Talk:Organic movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] neutrality disputed

Since the "organic" movement does not have an exclusive means to sustainability, also a goal of conventional agriculture, the first statement needed to be re-worded. --Zeamays 15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

from the article Organic movement broadly refers to the organizations and individuals involved worldwide in the promotion organic farming, which they believe to be a more sustainable mode of agriculture, and a general opposition to agribusiness. Its history goes back to the first half of the 20th century, when modern large-scale agricultural practices began to appear..

it just says what the movement claims not what is fact. i don't see what the problem is. i think you should take more time reading what is there or what other people said. if you don't have anything else to say here i will take the tag off. --trueblood 15:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The tag should stay. The article is prejudiced throughout. The article should make it clear that there are many experts who disagree with their position and why. The organic movement has significant opposition, and the reader should be made aware throughout the article of why there is opposition. --Zeamays 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC) i don't agree, there is a criticism section in the food and farming articles. also i reread the article and frankly i fail to see the prejudice.--trueblood 16:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is untrue that "modern large-scale agricultural practices began to appear" in the 20th century. The use of agricultural machinery, ammonium fertilizers and chemical pesticides on increasingly large plots were already in use in the latter 19th century. In the 20th century these practices, which had already appeared, began to accelerate. --Zeamays 19:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC) okay a factual error, could be corrected, although it is more or less the wording 'began to appear' that should be changed. but that is not an example for prejudice.--trueblood 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Mr. Trueblood: Thse are just a examples. Another problem is that the article does not mention the well-documented connection between prominent early members British organic movement and the British Fascists^[1][2] --Zeamays 02:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i am going remove the tag if there no actual reasons to the contrary. please correct the error that you found (19 th century), bring evidence for the fascim connection and propose a change that takes that into account. if there are other problems, point them out if you like.

I am concerned that the document shows the Organic Movement as a begnin force, rather than the danger that it is. The banning of DDT has led directly to millions of deaths from malaria in Africa, which has been upheld by the Organic Movement. The objection to genetically modified crops in Europe has led to childhood blindness in 2nd world countries (Golden Rice) and will increase starvation through objections to newly developed waterproof rice. In my country the only people who are willing to work in organic fields are poorly paid Eastern Europeans, who themselves cannot afford to purchase the expensive end product to eat - surely an obvious trait of fascism if there ever was one. As such this middle class fad should be noted as such and not presented as a wholesome alternative. It smacks of anti-science, anti-reason and at the very least you should show a balanced approach to this. In the 1930's Germany did not turn into an aggressive country overnight, it was a series of small, apparently logical steps. This is one of them, "blut und boden", pure food for pure people.

indeed the article should present the movement neither as a benign nor as a dangerous movement. your are mixing potentially valid criticism with wild speculation. check out the wikipedia article on ddt to see that this is a complex issue without an easy answer as you seem to think.

the connection to 1930's germany is completely over my head, why don't you carry that to the article about biodynamics and anthroposphy and discuss with the people there, it seems that that is what you talking about.

alternatively why not point out where exactly in the article you are missing the balance? trueblood 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, your point is well made and I agree that I could have articulated my concerns better. Here is my first: In 1962, Rachel Carson, a prominent scientist and naturalist, published Silent Spring, chronicling the effects of DDT and other pesticides on the environment. In fact she did not "chronicle" anything, according to the article in wikipedia on her book she made unscientific, unsubstantiated claims which led to the banning of DDT and millions of malaria deaths.

My second: Your article makes no mention that dispite the claims for sustainable growth, the methods used for Organic farming are no better than any other and the objections raised to Monsanto's till free farming methods are in fact propogating unecessary soil errosion, as one example. Organic Farming uses more diesel per hectare than modern farming methods through more frequent spraying and low speed labour carts for weeding.

My third: The article makes no mention of the inherent inefficiencies in Organic farming (estimated between 25%-35%) which in these times of mass starvation is surely an immoral practise, particularly as there is no evidence of any health benefit from organic food (from the Soil Association's own website).

I'm in the process of digging up a solid link between the NAZI movement and the Organic Movement, please keep this dispute open for a wee while longer.

OK, I think I have one. Using Wikipedia's own external reference an extract of the review for Philip Conford's book reads: However, in this first and authoritative history of twentieth century "green" culture, Philip Conford reveals that the early exponents of the organic movement actually belonged more to extreme right-wing, conservative groups, which were reacting to industrialization and the increasing threat to traditional country life, closely associated with socialist politics. Is that enough to get it highlighted or do I need to purchase the book and follow references?

what do you actually achieve. you want the article to say that organics has fascist roots and is murderous, immoral and inefficient? that is not gonna work.

• the banning of ddt is surely something that is worth discussing, but rather in articles about ddt, rachel carson, malaria, take a pick. please don't just say, the ban causes millions to die, that is too simplistic. michael crichton says that too, but that does not make it a fact
• no till farming should surely be discussed in the organic farming article, if you have references that say that organic farming uses more diesel than conventional farming bring that up there too (the reference)
• as for the facist connection, it would be better to name names. are there internationally known soil association members that were right wing? the article names howard and lady balfour. if this about somebody obscure, than i think it would fit better into the article about the soil association. trueblood 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As ever your comments are well articulated and clear. However my objection to Rachel Carson's book still stands - she did not "chronicle" anything, she made unsubstantiated statements and failed to provide any evidence which led directly to the banning of DDT. The banning of DDT has been a humanitarian disaster and should not go uncommented, as such I object to the use of the word "chronicle" which implies that some kind of rational process took place when she wrote the book.

Your question over what I want to achieve here is a good one (best shared over a pint or two) but briefly: I am alarmed at the glib acceptance of the "Oragnic Movement" as a force for good where it actively reduces food production, increases costs and excludes impovrished people from its end product while making use of minimum wage labour in its production. All this is done with the aim of making the food "healthier", for which the movement has been unable to provide a single shred of evidence. The "Organic Movement" has been active in the objection and public mis-information of genetically modified foods, which hold the key to global food production, again with no evidence to substantiate any of the claims made against GM production.

I have also read through the articles on the NAZI movement to act as a comparison of bias and it is clear that the articles present the sinister outcomes of the NAZI movement in detail, therefore I think it is important that this is done here, without bias. I also compare this article to the "Genetically Modified Food" and I note that while over 100 studies have concluded that there is no risk there is still a large amount of objection to GM foods discussed and detailed on that article. To my mind this shows a degree of bias where you will not articulate objections to the "Organic Movement". are you comparing organic agriculture with the nazis? whatever. if you have any serious proposals of what needs to be changed say so, otherwise i will take the npov off.trueblood 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)