Talk:Alex Avery

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

66.82.9.86 (talk · contribs)

please explain removal of reference

i don`t agree with the removal of the nyt quote, so i undid the edit, do kindly explain why this is irrelevant. also why is calling him a vehement critic negative language?trueblood (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is hardly vandalism to report information published in the New York Times, which they deemed relevant for inclusion. I tried to enlarge the context, though, to include that he claims that those he disagrees with may also have conflicts of interest. I did change it just to list the companies, instead of explain what they did, as that point wasn't explicitly made in the report. Don't remove either one unless you have a source which concludes that the New York Times article is wrong. "Vehement" may have a connotation of irrationally opposed to, so I guess it may be negative; "leading" seems appropriate because he was interviewed on the subject by the Times. I added a quote from the times that shows the depth of his criticism. Also, please don't revert to earlier versions and lose the work I've done wikifying and categorizing the article. Rigadoun (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insinuations

Per the biographies of living persons rule, I've removed some sections which were placed to insinuate a conflict of interest. Mentioning in isolation that specific works of the author were co-written by so-and-so and Monsanto is clearly such an insinuation. If a reliable source is making a direct claim of criticism against Alex Avery, then quote that, but dancing around a serious isn't good encyclopedia writing. Jefffire (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i reinstated the nyt quote, it really fits in with the context, avery insinuates that positive findings about benefits of organic food are contaminated by the researchers funding and the nyt pointed out that avery himself might have a conflict of interest. what is wron with that? trueblood (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the complete qute is:

Mr. Avery said Mr. Heaton's study was tainted because of the Soil Association's interests.

A number of research trials time and time again have not found any significant differences, he said. You need very large, carefully designed and carefully controlled studies to prove that there is a difference because of large natural variability.

Pressed to be more specific, Mr. Avery whose organization has received financing from Monsanto, DowElanco and the Ag-Chem Equipment Company, which are involved in conventional agriculture and biotechnology, did not offer further criticism trueblood (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FDA and Avery

IP 71.62.25.129 continues to insert the erroneous assertion that the FDA says there is no evidence that organic food is healthier than conventional food.(e.g. these edits: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Alex_Avery_(researcher)&diff=241641718&oldid=241593219]). This statement is not supported by the reference he's citing, and I have not been able to find any information on the FDA's website about their views, pro or con, on organic food. Furthermore, this IP's edits present the British Nutrition Foundation as though it were an arm of the British government, when in fact is a food industry sponsored think tank. On top of that, this editor has not explained what was wrong with the original version other than to say that it's an "unsupported assertion". I would call it a fair and neutral presentation of Avery's main thesis. Would you care to defend your edits? I would prefer either this version or the version immediately prior to this IP's appearance]. Yilloslime (t) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]