Talk:Organic food/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] independent global directory of ecolabels: food type

We recently began work on a global independent directory of ecolabels (http://www.ecolabelling.org). With editorial permission, we would like to add the link: http://ecolabelling.org/type/food/ with text: Food ecolabels at ecolabelling.org to the Organic wikipedia page. We currently list 61 labels from around the world. Please feel free to drop us a line at info@ecolabelling.org if you have any questions.

[edit] missing notable critique of organic food

The section dealing with critiques of organic food fails to include a rather weighty argument...proponents of organic food say that it is better for the environment because harmful pesticides aren't used. however, the question of what is best for the environment is open for debate. Surely, chemicals and pesticides are bad for the environment, but pesticide use has allowed the crop per acre harvest to grow three to four times over the past fifty years. If everything was grown organically, farm area would need to be increased drastically, and that would mean less room for the rainforests, etc... The economist had a good article on this last month, if someone wants to cite all of this and work it out further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.30.130 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

You should read the the For the environment section in the article where several different studies are pointed out that have found modern organic farms have similiar yeilds in normal years but higher yeilds in drought years.

In fact, if the article you are speaking of is

• "Voting with your trolley - Food politics" (Dec 2006). Economist 381: 81. 

then it doesn't cite research at all. Instead, it states the opinion of one man,

"Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution"...claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is "ridiculous" because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest."

I do wonder what studies this man is reffering to, but also

it appears he says nothing of pesticides which is what you were talking about. JabberWok 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QAI logo and reference removal

QAI logo and reference should be removed, as it promotes single for-profit company, and added to a list of current accredited certifying agents. Berimbau1 23:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] organic pesticides

this is from the criticism section: Toxicity of "organic pesticides": Conventional pesticides must be thoroughly studied before they can be placed on the market. However, such studies are not required for the pesticides used in organic agriculture [citation needed]. For example, the botanical pesticide Sabadilla is highly toxic to honeybees, and according to the California Department of Environmental Protection its mammalian toxicology has not been fully studied

i think it is an important point, only i am not sure if it is true, i point a citation needed in some time ago. soon i will just delete this statement. if someone finds references, she can put it back.. trueblood 11:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A place for users to purchase organic foods online

I realize that wikipedia is not a collection of links, but users might like to know where to buy organic foods and other such products. I have found a reputable dealer online that I think we should add to the links section. http://www.shopnatural.com

[edit] A map-based community-input organic food locator - RealFoodFinder.com

This is similar to already listed OmOrganics, but not limited to the Bay Area. The site has a grass-roots aspect to is as well. In addition to the base collection of listings, people list their favorite local place that sells or serves organic foods. So far community has been most active on the west coast, however the site is growing elsewhere as well. http://www.realfoodfinder.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.250.63 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wild Harvested

On the Internet, I keep seeing the term "wild harvested" associated with organic food, but I cannot find anything in Wikipedia about wild harvested food. This page describes the requirements for management of wild crops near the bottom of the page: Wild harvested food may be food gathered or harvested from a predestinated area that has been free from conventional pesticides and other prohibited substances for at least three years. The actual gathering of the wild crop should not be destructive to the environment and should sustain the growth and production of the wild crop. Once harvested, prohibited substances should not be added to the wild crop by the crop producer. Should wild harvested food be included in this article or should it have a separate article? -- Jreferee 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undid additions from Organic farming

The edit made by User:Jav43 on March 2, 2007 included:

• Changing section title "Critisism" to "Evidence of the harm caused by organic food"
• Adding 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, which contained 1 reference (compare this with the 22 references in the "Evidence of the benefits of organic food".

I reverted this edit for a couple reasons. One major reason is that the "Critisism" section isn't about the harm that organic farming does.

For example,

• The "Food Safety" subsection shows that conventional food contains many more pesticide residues, but that the effects of these aren't a big deal.
• The "Sustainability" subsection says that any improvements in energy efficiency aren't due to organic practices but by crop rotation, and that some pesticides that are approved for organic farms are dangerous (like rotenone, although these pesticides are used rarely).
• And the last two "Organic Food is expensive", and 'Organic food has "sold out"' subsections aren't so much harm as they are critisism related.

