Talk:Organic food: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 131: Line 131:


:Your source says organic produce is higher in antioxidants and lower in toxins, it does not say it is healthier. A person who consumes adequate antioxidants will not experience any benefits from additional antioxidants. Similarly, someone who consumes safe levels of toxins, such as are found in conventionally grown produce, will not experience any benefits through reducing them. To provide a parallel, oranges contain more vitamin C than lemons, yet we would not say they are healthier. So long as one gets sufficient vitamin C, it does not matter where it comes from. In any case, Leifert's findings already appear in this article. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
:Your source says organic produce is higher in antioxidants and lower in toxins, it does not say it is healthier. A person who consumes adequate antioxidants will not experience any benefits from additional antioxidants. Similarly, someone who consumes safe levels of toxins, such as are found in conventionally grown produce, will not experience any benefits through reducing them. To provide a parallel, oranges contain more vitamin C than lemons, yet we would not say they are healthier. So long as one gets sufficient vitamin C, it does not matter where it comes from. In any case, Leifert's findings already appear in this article. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
::It is positive, so it is shot down. Predictable. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">[[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The&nbsp;Banner</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|<i style="color:maroon">talk</i>]]</span> 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:52, 10 September 2016

Former good articleOrganic food was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 11, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 15, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Conventionally Grown Food

The information that I want to add to the article came from Fredhelm Schmider, the General director of the European Crop Protection Association. This information would help people to understand that conventionally grown foods are just as nutritious as organic foods. 

       "This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of the food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the organic market." said Fredhelm Schmder.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azetobevi (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to mention thst the European Crop Protection Association is a registered lobbyist for conventionally grown foods, which would weaken the message you want to present. And it is an oversimplification. "Conventional" methods have led to substantially decreased nutrition, partly caused by depleted soils and crops developed to grown faster. While studies show that when organic methods are used to grow conventional crops in depleted soils they are no more nutritious, the reality is that organic farming typically does not do that. TFD (talk) 03:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misinterpreting the research. The research that failed to find differences between organic and conventionally grown food did not only look at growing conventional crops in depleted soil. That in fact is an assumption you are making as a reason for the lack of differences. Even your assertion that soil is nutrient depleted is an arguable point as the literature will not be on your side. Additionally, organic farming as a concept nor organic farming as a certification does not require the use of a specific nutrient rich soil, and as such buying organically grow crops would not guarantee greater nutrients levels (as found in the literature). I think it is very important to differentiate between organic farming as it has come to be organized, regulated, and certified, and a notion of non-factory "ethical" farming techniques, which may or may not be "organic" and may or may not have improved flavor or nutrients. This concept is unrelated to organic farming and is nearly completely unresearched. Organic foods are highly researched and the best evidence we have, as a whole, suggests no nutrition or flavor differences, nor found to improve sustainability.2602:306:B8E7:C90:F0DA:2D7F:B807:6AEF (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental benefits/impact of Organic farming

This seems to be a notable omission. Environmental impact is listed as a motivation for choosing organic food, but there is no evidence either way presented here. Given the extended discussion of health/taste benefits, it would be good to have this included.

--Adlhancock (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an omission, it is not allowed by the CABAL. Everything positive about organic food or organic gardening is blocked and/or removed, often on rather silly arguments. So have medical sources a far greater weight (undue to my opinion) than agricultural sources. The Banner talk 12:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Environmental impact discussion would not require medical sources. Review articles in scientific journals are harder to dismiss than other sources, so if you can find these to support a concise statement on impact, we can work on adding it to this article or Organic farming. It can be frustrating, but otherwise WP:RS sources that are not scientific studies tend to get removed.Dialectric (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion while the case for environmental benefits/impacts of organic farming is pretty strong, the page that case needs made is the organic farming page, not the organic food page. Farming methodology certainly impacts the environment. Many, but not all, organic methodologies are an improvement. But the improvements when they exist are on the production side not the consumers side.
Banner is correct of course in his assessment of the state of affairs on this page. However, that has been argued quite extensively (and bitterly) here for years. I don't see it changing here on this page until major changes are made in wiki policy. Anyone attempting too large a fix of the flaws on this page risks their ability to continue as an editor. So don't risk it. You are going up against a stonewall similar to the Tobacco lobby of years past. The fight needs to be done somewhere else, not on wiki. Redddbaron (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- and for this reason none of my circle of friends trust Wikipedia for similar topics. Speaking as a woman, and for women, I think it has a lot to do with the lopsided gender issues here. Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand that the editing environment can be frustrating, as long as you stick to policy, and go to rfc's rather than escalation/editwarring when conflict occurs, it is possible to get new information into these articles.Dialectric (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is better covered in the organic farming article. It might be helpful to if we had a hatnote referencing that article, since it is relevant to many readers of this article. TFD (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems the sensible option, both to avoid the politics above and given that it's the farming practices rather than the food itself affecting the environment. Adlhancock (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with neutrality and/or framing

This subject is vulnerble to political bias. (Full disclosure: I oppose most of the public relation practices of some agricultural conglomerates). My personal bias prevents me from editing in good faith. And I apologize that my claims should evoke extreme skepticism. I also apologize that i only have about 15 minutes to spend on this.

Search term: "There is no sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventionally grown food."

https://www.google.com/#q=%22There+is+no+sufficient+evidence+in+medical+literature+to+support+claims+that+organic+food+is+safer+or+healthier+than+conventionally+grown+food.%22&filter=0


It is highly unusual that an entire phrase be found on numerous pages, verbatim. The most common exceptions are common sayings, direct quotes from academic or other literature, as well as intentionally framed sentences by organizations not acting in good faith. The probability of this occurring directly by chance is nil.

Search term: "There is no good evidence that organic food tastes better than its non-organic counterparts."

https://www.google.com/#q=%22There+is+no+good+evidence+that+organic+food+tastes+better+than+its+non-organic+counterparts.%22&start=10&filter=0

As of wrting this phrase yields 63 results.

At this time, as of writing, it would be exceptionally unlikely to find any phrase I have written, verbatim.


Citation 4 is written by Robert Blake. Robert Blake supports precision agriculture. The source cannot be found online. The question of neutrality should be considered. I did not research other citations; however this was not chosen at random.

Of 3 phrases I searched two were sentences. One of those three such phrases was a paragraph, which was not found to be repeated. The other two are linked to above. These were not chosen at random.

It is common practice for public relations firms to employ extensive online strategies.

104.12.4.122 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Ross H.[reply]

The reason that the quote is found in other sites is that they have copied the article, see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. TFD (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Organic food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally Grown Food (cont.)

New evidence - a metanalyses of 343 studies on the contents of organic food by the University of Newcastle - shows organic food is clearly healthier , in light of this new study - this whole wikipedia article needs to be rewritten as it currently misleading and is actually irresponsible, ignores the evidence and could endanger peoples health.:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/news/2015/10/organicvsnon-organicfood/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.170 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says organic produce is higher in antioxidants and lower in toxins, it does not say it is healthier. A person who consumes adequate antioxidants will not experience any benefits from additional antioxidants. Similarly, someone who consumes safe levels of toxins, such as are found in conventionally grown produce, will not experience any benefits through reducing them. To provide a parallel, oranges contain more vitamin C than lemons, yet we would not say they are healthier. So long as one gets sufficient vitamin C, it does not matter where it comes from. In any case, Leifert's findings already appear in this article. TFD (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is positive, so it is shot down. Predictable. The Banner talk 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organic_food&oldid=738723667"