This article fails two criteria for GA and requires substantial revision:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

The way the article is written parts of it are factually wrong or misleading. This is partly because there is a special language of differently defined terms that the "organic" movement uses. This language is different from (and incompatible with) the modern science of chemistry. This special language springs from the vitalistic origins of the "organic" movement, and requires special expanation that is not provided as the article is currently written. For example, the word "synthetic" is used to describe prohibited fertilizers, when in fact many prohibited fertilizers are (by the normal language of chemistry) inorganic, and hence cannot be "synthetic". Since the "organic" movement wants to use special terminology, that special terminology should be examined in the article, with both pros and cons. The article should caution that the normal language of chemistry may not be meant in the context of this article. Otherwise, the article should be re-written in the language of normal chemistry, putting the special terms in italics or otherwise indicating that they are not to be taken literally.

If it's use of the word "sythetic" that you disagree with, this is an easy change. I suggest you change the instances of "chemistry words" that you don't think should be used. JabberWok 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that you changed synthetic. Inorganic mineral salts, substances such as potassium sulfate are not synthetic, they are "prepared". The basis for "organic" agriculture objecting to inorganic mineral components of fertilizers, like calcium sulfate etc. are purely based on vitalism, which shoud be acknowledged. The article as written has so many incorrectly used terms that my efforts at revision would be a total waste of time. The authors should correct it, or delete it and start over. I don't want to get into a war of deletinng the entire article, so I am asking the authors to write a more fair and balanced article. I think that an article on "organic" foods is needed, but it shouldn't be simply a promotional piece, as this one currently is.--Zeamays 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect: 

       (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
       (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

This article has a strong slant, promoting "organic" food, and in favor of small farms. It hints that large indistrial farms are incompatible with "organic" food, when this is in fact not true.

The section on "Benefits of organic agriculture" largely presents the "Organic" side without factual rebuttal, rather it attempts to rebut the claims of conventional agriculture without seriously exploring why most farmers have rejected "organic" production methods and why independent agricultural scientists find its scientific basis lacking. Please understand, I do not object to "organic" food and agriculture per-se, simply that the arguments for it are illogical and inaccurate. ---- Zeamays

A side question: When you say "most farmers have rejected 'organic' production methods" and "independent agricultural scientists find its scientific basis lacking" - I'm curious where you obtained information like that. Information like that is useful and relevant to this article.

Something so well known as that the majority of produce is not organic do not require erudite footnotes.--Zeamays 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, many references on this page are from peer reviewed articles in Journals like Science and Nature. For example, two articles:
Stokstad, Erik (May 2002). "Organic Farms Reap Many Benefits". Science 296: 1589.
Nelson et.al (April 2004). "Organic FAQs". Nature 428: 796-798.
neither of which claim that the scientific basis is lacking.
Also, your complaint that the article presents too much of the "organic side", I suggest you see articles like Veganism, or Vegetarianism, for example. Both articles have sections called "Motivation" sections that present evidence in favor of them - similar to this article, with separate sections for criticism. JabberWok 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that by volume it presents too much "organic", just that a fair discussion of objections to it is not presented. The authors need to present more balance. Otherwise the whole article should be noted as biased or deleted. --Zeamays 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Zeamays moved to discussion page

In the Benefits of organic agriculture section:
Note: This section exhibits strong bias in favor of organic produce and should be read with caution. Alternative viewpoints are not fairly represented, and the information cited is highly selective. The reasons that mainstream agricultural scientists have for their acceptance of the practices of conventional agriculture are not fairly represented. The role of the "organic" movement's PR campaign in disparaging the quality of conventional foods is not mentioned. It is suggested that this article be re-written by the authors to eliminate bias and fairly represent the known facts.

In the History section:
Note: This section contains factual errors and misstatements and needs correction. For example, monoculture has been common practice in agriculture for many centuries. There are numerous other examples.


This article is so extremely biased as written that a note warning readers of the bias should be in the article itself, not in the discussion. --Zeamays 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Critisism should definitely be presented. With your suggestion, and following the pattern of other articles (like Christianity, Veganism, Vegetarianism, Socialism, for example) I have created a "Critisism" section. It's very rough as it is, but please, add the arguments and referecnes you feel are needed to bring balance to the article. JabberWok 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To the casual reader it may appear that there are many references to justify statements in this article. However, many more, particularly those which express unconscious bias through the use of the special language used by "organic" advocates are not footnoted.
I edited some of the intro, but placed more text in the Critisism section. Personally, I'm not sure what an "independent" scientist is, so I removed that word from the introduction.
Also, "...their evidence is not accepted as valid by most independent agricultural scientists." I'm curious, what is "not valid" about the research into the effects of pesticides on farm workers and on the environment? JabberWok 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Most independent scientists do accept the evidence cited by organic proponents. For example, most independent scientists regard "organic" practices as anachronistic and inspired by the philosophy of vitalism, not science-based (see Criticism).