As to the 4 paragraphs from Organic farming, they don't contain nearly enough citations or actual "evidence of harm". JabberWok 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you missed the point of my edits. This article is full of discussion of organic farming practices. That discussion is one-sided, which firmly violates npov rules. There are two ways to balance this. One is to include both sides of the discussion, which I started. The other is to remove the references to organic farming practices and simply reference users to the 'organic farming' article. I suppose I'll edit this to that end. Please see section 18 of this talk page for my comments on this topic at the time of my edit. Jav43 04:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

you should slow down a bit, i think i agree with some of the moving around of sections from organic food, but please discuss first, and can you discuss at the bottom of the page rather than continue same age old thread, that might esily be overlooked. also actually these articles used to be a lot more pro organic and have become a lot more balanced in recent months. you can check it out be looking at an version from say october 2006trueblood 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It's great that these articles have become more balanced recently, but that doesn't mean they are perfect. I do think "Organic Foods" needs balance in the discussion of organic farming practices. Since organic farming has its own article, I don't see why all discussion of organic farming is not simply moved there. Jav43 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How organic food is grown is relevant to why people buy it - and also why it's an area of the food industry that has been growing much faster than the rest of it. The information that's here should stay - it's a good summary of why organic food is made in the first place - but I agree that a decent amount of it could be copied over to Organic farming and would be relevant there too but phrased differently. JabberWok 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then this article could simply mention that some people prefer organic food due to the ways in which it is grown, and refer to the 'organic farming' article for that topic. Basically, I have two problems here. I don't see the need for duplicate information. More importantly, the discussion of organic farming practices in the 'organic food' article is entirely one-sided. Why not refer people to the more complete article, 'organic farming', rather than discussing organic farming practices here? Jav43 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

to talk about a totally one-sided article after making a change like Changing section title "Critisism" to "Evidence of the harm caused by organic food is a bit thin, how about making some little improvements to the article before making sweeping changes to get it closer to your idea of balanced. trueblood 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the title of the 'pro' section? "Evidence of the benefits of organic food" - I simply copied that and made it negative. Such is balance. Jav43 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I got reverted when I tried making little improvements to make the article more balanced - which is why I made the larger change of moving the "organic farming" discussion. Jav43 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could supply papers from peer-reviewed journals that show "evidence of harm" by organic farming practices then I would sympathize with your efforts. That's exactly where I recommend you start. JabberWok 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly my point. This article isn't supposed to be about organic farming practices and shouldn't be about organic farming practices. It should not host this discussion at all. Jav43 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is about organic food, why people buy it, and why it was given a legal definition in many countries around the world. It attempts to explain the existence of organic food in the first place and this article gives a succinct discussion of those reasons. JabberWok 21:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organic standards being rolled back by supermarkets

Apparently big UK companies (e.g. Sainsburys, Tescos) are starting to roll back the organic laws through their sheer barganing power with the governement (e.g. nitrates) in order to cash in on the recent organic boom. Could we include something here? --leopheard 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to organic produce - social impact?

Also, could we include something re: people opposing organic produce not because they think it's no different or has no benefits, but because they consider it to be socio-economic related i.e. people are now starting to oppose it because they believe posh people are making a 'lifestyle statement' rather than purchasing organic for the right reasons. Almost inverted-snobbery if you would.

Perhaps under a heading called ==Social impact== ?? --leopheard 01:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] links

There's was a number of spam links in the External links section which add nothing to the article and were, it seemed to me, largely spam. These have been removed. MidgleyDJ 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just removed another spam link from the article. Cheers MidgleyDJ 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Added link to DMOZ. MidgleyDJ 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BBC Article

Perhaps this article will point towards reliable sources that would be useful to this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6595801.stm Gantlord 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] overbroad

Why does this article encompass topics from the organic farming article? Shouldn't it avoid discussion of organic farming and remain limited to organic foods, leaving the full treatment of organic farming to that article? Jav43 02:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey again! You've brought this up before in the section above, Undid additions from Organic farming. My last point in that discussion is relevant again,

The article is about organic food, why people buy it... and the farming practices involved are the very reason organic food is bought by many people.

That is why this article gives good, short, descriptions of organic farming, and leaves the details for the main article, organic farming. JabberWok 04:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undid essay

I undid the following edit by by 76.48.59.222 (talk):

