Talk:Organic food

Conventionally Grown Food (cont.)

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

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

Your source says organic produce is higher in antioxidants and lower in toxins, it does not say it is healthier. A person who consumes adequate antioxidants will not experience any benefits from additional antioxidants. Similarly, someone who consumes safe levels of toxins, such as are found in conventionally grown produce, will not experience any benefits through reducing them. To provide a parallel, oranges contain more vitamin C than lemons, yet we would not say they are healthier. So long as one gets sufficient vitamin C, it does not matter where it comes from. In any case, Leifert's findings already appear in this article. TFD (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It is positive, so it is shot down. Predictable. The Banner talk 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. The report is used in the article. I would recommend however that we better reflect what it says. Currently we say, "While there may be some differences in the nutrient and anti-nutrient contents of organically and conventionally produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results." The source says, "organic crops, on average, have higher concentrations of antioxidants, lower concentrations of Cd and a lower incidence of pesticide residues." Jytdog had opposed inclusions of findings in 2013 because they had not yet been published. But again unless the report says the food is healthier, we cannot make that claim any more than we can claim that oranges are healthier than lemons. TFD (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent new review is available: Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review Chickpecking (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Not sufficient evidence"

Firstly, Source 7 is an older review of the effects of Organic food and is a purely secondary source. (It is a Wayback Machine article from January, 2011.) It simply states that currently there isn't enough evidence. Source 6 mentioned several pro-organic reasoning: "...bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%])." and "...risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%])..." Source 5 goes on to say that "At our present state of knowledge, other factors rather than safety aspects seem to speak in favor of organic food." This is referring not specifically to human aspects of safety, but other aspects. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest safety and health in general. I needn't delve into source 3; its title is "Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops". Thus I propose that that is changed, and while I do not necessarily propose that the opposite is stated on the grounds that that could be considered a bit of undue weight without further review and research, so far it seems clear enough that that statement, at the very least, is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser271 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This is altogether a very poor analysis. Simply reading article titles and cherry-picking information that doesn't appear to support the Wikipedia claim isn't a neutral or respectable method of making an argument. The Food Standards Agency is a respectable and heavily reliable source, and secondary sources are ideal in situations like this. Source 6 comes to the same conclusion, contrary to what you write above. In other words, all of these sources are fine and back up the claim you hastily deleted. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It would behoove us to include WHO data on acute pesticide poisonings and deaths from these when we speak of safety. Granted these are mostly not in industrialized countries but they are still very relevant to the question of safety. Chickpecking (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Antioxidants

@Alexbrn: It's not OR or synthesis. The sources support that "evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting." As the previous paragraph states antioxidants may be higher in organics, it's essential for encyclopedias to provide context; in this case that antioxidants may not even be that beneficial. These articles don't all have to have all facts and refs directly correlate to the exact topic. It's very important to provide context, especially in health issues, to balance statements. This is essential; please revert. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"As the previous paragraph" <- there's your problem right there. This combines sources to imply a health (non-)effect wrt organic food, when our sources do not make that connection themselves. In general, we must not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources we use. Of course the antioxidant question is real enough, but that's a different topic ... If this was a question of WP:PSCI such context might be required, but I don't think it is. Alexbrn (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It definitely is an issue of fringe theories. Many people feel that organic food is healthier, and that above paragraph I mentioned would only seem to confirm it just by saying organics have more antioxidants. Removing the key that antioxidants aren't even probably significant would skew it incredibly. Would you anyway be okay with me adding "Evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting." (which is without the original first part) to the end of that antioxidant paragraph? And we should definitely get the attention of WikiProject Medicine members, who should be able to clear this up better. I don't edit scientific articles all that often; food is my specialty, and it's been very clear that there is misinformation over organics right now, which Wikipedia would be perpetuating. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to invoke WP:PSCI the fringe idea needs to be in the article before it is "debunked", so what is the source for people regarding organic food as healthier specifically because of antioxidants? Alexbrn (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooh boy. Not sure what sorts of sources you're looking for, as fringe ideas are usually not supported by heavily reliable sources (especially scientific ones), though like the first three results all support that fringe theory. I can find many, many more given time, which I really have none of right now. Template:Unusable source Template:Unusable source Template:Unusable source. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Mmmh, don't you love Fox News too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We need a decent source. The thing is this: if this whole organic/antioxidant thing is not being discussed in RS, what business does Wikipedia have discussing it? Ideally we'd want something like a scholarly article that references this specific misconception about organic food. Alexbrn (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fox News is sometimes considered a decent source unfortunately. I can look into scholarly sources sometime, though it would be tough to find them (many may mention but not have as the primary topic of the article). I urge you or other WP:MED people to look for some as well. This is honestly critical for countering misinformation. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The only dietary antioxidants having physiological significance are vitamins A, C, and E, referenced here. There is no convincing review showing that organic foods have more of any of these vitamins, or phenolic content, if someone wants to argue that case. The sentence and references removed do not pertain to organic food content of antioxidant vitamins, and do not discuss organic food health and safety - the topic of the section. It was WP:SYNTH to have this content and its sources imply that use of phenolic supplements or drugs apply to health from consuming organic foods. --Zefr (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you not read my first few comments here? I really don't want to restate the same thing a third(?) time. Regardless, the general antioxidant myth is a common enough fringe belief that we can explain and debunk, separate from that other health paragraph. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a clear example of synthesis. If the sources don't say that the additional nutrition in organic foods has no marginal benefit, then neither can we. TFD (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