hm, me i also wanted a more balanced article but i am not happy with the introduction as it is now. the term 'most independent scientists' seems very vague and also just someone's figure of speach or did you conduct a survey among scientists. this thing about organic practises being inspired by vitalism probably refers to biodynamics. but the percentage of biodynamics of the total of organics must be very small. you can't say that about all of organics, being based on bogus science. i just realized that the whole passage is contradictory anyway, i am taking it off right away. please discuss before putting it back. i want less bias myself. but i also want a clear and understandable definition in the intro and none of this wikipedia ' some critics claim' npov talk. should be easy to come up with a straightforward definition.

to get there i would also like to take bit about industrial farms out of the intro, because it is simplistic. --trueblood 18:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Indpendent scientists means those unaffiliated with organizations or companies that would bias their opinions, like agribusiness or Rodale Institute. I don't think it needs definition.
  • I have been around ag scientists enough to know that nearly all of them don't have a positive opionion of the "organic" movement. Not that they thing organic food is bad, mind you, just that the claims it makes are unfounds. So yes, it was an informal survey.
  • This article as I found it was so biased that a great deal of work will be required to straighten it out. We need positive contributions, not deletions. If I were to have followed my emotions, I would have deleted the whole thing. --Zeamays 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't agree with you. i think there is a lot of bias and bad language that needs to be deleted. it cannot be improved. i also gave a reason why i removed the vitalism thing, it is simply not true. and yes the term independent scientist is a rather vague term, if you don't come up with specific names it sounds more like your opinion. i am really not emotional here. and there is a lot of pro organic bias i want to remove too. but i also want clear and understandable language. your passage about vitalism was also disrupting something that belonged together. by the way there is a wikipedia policy that is called no original research. --trueblood 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC) i am sorry, i don't agree with the new changes. why not say free from gmo and synthetic or artificial fertilizer. that is what most people would say. the way you put it, some people might not immediatly understand what you mean. i leave it for now, but i am going to change it ,sorry. --trueblood 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeamays, which scientists in the article do you feel are not "independent"? JabberWok 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

trewavas

the link i removed did not work anymore, but after i googled trewavas i found this link ngin.tripod.com/trewavas.htm which made me remove the words well respected... --trueblood 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC) okay this is what you see when you follow the link to trewavas:


It appears you have tried to access http://www.ed.ac.uk/~ebot40/main.html which does not exist on this server.

Pages published under a user's own directory (indicated by a tilde "~") should now be browsed on the new HomePages web server at http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ Please note that this service is primarily for unofficial and unsupported publishing by individuals, rather than official University publications.

You may find what you were looking for at: http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/~ebot40/main.html (the ~ is optional)

It is likely that you have followed a link to an incorrect URL from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food. You should contact the author of that page and ask them to update it.

find a new link that works, without the link, don't reinstate the claims. they are quite far out, and need some prove. --trueblood 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

benefits for the environment

this headline is a misnomer since it mostly contains criticism. and strangely mixed up too. on one hand the section gives the impression that organic agriculture comes up with the same yields as conventional farming, that might be even true for some crops but is in general very misleading. organic farmings produces significantly lower yields than conventional farming. and particulary small family farms that are so praised in this article. but than organic farms use pesticides that are more toxic than conventional ones. come on. i already removed the term biodegradable in context with conventional pesticides, because it is highly misleading. of cause even ddt is biodegradable, just takes a while, i mean decades. Rotenone and pyrethrum degrade within days. the stuff about the copper is also misleading. copper is used in fruit growing, conventional as organic. it surely can be problematic. but to claim that conventional fruitgrowing uses less copper and more modern pesticides that are less problematic. come on, that would really need quoting studies that underline that. i don't know what to do with this section though --trueblood 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Trueblood:

The point is that "organic" farmers do use pesticides and that they can be both persisent and toxic. It is not that conventional is better. "Organic" producers make pious claims for their methods, and it is only fair to show how such claims can be misleading. --Zeamays 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


yoh man are you on drugs or what. we are still talking about a section that is called benefits for the environment. i just let that sink in for a moment. ... so i am going to spell it out again. the section is called benefits for the environment. and into this section you want to put the notion that organic farming is worse for the environment than conventional farming. let's not turn this into a circus. let's put criticism with criticism and benefits with benefits can you also respond to what i said about pesticides. what you wrote is highly misleading. the only example for a non biodegradable pesticide used in organic agriculture that you gave are copper based pesticides, but they are also used in conventional fruit growing. all the others are plant based. you make it sound that conventional pesticides degrade quicker than these. and the point you are trying to make is that conventional is better for the environment. --trueblood 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

identifying organic food

i propose to delete this section from identifying organic...:

Most food industry research of the last 50 years has focused on developing chemical agriculture and modern food processing -- less has been done to investigate side effects of conventional agriculture. In response, organics is concerned in large part with what NOT to do -- "as much as possible, let Nature do its thing" -- rather than in devising precise formulas for organic production. A strictly rules-based definition of organic farming and organic food, consisting of approved inputs and practices, created and maintained by regulatory agencies, is inevitably subject to "exceptions" and to special interest pressures to modify the rules. As organics become "whatever the rules say it is", the line between organic and conventional food can get blurred. With widespread distribution of organic food, processed food has also become dominant over fresh food, confusing the issue of "What is organic?" further. Modern food processing is complicated. Commercial preparation methods, the use of additives, the effects of packaging and storage, for instance, are outside the first-hand experience of most people, including organic farmers. Traditional, minimally processed products, like baked goods, canned, frozen, and pickled fruits and vegetables, are easier for consumers to understand by comparison with home preparation methods, although home and mass-production techniques are quite different. For convenience foods, like frozen prepared foods and cooked breakfast cereals, ingredients and methods are quite a mystery to most consumers. A "certified organic" label is usually the only way for consumers to know that a processed product is "organic".