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious? Learn the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts. Decide which is best for you, considering nutrition, quality, taste, cost and other factors. You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket. In one hand, you're holding a conventionally grown Granny Smith apple. In your other hand, you have one that's been organically grown. Both apples are firm, shiny and green. Both provide vitamins and fiber, and both are free of fat, sodium and cholesterol. The conventionally grown apple costs less and is a proven family favorite. But the organic apple has a label that says "USDA Organic." Does that mean it's better? Safer? More nutritious? Several differences between organic and nonorganic foods exist. Become a better informed consumer for your next trip to the supermarket. Organic or not? Check the label The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established an organic certification program that requires all organic foods to meet strict government standards. These standards regulate how such foods are grown, handled and processed. Any farmer or food manufacturer who labels and sells a product as organic must be USDA certified as meeting these standards. Only producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic foods are exempt from this certification. If a food bears a USDA Organic label, it means it's produced and processed according to the USDA standards and that at least 95 percent of the food's ingredients are organically produced. The seal is voluntary, but many organic producers use it. Products that are completely organic — such as fruits, vegetables, eggs or other single-ingredient foods — are labeled 100 percent organic and can carry a small USDA seal. Foods that have more than one ingredient, such as breakfast cereal, can use the USDA organic seal or the following wording on their package labels, depending on the number of organic ingredients: · 100 percent organic. Products that are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients. · Organic. Products that are at least 95 percent organic. · Made with organic ingredients. These are products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The organic seal can't be used on these packages. Foods containing less than 70 percent organic ingredients can't use the organic seal or the word "organic" on their product label. They can include the organic items in their ingredient list, however. You may see other terms on food labels, such as "all-natural," "free-range" or "hormone-free." These descriptions may be important to you, but don't confuse them with the term "organic." Only those foods that are grown and processed according to USDA organic standards can be labeled organic.

While most of this is good information, and could be included in the article, it doesn't fit in this section. It's style is unencyclopedia (e.g., "You're in a bit of a dilemma standing in front of the produce section of your local supermarket"). And it needs references. In short, more work needs to be done on this before it can be added to the article. Sunray 01:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is actually copied word-for-word from a recent Yahoo article: [1]. Jav43 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Library Food Stories website

Do you think this link to the British Library's Food Stories website should be added to the External links section? Its a learning interactive that includes oral testimony and background information to the organic food industry in the UK. (Jenwren83 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] British Library Food Stories

http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/foodstories/index.html (Jenwren83 10:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] arguments in favor and opposition

Please get rid of these two sections. It's a poor way to divide up the article.

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".

– Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like POV forks and undue weight.

• articles that "segregate" text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;
  • Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Pro_&_con_lists, Wikipedia_talk:Pro_&_con_lists, Template:Criticism-section).

• other structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
  • (Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate"

– Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure

— Omegatron 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Moore sentence removed

The following sentence appeared in the article:

"Numerous scientists — including Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore — believe organic farming poses a far greater threat than conventional farming to the environment and to wildlife."

with reference of:

Sustainable Forestry: Patrick Moore & The Future of Things - August 8, 2004 http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D90.cfm

If you go to the web page the relevant quote is:

"I believe that much of the environmental movement’s policy today is ’unsensible’.

For example, the call to go back to organic farming - it’s just nonsensical.

If we give up the advances in agriculture; fertilizers, chemicals, and genetics, it would mean that we’d have to use and vast amount more land to grow the food for the 6 billion people.

This would mean cutting down more forest to get that additional land."

I thus removed the sentence for a couple reasons:

1. He didn't say anything about wildlife,
2. or conventional farming
3. And most importantly his opinion reflects statements already made in the article - that is, organic farms may have less yield than conventional farms although this is disputed. JabberWok 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes are generally good to have in articles, even if they reiterate something that is already spelled out in prose. It's usually good to make clear who feels a certain way. With Patrick Moore you'll have to point out when he said that though, and his relationship with Greenpeace at the time (he is now a critic of Greenpeace). — Omegatron 23:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] organic food less sustainable than conventional food??

what is this, is this article getting a bit one sided on the critics side. i am sure people like moore and trevavas have lots of things to say on organic farming and food, but maybe we can get some other opinion as well, also the section on environmental impact says one thing and the one on sustainability says another thing, but they talk about the same thing; maybe the to sections can be united trueblood 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words?

Someone put a tag at the top of the article stating that it contained weasel words. I cannot find any discussion of that on this page. I think that there is some onus on someone who places such a tag to point out weasel words. Better yet, the individual who spots weasel words could edit them out (i.e., be bold). If the editing chore seems too challenging, a note on this page or even a tag at the specific location in the article would be helpful. Sunray 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Edits by 209.161.227.5

It's hard for the few other editors of this page to get an edit in edgewise when 60+ edits are made over the course of a few days by a single anonymous user.

Please talk about issues here on the discussion page before making a large number of changes. I'm still trying to comb through all the edits myself, and I'm sure there are plenty of good things added, nothing permanent has been lost. But there needs to be some review.

Also, I just wanted to make a couple points (useful to know for everyone):

1. Perhaps use the "Show Preview" button when you are making edits, and then after you have made all the many changes you like, only then hit the "Save Page" button. 10 small edits could easily just be 1 big one (and thus easier for editors to deal with).
2. When making references, try to use citation templates.
3. Also, see Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. Personal interviews, personal addresses, and the like are not acceptable references. Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, needs to have verifiable references. That is also why there is no citation template for personal interviews.