But sources do say it, that's what I'm saying above, jeez. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for a source that says, "there is conflicting evidence over whether the increased anti-oxidants in organic food improves health." Note that as that is a medical claim, the source must conform to MEDRS. You cannot combine one source that says organic foods are higher in anti-oxidants and another that says the marginal benefit of increased anti-oxidants is disputed and state or imply that anything about the health benefits of increased anti-oxidants in organic food. TFD (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Aha, there is the usual MEDRS stranglehold again. The Banner talk 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: take a look at this. It may not be entirely as I explain it, but the details and level of detail in this article would be very important to include in the Wikipedia article. I can look for more too. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Banner, even if MEDRS did not exist, we should not provide statements about the health benefits of foods unless they are sourced to health professionals writing in peer-reviewed journals. Ɱ, can you point out where the article makes the statement you think we should include? TFD (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why should health professionals have a say about food and the growing of food? You do not ask farmers to have an opinion about medical procedures... The Banner talk 22:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No one is asking them for their opinion about the growing of food, or even to analyze its properties. We do however ask them what the body does with food when it is consumed, which is what we are discussing here: the health benefits of organic food. Only they can tell us for example how much Vitamin C we need and what the body does with it. TFD (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

So they do not need to know where they are talking about, but the still are supposed to judge. That is what I call the stranglehold of MEDRS. MEDRS on food is an absolutely silly idea. But yes, I know. You MEDRS lads and lasses think differently about that. So you bring in the big guns and kill of reason itself. The Banner talk 23:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There's a few different places, you can do a CTRL-F for "antioxidant". Mostly it's the second para of the intro, second para of "A Closer Look...", and the kiwi comparison para. I think the seasonality affecting antioxidants would also be important to note. In addition, it seems the already-cited Dangour A.D., et al. also supports that antioxidant effects are mixed, even in the context of organic food. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. We can't just read the article and form a general impression that the author sees no marginal value in organic food, the author must state that explicitly. TFD (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sperm counts and pesticide levels.

The article is way out of date. This is the current info in the Wikipedia article:

More specifically, claims related to pesticide residue of increased risk of infertility or lower sperm counts have not been supported by the evidence in the medical literature.

The source is an old review article compiling very old info. There was no discussion before this Big Pharma and Big Chemical propaganda was put in the article. The word sperm is not found in the talk archives. This talk section is the first one with the word "sperm" in it.

There are more recent epidemiological studies showing lower sperm counts depending on the level of pesticides in the diet. Look it up. I doubt that anybody will do so other than me. Obviously, no one has bothered to do so yet. And Wikipedia's medical info referencing is based on reviews by journals coopted by Big Pharma ads, and/or poorly trained doctors who know only Big Pharma propaganda: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

• Big Pharma Is America’s New Mafia. From the article:

In fact, the heavy influence of pharmaceutical dollars inspired the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, to conclude, “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked and there are no high-quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses giving the 'fire' for the smoke about pesticides exposure and reduced fertility. This isn't sufficient to pass skeptical and scientific muster, let alone WP:MEDRS. The subject of pesticide exposure is next to impossible to control in a population study: quantity defined for ingestion, over variable duration of what people eat, which foods, which pesticide(s), and how would the control group be 'controlled', etc. It's not the type of study with optimism for leading to a definitive objective conclusion. I don't agree with your statement that journal reviews are negatively affected by pharma ads or scientists corrupted by pharma. Rather, rigorous editorial review and peer-review for funding screen out the weak research applications, and well-trained scientists and physicians know their reputations are on the line to do the work and provide evidence making it difficult for competitive research teams to challenge. Although from 2006, the Magkos article still states the scientific status adequately, as does the 2012 statement from the American Cancer Society. --Zefr (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep looking. This is a test. When you fail, or if you fail, I will show you the references. It's really obvious for those who are really looking. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The medical review literature satisfying this issue and compatible with MEDRS is easy enough to find. I don't need help to do this or a test by you. If you have valid MEDRS-quality reviews worth discussing (I'm betting you don't), put them here or more preferably at WT:MED for experienced editors to comment. --Zefr (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

So I was correct in my OP: "There are more recent epidemiological studies showing lower sperm counts depending on the level of pesticides in the diet. Look it up. I doubt that anybody will do so other than me." --Timeshifter (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your answer confirms my suspicion that you don't know the difference between an epidemiological study and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that would satisfy MEDRS. We write and edit for an encyclopedia, not the Discussion section of a research paper in a journal where lower quality epidemiological studies would be allowed; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #7, 9. I think we can conclude you don't have anything useful to add to this discussion or the article concerning fertility and pesticides. --Zefr (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

And you still haven't looked it up. You can't possibly know if the epidemiological studies are lower quality or not. You are promoting preemptive censorship because you don't want to be confused by the facts. That is a violation of WP:NPOV and the sharing of all significant viewpoints, one of the major guidelines of this encyclopedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I just read this article in the Harvard Gazette. Agree with Timeshifter and suggest the Wikipedia article be changed accordingly. Jusdafax 01:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The author of the article says, "To our knowledge, this is the first report to link consumption of pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables..." I will avoid quoting MEDRS guidelines, but refer to weight. An individual study that conflicts with generally accepted opinion should not be included unless it has received a lot of attention. In that case we would have responses from experts and could include it, and explain the degree of acceptance of the findings. At present we do not know whether its findings can be replicated, so we don't know what credibility it has. More importantly, neither do experts and we have to await there decision. TFD (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, we should stick to reflecting the strongest sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)