reasons: *article is too long, would generally benefit from shortening

  • most of it is opinion rather than fact or not really needed in this article
  • the question of how to identify organic food can be answered a lot more precise in less words

--trueblood 15:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

general structure

since the article is still very long i propose to shorten it to :

  • shorten the related movements section and integrate it into the modern developments section
  • most benefits of organic farming and most of the criticism should be moved to the organic farming article. instead their should be a discussion about whether or not organic food is healthier, tastier etc. but i would like the whole sustainability section move to the organic farming article.

the only problem is that this article is also already very long. it needs shortening too, but i think that could be easily done, because the article has several long section about issues that actually also have subarticles (history, methods and certification).

--trueblood 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that benefits of organic agriculture type stuff should all be moved to the organic farming article. It's relevent in this article in that buying organic food supports organic farming.
It's probably also some of the most interesting material in the article.
Some may think this article is long, but I feel like there is still so much to add - like how farm go about getting certified, or listing significant differences in organic farming rules between countries. JabberWok 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


now since we have this controversy about sustainability it seems to me that this discussion should be in the article about organic farming. i think there some really valid points of criticism that i hope to include in a balanced way for instance no till agriculture, that cannot be used in organics since it depends on the use of herbicides, has benefits for soil structure and might even be more energy efficient but also the argument that since organics has lower yields, converting all agriculture to organics would mean more land would have to be converted to agricultural land to feed the world. in my opinion it should be in the organic farming article, but i think it is a minor point. one of the two articles is going to have this discussion and the other one can have a link to it.

there is a whole article about certification, again i am unsure about what should be where, but i agree there should be a clear discussion or listing of differences in standards particulary about the situation in the us, since there seem to be a controversy since the state took over regulation of organic standards . i am still unsure if national organic standards in the us outrule gmos or not --trueblood 13:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

food safety

i removed this passage: Since it is known that consumption of conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables actual reduces the risk of cancer (B.N. Ames, see below), the argument that such consumption is deletarious is unreasonable.

because it is badly writtten and nonsensical. what was probably meany is that consumption of fresh food and veg reduces cancer risk, no matter if organic or conventional. but also you cannot start a sentence with since it is known and neither call an argument unreasonable. i am starting to get really frustrated with these kind of edits. please think about how things fit in, about the wording etc. there is no problem with bringing in the controversy about whether organic food is more healthy than conventional food, i would get to that myself, too.--trueblood 12:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please dont get frustrated. Take a cup of coffee if u r getting so :) Point out to the other party why this is line is a bad way of stating things. Even out of POV, important facts can be extracted and retain them, while stating them neutrally.
In this case, I agree with trueblood the statement makes no sense at all. If you feel that something is to be included but can not think of a polcy-abiding way to state that, you can use the talk page and discuss it with others. Please dont take offence, but if others dont find your edits harmonious, then its best to say your rationale on the talk page. Otherwise they only see your words, not the perspective with which you grasp the topic. And its very important to be polite, being otherwise only alienates you from other editors. As does revert wars.--soumসৌমোyasch 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Respnse: I have edited the statment slightly to make more clear. The facts are straightforward:

  • Conventional fruits and vegetables do contain trace residues on average (some do not).
  • Consumption of conventional fruits and vegetables correlates with reduced levels of cancer (Those who eat more fruit and veggies get less cancer).
  • If this doesn't seem logical read the article on hormesis, a scientifically well-substantiated phenomenon.

Sincerely, --Zeamays 13:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The notion that hormesis is a widespread or important phenomenon in biological systems is not widely accepted.[5]

this is what i found in the article about hormesis. now are you talking about hormesis, or about the benefits of eating fruit and veggies? in the second case, why should conventional produce be healthier than organic.

i state again that i don't have a problem with a critical view on organics, but most of your edits go for head on conflict driven by an obvious strong point of view with no regard for balance, flow or style. can you start considering that your point of view is not the only valid one?--trueblood 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: I never wrote hormesis is uncontroversial. Actually, where hormesis is known from the data it is completely uncontroversial, an accepted fact. What is controversial is that it can be applied in all instances. However, you want to include "benefits" of organic ag that are widely controversial. I do not claim to be impartial, but I suggest you might look in the mirror. I am trying to fairly state the facts. Hormesis is, as I cited, a reasonable explanation for the well-documented fact that eating greater quantities of conventional veggies is healthy. The hypothesis that this is based on hormesis is not proven, but it is a reasonable hypothesis. Just as the claims of organic ag being healthy are an unproven, though reasonable, hypothesis. --Zeamays 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