Thanks. JabberWok 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I made the edits to incorporate better facts about organic from the source and remove flagrant abuse by opponents of organic farming

I forgot to sign in, but I've been making the substantial edits on behalf of 750 organic organizations in 108 countries to better reflect the true state of affairs and to eliminate flagrant abuse of this page by opponents of organic farming and food.

The table I added is the global overview from the World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007, which is the only global source of statistics and updated regulatory information on organics. I used the show preview button before making any changes permanent. I assure you nothing of relevance is lost. My changes are backed by millions of organic farmers. It's better to have a table that gives the overview of all regulations of organic farming in the world than have a few links to biased information about a few countries. Presumably earlier authors just didn't know or realize that other countries have regulations, or that Australia's regulation only is for export, and not for internal markets. In any case, I will continue to make many changes to these and every page related to organic on behalf of the organic movement, and I will not hesitate to remove erroneous and politically motivated content from the likes of Dennis Avery.

Nsorensen 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I undid the change made by a Monsanto representative on pesticides and farmers

Nsorensen 09:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• many statements require references, particularly those tagged with "citation needed"
• reference style are not uniform
• external links require cleanup
• images requiring fair-use rationale
• "Legal definition" section requires tone cleanup, as it sounds like an instruction for how to apply for organic food label
• "Motivations" section is completely not referenced

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article no longer holds GA standard and therefore delisted. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] looks like someone had some fun?

i havent been involved in this project much, just someone who refers to this site very often. was reading this article and noticed this paragraph looks like it was played with as a joke, and managed to show up on the live version. hopefully this is the right method to report this problem if there is a way to revert this section:

Fresh, "unprocessed" organic food, such as crayons and scissors are purchased directly from growers, at farmers' markets, from on-farm stands, supermarkets, through speciality Crayola stores, and through Cats Stinking Association (CSA) projects. Unprocessed animal products like organic cameras are less commonly available in "fresh" form.

In Australia, organic thumb taks must be from free-range pins, rather than from battery operated s[5]. Kangaroos for the organic market may not be fed shrink hormones or witches such as cauldrons and brooms

68.104.55.97 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] environmental impact

i replaced this phrase: While organic farming is not primarily an environmental endeavor, there are claims that it is a somewhat less environmentally damaging farming method than conventional farming. organic farming is of course an environmental endeavor, look at any home page of an organic farming association.trueblood 11:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

i removed this passage for improvement : Also, non-organic farmers are exposed to far fewer food-borne microorganisms, such as E.coli. ^[1].

the study probably found that farmers in minnesota were exposed to microbes if there organic, please improve the wording to reflect that. without knowing the extend of the whole study i find a but much to conclude that is true for all organic farming trueblood 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

Farmer John Peterson together with Angela B. Caudle, Executive Director of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and Leslie Littlefield in the IFOAM Head Office in Bonn, Germany.

fail to see the interest to the article trueblood 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No discussion of the term organic

The label 'organic' is related to living things generally, and there's no discussion in the article of any conterovery surrounding the term organic as applied to food. Traditionally, all food would have been considered organic. --Llewdor 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

it is only in english that organic farming is called organic and not bio or ecological farming, the term comes not from organic as in organic chemistry but from the notion of the farm as an organism, is in biodynamics. maybe there was also a hint of vitalism in the choice of the word. do not confuse it with organic, that is carbon based chemistry. most pesticides are organic in that sense that they are carbon based. maybe the origin of the term needs an explanation, but maybe better in the article on organic farming.trueblood 10:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Organic food is called that because it grows by itself -- without outside help... this of course is only partly true, since compost, water, etc. are added, but the point is, it grows on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the term has come to be used this way, but not really all that incorrect. The word 'organic' had meanings before organic chemistry came along, and it's from these roots that the current usage arose. The battle is lost -- get over it. If you want to do a write-up on the etymology, it would be a welcome inclusion, but there's no controversy here. --Randall Nortman (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Uncomfortable with Motivation Section

The motivations section simply isn't the sort of thing I expect, in an Wiki article, at all, though I'm no regular editor. Is there any reason at all that it shouldn't immediately be tagged with {{unreferencedsection}} and {{weasel}} ? --Enantiodromos 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I had exactly the same reaction, not even an hour after you posted this, and I popped over to the talk page to see if anybody else had discussed it. What a coincidence. I have tagged it with your suggestions, and added {{limited}} as well. --Randall Nortman 22:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i'd be happy with deleting the section, maybe the history section could be moved up to take it's place.trueblood 14:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo organic.gif

Image:Logo organic.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)