| Revision as of 01:18, 25 July 2007 editJohn Broughton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,694 editsm →Initial Proposals: Adding subsections (headings) to split up a VERY long section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:36, 25 July 2007 edit undoMonstretM (talk | contribs)97 edits →Citations of controversial studiesNext edit → | ||
| Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
| I don’t think we need to settle the question of appropriate citation in its abstract form, or to try to define what constitutes “plagiarism.” I do agree that reading the through entire article is appropriate, however we must be careful (as always) to avoid quoting out of context. In this sense abstracts are often helpful as they are specifically written to be concise summaries of the author’s views. I also note that direct quotations, although perhaps uglier than paraphrasing, are at least indisputably accurate (if taken with appropriate context.) | I don’t think we need to settle the question of appropriate citation in its abstract form, or to try to define what constitutes “plagiarism.” I do agree that reading the through entire article is appropriate, however we must be careful (as always) to avoid quoting out of context. In this sense abstracts are often helpful as they are specifically written to be concise summaries of the author’s views. I also note that direct quotations, although perhaps uglier than paraphrasing, are at least indisputably accurate (if taken with appropriate context.) | ||
| :I'm going to refrain temporarily from commenting on the other sections until this section is resolved first. So let me start by saying that abstracts are helpful, but they are not often representative of the complete findings. I've never met a scientist or scholar who would tell me to look at just the abstract to review the findings of a study. A scientific report is meant to be reviewed from start to finish. Why? Because the abstract is merely a summary. It may contain the researcher's conclusions, but keep in mind that his interpretation of the findings is ultimately just another opinion and (most researchers would agree) can often be wrong. It is quite acceptable to report <b>the findings</b> of a study without contradicting the author's <b>conclusions</b>. I do agree, however, that it would constitute original research <b>to interpret</b> the findings of the study in a way that is incompatible with the author's conclusions. One of the criticisms of the FDA review is that only the abstracts were considered, which is an error of omission that leads to faulty conclusions. Therefore, by reviewing only the abstracts, one is liable to draw conclusions that are at odds with the findings, which most people would agree is a graver error. Therefore, my proposal is to avoid relying on mostly opinions and interpretations of scientific findings in the article, and allowing the data to speak for themselves whenever possible. ] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Looking over the talk page, the main dispute seems to have been in regards to referencing the two sentences, both from the abstracts of research papers | Looking over the talk page, the main dispute seems to have been in regards to referencing the two sentences, both from the abstracts of research papers | ||
| Line 168: | Line 170: | ||
| Is this an appropriate summary? Discuss. --] 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | Is this an appropriate summary? Discuss. --] 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :In the previous discussion, I proposed a new summary for one of these studies' findings, which is: "Rats that were fed carrots irradiated at high doses showed depressed growth rates that were statistically significant." This is the text that we should consider for the current discussion, as the previous discussion already led me to revise the original text. I haven't gotten to the other studies yet, as first I would like to see what are the objections to this wording. ] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| While this was the only section that was discussed at length, it is my opinion that those studies cited by ] were generally cited out of context often diametrically contradicting the authors conclusions. As examples, please consider the following example. | While this was the only section that was discussed at length, it is my opinion that those studies cited by ] were generally cited out of context often diametrically contradicting the authors conclusions. As examples, please consider the following example. | ||
| Line 174: | Line 177: | ||
| where the authors clearly concluded that there "were no consistent effects that could be linked to irradiation" and "irradiation was not a factor" while ] used the study citing the following text "A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring ..." | where the authors clearly concluded that there "were no consistent effects that could be linked to irradiation" and "irradiation was not a factor" while ] used the study citing the following text "A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring ..." | ||