hey, i never said i was impartial. but i believe i want to work on a balanced article. i really want don't want this article to be an advertisement for organics. if you start to cool down, maybe you will begin to notice. for example i don't consider the last edit before you reverted it (somehting about a coctail of posionous chemicals) worth keeping. nevertheless you did not talk about a controversial hypothesis, you start your sentence with 'since it is known'.... also what is exactly wrong with telling people that he is an outspoken critic? it helps people to place his opinions. there is nothing wrong with being a critic.trueblood 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

benefits

the headline benefits of organic food seems to be controversial, i am not happy with claimed benefits, but in lack of a better idea i leave it as it is. also two issue have counterparts in the criticism section (benefits for consumers and food safety and benefits for the environment and sustainability). i wonder if these discussion should not happen in the same place.

in the section benefits for consumers the bit about the effects of atrazin on frogs i found arbitrary. i will remove this and replace it by just saying that the effects of pesticide residues in food are difficult to assess and controversial. idealy there would be a link to a summary of studies on the subject. --trueblood 16:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That section was just trying to give an example of the dangers of pesticides. Since atrazine is one of the most commonly used pesticides, it seems relevant. JabberWok 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear JabberWok:

I share your views, except for atrazine, the science of which I find controversial, rather than arbitrary. Atrazine is a popular herbicide for grains in the US because it is cheap and effective against most of the important weeds. It cannot be not used with most vegetables, which are of the greater interest for organic growers than grains.

The criticisms of the claimed benefits were moved to a separate section by "organic" supporters who thought that they should be elsewhere (So readers wouldn't see them?). I didn't object, because it created the opportunity to show that the criticisms are diverse and well-documented. --Zeamays 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC) bravo, you managed to contribute something constructive for once, may i point out that you violated the three revert rule with the trevawas edit. and you still have not really explained why it is irrelevant that he is an outspoken critic of organics. --trueblood 11:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GA

I think the main reason behind the article failing all the criteria of the GA status is that it has a POV tag on top of it and so it fails criterion 4 of Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Lincher 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) is that so, i'll take it off then trueblood 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems the NPOV issue has been mostly dealt with through the addition of the criticism section. I don't see any other problems with the article, other than inconsistant citation style (which is minor), so I'm promoting the article to Good Article status. Someone should go through and make sure all of the citiations are consistant, however, especially in the statistics section. Kaldari 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Organic Places to Stay in the UK

I've reviwed a new book listing Organic Places to Stay in the UK, from Green Books, and thought it was worth a link. If you agree, perhaps you could put it up there? Thanks Mike Gerrard

This is a determined linkspammer. Grouse 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

Does it actually make sense to call it "organic"? Wouldn't "all natural" or "whole" be a better word for these foods? There's nothing organic about the process, it's still a living plant. Something on the ambiguity of "organic" should be included in the article. 70.111.218.254 17:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding use of the word "organic"

I'd like to see the article address a question that has been on my mind for a while: How did the word "organic" come to mean food that is grown a certain way? The word organic usually means either living matter or matter that contains carbon. By these definitions, almost all food except table salt is organic. How did we get into a situation in which most food which is organic (i.e. contains carbon) cannot claim to be organic? -- JHP 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

organic here is not meant in the chemical sort of way, ie based on carbon, but probably has it's roots in the vitalistic origins of organic agriculture. so in a way maybe naturam would be less misleading. get the problem if somebody speaks about 'organic' pesticides, meaning pesticides that are used in organic farming and not chemically organic pesticides.

trueblood 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Copper spray used on organic potatoes

I've heard that organic potato farmers use copper based pesticides to protect their crop from potato blight. Use of these spays is allowed by the soil association as they have no other way of protecting the potatoes for the devistating effects of the disease. Copper is toxic to both humans and wildlife. Here is a link to an article about it:

http://persianoad.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/thousands-of-tons-of-organic-food-produced-using-toxic-chemicals/

I dont have the time or knowledge to do this my self (i dont even know if the reference is suitable for wikipedia), so if anyone can update the page with this info that would be great. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the word

Where does the word "organic food" come from? Because as a matter of fact food is organic, there is also inorganic food (like salt, minerals,..). Is it only a marketing gag?

Really! Good question! I kind of object to the unscientific/psuedoscientific use of this a once exact technical term. But oh well, there's nothing you can do about it. Chrisrus (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Organic food" is short for "organically grown and processed food". It's just easier to say. The term "organic" has been around longer than its scientific use in for example, organic chemistry. Organic, as in 'organism'; related to, derived from, or having qualities of nature and living organisms. All living organisms contain carbon compounds, hence the term "organic" for the chemistry of carbon compounds.

So it's not a bad choice for an adjective to describe food which has been grown using only natural fertilizers and pest control methods.

The argument can be made that all things are 100% natural, because even things that are synthesized in labs came from materials found on earth, in nature. A plastic bag was once a dinosaur. (Dinosaur + millions of years=oil...)

