Talk:Organic food

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)

Books and Links

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)

• I moved the entire "Counter Arguments" section (with references) into the "The environment" section of organic farming, per the above. --Tsavage 19:05, 3 February 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)

"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:

• Finding out about organic food and farming A page of student research links.

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)

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)

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)

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)

• references by Trewavas have been corrected. --Zeamays 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)