| :::I won't comment on this study until the first study is resolved, but I do propose that this discussion will not progress unless the other parties agree to stop their repeated false accusations and misrepresentations of the facts and issues at hand. ] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I do suggest we look at all the studies comparing the abstract to ]'s summary when discussion this issue. In the final text we can then well eliminate reference to these studies and focus on the reviews as was proposed by ] and ]. The problem as I see it is that the exact same studies are often used by a some groups opposing irradiation to alledge scientific proof that irradiation has adverse effects in disregard of the actual findings and the authors actual opinions. Maintaining this opinion therefore hinges on the readers relative inability to verfying the sources using misinformation as a way of doing business. This seems to me the key point that ] is raising in his reviews. It might actually good to clarify some of these misconceptions on Misplaced Pages, and I will leave this to the group to discuss. ] 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | I do suggest we look at all the studies comparing the abstract to ]'s summary when discussion this issue. In the final text we can then well eliminate reference to these studies and focus on the reviews as was proposed by ] and ]. The problem as I see it is that the exact same studies are often used by a some groups opposing irradiation to alledge scientific proof that irradiation has adverse effects in disregard of the actual findings and the authors actual opinions. Maintaining this opinion therefore hinges on the readers relative inability to verfying the sources using misinformation as a way of doing business. This seems to me the key point that ] is raising in his reviews. It might actually good to clarify some of these misconceptions on Misplaced Pages, and I will leave this to the group to discuss. ] 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Again, I take issue with the statement: "using misinformation as a way of doing business," in reference to Deecke's opinion about nonprofits. Please note that Misplaced Pages is itself a nonprofit, and furthermore that those types of statements are completely irrelevant to this discussion. However, the following loaded statements by Arved Deecke do need to be addressed adequately by the mediator: | |||
| :http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Food_irradiation/Mediation_discussion#Comments_by_Arved_Deecke | |||
| :I do propose that Arved Deecke has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest in this discussion, and that he should not be allowed to edit this article. And if he continues to make his outlandish and non-NPOV statements, and if no action is taken to remedy his conflict of interest, I will drop mediation and take this issue to the arbitration council. Jonathan, since you seem to be quite new to Misplaced Pages, I respectfully ask if you feel truly qualified to mediate such a complicated and heated debate. Your honesty in this case would be much appreciated as it would expedite the process of bringing this matter to the appropriate officials for resolution. In any case, I disagree with Arved Deecke's suggestion to use only 3rd party reviews, as it would be fundamentally flawed in the same manner that the FDA review was criticized for its cursory review of the studies. Furthermore, to report the findings, I suggest that we look at the complete studies, and not just the abstracts, but I do agree that we must not make broad statements or interpretations that conflict with the author's opinions. | |||
| :I disagree with the proposal to eliminate references to the original studies, as the reviews themselves are less scientifically sound and lack objectivity. The best way to maintain NPOV is to report just the findings of the studies and let them speak for themselves. Opinions are not of much value to Misplaced Pages, and reviews/interpretations are nothing more than opinions, and their inclusion would constitute mostly weasel text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements | |||
| :I disagree with Arved Deecke's statement that the scientific studies concluded that food irradiation has no adverse effects, which is merely his opinion, and in a court of law, most of Deecke's above statements would be thrown out as they would be considered leading and biased. Please note that I have consistently avoided inserting opinions and interpretations of the studies into the article as well as the discussions, therefore maintaining NPOV, whereas Arved Deecke has consistently attempted to insert non-NPOV statements into the article. ] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Ahh. So you are suggesting that there has been misinformation on these studies floating around for a long time. Is it the consensus of this group to address each of the disputed studies individually? If so, we can move the discussion from the main talk page into the Outstanding Issues section on this page. --] 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | Ahh. So you are suggesting that there has been misinformation on these studies floating around for a long time. Is it the consensus of this group to address each of the disputed studies individually? If so, we can move the discussion from the main talk page into the Outstanding Issues section on this page. --] 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Again, I think the most straightforward and logical way to handle this issue would be to use only the original studies as references, and present only the original findings in the article. The 3rd party reviews are actually the most controversial. Therefore, I agree that we should review the disputed studies individually and cite them in the article. 3rd party reviews should only be used in special circumstances. ] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I can certainly relate to ]'s point: When I was looking for those studies on the internet it was mainly organizations like Public Citizen or Food and Water Watch that have long held a stance against food irradiation that cited them often making claims towards their content that were identical or similar to those of ]. In my opinion the claim made was usually distorted significantly from the authors conclusions suposedly for reasons of ideology and a discussion of these studies would certainly help to establish this as fact. At the same time no one ever seems to have digitized and published most of these studies which to me suggests an interest in maintaining in keeping the actual content of these studies hard to come by. Mainstream science seems to have abandoned those studies or integrated them into the wealth of food irradiation research. While I would welcome clarification on the underlying