If you think there's no difference between organically grown food and chemically grown food, please watch a documentary called "Food, inc." You may be shocked and disgusted, but at least you'll understand. 69.148.170.106 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah, at what point does something become unnatural? because we make the distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's a stupid name for something that's more than half water. And the notion that "natural" agriculture is intrinsically better than "synthetic" one is superstitious. I guess American folks kind of lost connection to reality in 20th century :) 95.181.12.52 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

uncited facts

If you find a source please add it and move the paragraph back to the article.--spitzl (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:Austria

  • The government has created incentives so that within the next few years, 10% of its food will comprise locally grown organic foods. [citation needed]

:Italy:

  • Existing legislation calls for all school lunches to be organic by 2005. [citation needed]
Germany:

Fair use rationale for Image:Hellenic.jpg

Image:Hellenic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Globalize tags

I removed these tags because I've found no recent discussion on these topics on the talk page. If you feel these were wrongly removed, please point out specific example sentences or sections that you feel need to be changed. (Or perhaps, with wiki policy, Be Bold, and fix it yourself.) JabberWok (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Organic food production is illegal and can not be allowed in the united states legally regulated.

What the hell does that mean?

--131.156.17.116 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

deforestation

i think this section should be in the article on organic farming or most of it. i also think that it's form now is original research mixed with the argumentation of on critic (norman borlaug). the section quotes borlaug but goes on to say As the population grows (and consequently, the global demand for food increases) farms have to either increase the yield of existing lands or increase the area under cultivation. Deforestation is often the result.

i don't agree with presentation like this as fact or as the only way to see this, we cannot present the equation demand for food is on the rise therefore organic farming is immoral, as the truth, it is the opinion of critics and should be presented as such. there are counterarguments such as we cannot feed the whole world on a diet as rich in meat as the modern western diet. rather then say we need to produce as much as possible from each hectar no matter the ecological costs, one could also say we need to eat less meat, i will try to find sources for that... for now can we move this section to the more basic organic farming article and keep just a short version of the argument here?trueblood (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

while it is undeniable fact that to produce more food, without more land, one must use more efficient methods, however, this doesn't mean that organic farming is immoral, which I don't see as being implied here. rather that it has a cost. If one's goal is to limit ecological costs, one might use genetically modified food and save some forests. of course making farm land more efficient could make it more profitable, and therefore increase the amount of farmland. in the same way, using more paper could result in more trees being planted. anyway, what borlaug is advocating is advancements in technology, to increase yields. and is more a defense of using modern techniques, such as tractors. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed essay-like text

I removed the following text from the article. Unlike stated in the first sentence, yields are discussed with several references already. These two paragraphs have more of an essay tone (trying to prove a thesis) rather than that of an encyclopedia trying to present facts and references.

A little discussed negative side-effect of organic agriculture is a by-product of lower yields. As the population grows (and consequently, the global demand for food increases) farms have to either increase the yield of existing lands or increase the area under cultivation. Deforestation is often the result. Specific crops, such as Brazilian Soybeans which with beef production are amongst the leading causes of the rapid deforestation of the Amazon, affect forests more than others. According to Borlaug, "if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests."[1] This issue is tied to genetically engineered crops and no-till farming which have significant potential to increase crop yield (especially in places like Africa and Australia) and are in many ways the opposite of organic farming methods. Organic farming shifts the techniques used to get good yields and can precipitate a regression in the sense that it rejects 'modern' farming techniques. This is not an issue for operations that employ advanced techniques and have access to technology but can be problematic for farmers with limited means. As market demand for organic produce grows, farmers in developing countries who are at risk of employing slash and burn techniques would need to take over even greater amounts of forest to compensate for yield difference.
One of the most common and essential roles of fertilizer is to introduce nitrogen into the soil as plants can't extract it from the atmosphere independently (with some exceptions). According to Nobel Prize winner Norman Borlaug as interviewed in Reason Magazine, "at the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows?"[2] Cattle are famously amongst the most energy intensive food products because of the amount of food each cow consumes.

JabberWok (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you remove this obviously relevant and fact based text rather than trimming what you consider to be its essay like characteristics? Edits like this present a very one-sided article.LedRush (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

late commentary, i agree with the removal, this section would have to be completely rewritten to remove it's essay character.Truetom (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

one sided

this entire article sounds almost like a propaganda campaign for organic with what seems to be a very small amount of discussion of any of the disadvantages of organic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.77.28 (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are so many Wikipedia articles which hold no punches in criticizing the subject matter. This organic movement, nor any other topic, deserves special protection.24.56.219.31 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY AGREE!! This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility and with such high-profile subject matter, a thorough section of criticism of the organic food movement is in dire need for this article to be anywhere NEAR credible... I would do it myself, but I am much too busy in my own life to do it... So any of the legions of unbiased Wikipedia editors which I know are out there should come in and clean this article up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.69.146 (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a sucktastic hippie hole.

Out of the whole article, only one sentence is devoted to the question of whether organic foods are worth the cost. I think this page is edited by the beach-dwelling goons at the end of the Pen & Teller "Bullshit" episode dealing with this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.207.172 (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see something bout how the nonsynthetic pestisides organic farmers use are more toxic than the synthetic pesticides regular farmers use. Indeed, everyone I've known who'd been on an organic diet at work was often sick.

congrats! the comments above are among the dumbest i've read so far on any talk page. btw, i'm very rarely sick and my diet is almost completely organic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.253.155 (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also rarely sick, and I eat almost nothing organic. Therefore, your argument is invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.1.147 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree; this article is clearly biased. Chrisrus (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A recent review of all organic food studies in the last 50 years has been conducted showing no significant nutritional difference between organic and non organic food. I recently heard this on the Sceptics guide to the universe podcast. I will be locating a verifiable source in the next day but if anyone allready knows a source plz let me know.Sanchasmcdude (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, only in the last 50 years has American Agriculture been using pesticides and excitotoxins that have increased disease in population. the last thing I would hope is to see everyone arguing with everyone. The fact that health insurance cost has risen dramatically over this period combined with the usage of pesticides on crops, burning the Gulf of Mexico out, Time Magazine August 2009 should be a red flag that signifies we are in trouble. Solutions people, not arguements. How can thousands of years of farming be wrong only in the last 50 to 60 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindedbypolitics (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ye I agree I tried to add some facts to this page a while back but the problem with this article is there is some group of editiors that constantly revert counter points critical to organic claims. I am actually an agronomist and I have had little success with adding scientific edits to this article. I gave up a while ago just wanted to vent a little on the talk page. But until the pro-organic propogandists ease off this page it will remain in the doldrums. 173.18.177.11 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the external links in the article and replaced them with dmoz as per WP:EL. Links added to this article need to add something unique to the article that would not be included in a featured version of this article. I'd suggest that the material in these external sites would be better incorporated into this article and appropriately referenced -- though I'm more than happy to discuss the validity of these links here. MidgleyDJ (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

MidgleyDJ: I agree with your motivation, but in many cases, and especially this case, dmoz != quality. If you look at the dmoz page http://www.dmoz.org//Society/Issues/Environment/Food_and_Drink/Organic_Food// other than possibly http://www.organicfoodee.com/, http://organic.org/, and http://www.mofga.org/tabid/166/Default.aspx, the other 8 links are pure junk. I will attempt to produce a better edited set of links for this page when I get some time (and will be happy to review the dmoz links as well) and come up with a set that can better add value to this page. 24.6.208.166 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed a link to private gardening because it was re-directing to the farmers market page. (Botanical nomi (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

"One study of two organic farming systems and one conventional found that, in one year's severe crop season drought, organic soybean yields were 52% and 96% higher than the conventional system and organic maize yields were 37% higher in one system, but 62% lower in the other." has 2 links both of which are dead so I'm removing the sentence. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


That sounds a little BSish to me anyway. I would belive about 40 percent but 95 is a little suspisius.Sanchasmcdude (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i removed these passages from the related movements section because there don't really discuss related movements (already a dubious section in my humble opinion), maybe they can be used elsewhere:

The "buy local" movement is also related to the organic movement. Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore's Dilemma”, notes that in the whole chain of food production and distribution, only one-fifth of the energy is used on the farm, the rest in distribution. Yet a report published by DEFRA, Britain's environment and farming ministry, concluded that shifts toward a local food production and distribution system, as advocated by many organic food proponents, would actually increase the amount of energy being invested in food due to the a higher level of small-scale transport systems, which suffer from inefficiencies compared to standard large-scale supermarket systems.[3]

As highlighted by a recent New York Times article, food supply is a global issue that will become increasingly prominent in the near future. "Everywhere, the cost of food is rising sharply. Whether the world is in for a long period of continued increases has become one of the most urgent issues in economics. ... Farmers the world over are producing flat-out. American agricultural exports are expected to increase 23 percent this year to $101 billion, a record. The world’s grain stockpiles have fallen to the lowest levels in decades. 'Everyone wants to eat like an American on this globe,' said Daniel W. Basse of the AgResource Company, a Chicago consultancy. 'But if they do, we’re going to need another two or three globes to grow it all.'"[4] Given the debate around Organic's ability to match the yields of conventional methods and the rising global demand for food, this debate is likely to see increased scrutiny in the future.


Truetom (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

by the way i think the defra thing is bogus , cannot read the economist article without subscription but if it is this study that they refer to it does not come to the mentioned conclusion [7]

Truetom (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


I reduced the related movements section to the movement followed by a brief description. I removed the section on Authentic food because it’s not different from local food and just advertizes for one particular standard. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed it all. The "related movements" are _not_ naturally tied together -- that is pure speculation on behalf of the authors. The "Beyond Organic" section contains references to "many members of what was..." and "Many ardent supporters" cited merely by a Pollan book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.3.76 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Added previously deleted reference

I put this reference about organic food using manure would be unable to feed the world back to the yield section.[5] The summary listed the removal as a "dubious ref" but it's credited to a knowlegable author and supports the statement made in the wiki article. Disagreeableneutrino (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

i contest that this is a reference worth using, the author might be a scientist, but this is a piece of opinion on what appears to be a blog, the following passage is from the reference:"Third, organic foods MAY be less safe for consumption than foods grown by conventional means. Because organic farmers use MANURE which can contain deadly strains of E. coli, salmonella, etc. there is a higher chance of picking up a bacterial infection from organically grown crops than from conventionally grown crops. The chance may be slight, but it IS higher than from food produced the conventional way. I wonder why organic food sellers don't LABEL their foods to warn consumers of that fact that there may be a chance of getting a bacterial infection and to wash their organic food well. IF THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN HEALTH, THIS SHOULD BE A NO-BRAINER."

the whole article does not refer to any scientific work, it just repeats assertions like the organics/salmonella connection that was started by Dennis Avery.Truetom (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?

What about the Criticism? People who eat organic foods are more likely to get sick more often, nonorganic foods with slight traces of pesticides that are taken in unleathal dosages gradualy increase resistance to some poisons, & it being a FDA/ASDA money making scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.236.142 (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Calling for criticism is one thing, but these are unsubstantiated and appear to be calling for a criticism for criticisms sake. I would happily add a reference to "People who eat organic foods are more likely to get sick more often" if a valid scientific study existed


I agree this page is really biased. It does not include the potential harm that many organic techniques for killing pests destroy the ecosystem (such as deep tilling). Also there is a huge difference between eating organically and sustainably and this article doesn't do well at making the distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MATThematical (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Chrisrus (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to approach the subject critically is to question whether using synthetic substances in agriculture is intrinsically bad. 95.181.12.52 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

organic baby products

i propose to merge what is worth saving from the article Organic baby products into this article under a section called organic baby food, if people would find that notable. i will propose the baby product article for deletion.Truetom (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC) this is from organic baby products: Organic Baby Formula Mothers who are not breastfeeding can choose to use organic infant formula to meet their baby's nutritional requirements for the first four to six months of life. Certified organic baby formulas can be made from soy and dairy milk. Organic infant formulas can be obtained at the hospital, grocery store and through various channels on the internet. [edit]Organic Baby Food Every stage of baby feeding can be fulfilled through certified organic baby products. Baby Cereals- Parents can find organic versions of baby cereals in whole grain rice and whole grain oatmeal and multi-grain varieties. Some manufacturers fortify them with iron. Jarred Baby Food/ Plum Baby- Most brands make organic baby food in jars. The organic foods are blended to accommodate the various textures and blends of food desired by growing babies and toddlers. Fresh Pureed Baby Food- Freshly, pureed baby food that can be chilled and shipped to US grocers. This also comes in various textures and flavors. Frozen Baby Food- Several companies have launched frozen organic baby and toddler meals. Freezing is a natural preservative. Meals and Snacks- Organic baby snacks can be found in the aisles in the form of teething biscuits, cookies pastas, finger foods and juices. Homemade Baby Food- Making baby food at home is another way parents provide (organic food) to their children. They purchase their own organic produce and make purees with a baby food processor.

if there is anything anybody wants to put into the article, feel free Truetom (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Cheap food vs organic food video

Please view the film here. I would like to add it as an external link if enough people think it is suitable. Thanks. Willsmore (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this video is retarded. Organic is about reducing toxic pesticide residue, not about the number of kcals. A British accent does not an intelligent person make. --Joelrosenblum (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, pesticide residue, not "calories", is the issue. You could use this to cite a statement that in essence says "Orgainic food can be much more expensive", I suppose. Chrisrus (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

pesticides section

This article should probably say more about what pesticides and other pest control measures are used by organic farming rather than just talk at length about potential harm from other pesticides. It hardly seems worth repeatedly mentioning that organic food has less "chemical" pesticide residue on it considering that should be obvious as those pesticides aren't used on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.132.108 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No Synthetics Allowed?

This sentence appears in the "Pesticide Residue" section: "Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of specific pesticides derived from plants." Synthetics are allowed in organic farming. Here is a link to the list of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production in the U.S accessed through the National Organic Program's website: [8]

Residue

I think the following table doesn't really belong here, because it, as far as I can see, deals with pesticides in food generally, and not specifically pesticide residues in organic food, which is the subject here. Perhaps it could fit in pesticide or general food safety? Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit research and advocacy group, released a list of the pesticide residues for 44 fruits and vegetables in 2007. The list was compiled from data obtained between 2000 and 2005 from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA tested nearly 43,000 samples. Peaches and apples contain the most pesticides and onions and avacodos contain the least amounts of pesticide residue. The following are ranked from the most pesticide load to least pesticide load. The pesticide scores range from 100 being the highest pesticide load to 1 being the lowest pesticide load.

Pesticide Load in Fruits and Vegetables[6]
RANK FRUIT/VEGETABLE PESTICIDE LOAD
1 (worst) Peach 100 (highest)
2 Apple 93
3 Sweet Bell Pepper 83
4 Celery 82
5 Nectarine 81
6 Strawberries 80
7 Cherries 73
8 Kale 69
9 Lettuce 67
10 Grapes-Imported 66
11 Carrot 63
12 Pear 63
13 Collard Green 60
14 Spinach 58
15 Potato 56
16 Green Beans 53
17 Summer Squash 53
18 Pepper 51
19 Cucumber 50
20 Raspberries 46
21 Grapes-Domestic 44
22 Plum 44
23 Orange 44
24 Cauliflower 39
25 Tangerine 37
26 Mushrooms 36
27 Banana 34
28 Winter Squash 34
29 Cantelope 33
30 Cranberries 33
31 Honeydew Melon 30
32 Grapefruit 29
33 Sweet Potato 29
34 Tomato 29
35 Broccoli 28
36 Watermelon 26
37 Papaya 20
38 Eggplant 20
39 Cabbage 17
40 Kiwi 13
41 Sweet Peas-Frozen 10
42 Asparagus 10
43 Mango 9
44 Pineapple 7
45 Sweet Corn-Frozen 2
46 Avocado 1
47 (best) Onion 1 (lowest)

What organic accredited bodies are involved

Such as the soil association? It would be useful to know what the standards are and who implements them 195.59.163.125 (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, because this is the process by which the word in question is defined in context. Chrisrus (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

POV check

I know there is some controversy surrounding organic foods including links to E-coli outbreaks and other negative impacts and this article doesn't list anything negative. GWatson • TALK 11:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be some weasel words in the article too, affecting its neutrality. For instance, the Energy Efficiency subsection of the Environmental Impact section contains the text "Some studies are also consistent in showing that organic farms are more energy efficient.", which is followed by only a single example.192.31.106.34 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead

"Organic foods are made according to certain production standards. The use of conventional non-organic pesticides, insecticides and herbicides is greatly restricted and avoided as a last resort. However, contrary to popular belief, certain non-organic fertilizers are still used."

Doesn't the last sentence just depend on which "certain production standards" are applied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bananas

The article describes one definition of the word “organic” which is dependant on the decree of a state. This is very daunting for the reader, because just to understand a simple word printed on a package one has to hold in mind the technical details of arcane government regulations subject to change at any moment and vary from place to place. This is unavoidable, the simple "nature of the beast”, as it were. And I think this is a very good article, but it could be better. The reader likely has simple questions and cold be better served if these were given a more prominent place.

I imagine readers who might have seen the word on some package and wants to know how to understand it: “healthier”, “better for the environment”, “less economically exploitative of people such as farmers or workers”, “superior flavor”, “animals treated less cruely”? And by calling this banana "organic" and the other ones over there "not", does that mean the non-organic bananas have poison on them and the orgainic ones don't, so I should go ahead and buy these at triple the price? And if the others over here are poison, what are they doing on sale in my supermarket? I mean, I don't think most people would agree that it's ok for the supermarket to be selling bananas that aren't safe, that have some poisonous pesticide on them, would they? So why are they even available for sale if they are that bad? So they must not be that bad, but what does "not that bad" mean to me? And I dare say, what's this stuff I hear about the whole thing being if not some enormous scam, then maybe some complicated emergent property of economically interested parties taking advantage of a system which needs fixing? Or even "completely wrongheaded"? Any truth to those rumors? At least some of these questions should be more prodominantly stressed in the article?

Well, I may have gone a bit too far with some of those questions. It comes down to this, which bananas do I buy? It would be best to organize this as a sort of NPOV report of arguments for and against, and let the reader decide. It should list knowably false common beliefs and state knowable benefits of organic food as simple facts. We just want to know how to choose bananas. Chrisrus (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious 'Nature' citation

It appears to my eye, that the citation used in this section is incorrectly stating that this research was published Nature. I scanned nature for the author and it did not seem that this was published in Nature.

I've tracked down where this citation originally came to be. The next revision to the page even noted the dubiousness of the cited research, in that it was straight to press and not peer reviewed. That was quickly removed citing original research, but the citation to the "Nature" article remains. Some time has passed since this research was published, and I assume some have critiqued the work. If someone has the time, please at least verify the citation, but then if someone could further investigate if this research is even valid anymore.Matt Yohe (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's since been removed by User:DoktorDec. it seems that it was a second-hand source with no link to the original article. There was something else too, but I forgot. E123 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


False Information, bad citation

Article says: Organic food not grown in the US is not inspected by anyone." This is NOT TRUE, for a list of inspection bodies outside US check: http://www.organic-europe.net/europe_eu/inspection.asp Article continues: The labeling of organic food grown outside of the US is based on the farmer's word.[5] Web site linked to DOES NOT CONTAIN SUCH INFORMATION (only mentions that China doesn't allow international bodies control their farms. Here's the link: http://www.alternet.org/environment/94146/is_your_organic_food_really_organic/) --Swawrzyczek (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

go ahead and change itChrisrus (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Andrew Leonard. "Save the rain forest -- boycott organic?". How The World Works. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
  2. ^ Ronald Bailey (2000). "Billions Served: Norman Borlaug interviewed by Ronald Bailey". Reason Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-03. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ "Voting with your trolley". The Economist. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
  4. ^ "A Global Need for Grain That Farms Can't Fill". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Bob Goldberg. "The Hypocrisy of Organic Farmers". Retrieved 2007-10-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |site= ignored (help)
  6. ^ [9]Retrieved on 9 Apr. 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organic_food/Archive_1&oldid=1137062377"