realities behind these studies, I am thinking that the Misplaced Pages user is best served if presented with the conclusions of relevant reviews, rather than being side tracked by controversies he / she may or may not be able to relate to. Regardless of what the final article will look like, we can certainly discuss the studies here if that is what the group wants to do. ] 23:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | :: I can certainly relate to ]'s point: When I was looking for those studies on the internet it was mainly organizations like Public Citizen or Food and Water Watch that have long held a stance against food irradiation that cited them often making claims towards their content that were identical or similar to those of ]. In my opinion the claim made was usually distorted significantly from the authors conclusions suposedly for reasons of ideology and a discussion of these studies would certainly help to establish this as fact. At the same time no one ever seems to have digitized and published most of these studies which to me suggests an interest in maintaining in keeping the actual content of these studies hard to come by. Mainstream science seems to have abandoned those studies or integrated them into the wealth of food irradiation research. While I would welcome clarification on the underlying realities behind these studies, I am thinking that the Misplaced Pages user is best served if presented with the conclusions of relevant reviews, rather than being side tracked by controversies he / she may or may not be able to relate to. Regardless of what the final article will look like, we can certainly discuss the studies here if that is what the group wants to do. ] 23:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::I take issue with RayosMcQueen's statements, such as "distorted significantly from the authors conclusions suposedly for reasons of ideology" and "which to me suggests an interest in maintaining in keeping the actual content of these studies hard to come by" and "Mainstream science seems to have abandoned those studies or integrated them into the wealth of food irradiation research" as they are completely leading, unverifiable, and most of all false. I do not agree to using 3rd party reviews unless their methodology is completely transparent and will be subjected to the same stringent review process we are giving to the individual studies that are being disputed. | |||
| :::I will not agree to the fundamentally flawed review procedure suggested by RayosMcQueen. He states that "I am thinking that the Misplaced Pages user is best served if presented with the conclusions of relevant reviews, rather than being side tracked by controversies he / she may or may not be able to relate to." This kind of statement is revealing as it exhibits a desired strategy that only serves private interests who would like important information not to be made available to the public. Misplaced Pages is not the tool for that type of goal. ] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === What should we do about missing studies? === | === What should we do about missing studies? === | ||
Revision as of 01:36, 25 July 2007
Current Business
We are proceeding without DeiterE since I cannot locate him.
I’ve reviewed all of your suggestions, as well some of the history on the talk page, and tried to compile a list of issues we need to work through. Some of these are controversial, some less so. I’ve tried to make a few reasonable preliminary comments on each one. And with that, I'd like to begin discussion on each of these issues, below --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
All Participants, Please Read: Mediation Process
Hello. I'd like to begin the mediation process for this dispute. I am a volunteer for the Mediation Cabal, which means that this process is entirely informal. You don't have to listen to me, but I would like to help reach consensus if possible. For the record, my background is computer science and physics, which means I understand standard scientific method and experimental design, but I also consider myself an environment and public health geek.
Because there are many participants and this is a complex and contentious issue, I would like to propose some process to our discussion.
Suggestion #1: I suggest that we adopt "one thing at a time" as a ground rule, to prevent the mediation discussion for spiraling out of control into a million threads. The current topic will always be listed here, on the talk page, under the Current Business section. (This is not intended to prohibit other activity, for example updating the references section in the main talk page, but I would like to try to keep the discussion focussed.)
Suggestion #2: Saying "I agree" is always allowed. We are looking to reach consensus on the contents of this overview article; crafting a wording that reflects every tiny nuance of every editor's opinion is neither practical nor desirable. Therefore, I would like to encourage the participants to consider, before any detailed reply, whether they could instead live with a simple "I'm okay with this" or "I'm happy with so-and-so's suggestion". In this way I hope to be able to keep the discussion as brief as possible despite the large number of editors, and move toward consensus quickly.
These suggestions are not set in stone, but I am hoping that we can all agree to them for the moment, as a simple way to structure the discussion. If anyone has any objections to these guidelines, please tell us here.
I agree RayosMcQueen 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan, could you clarify your take on contributions on this page from users who were not listed as the original dispute parties? I am assuming since this is[REDACTED] everybody would be welcome to help, but I think it is worthwhile to clarify roles and responsibilities in the process before we get too much into it. RayosMcQueen 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Since this is an informal process, let's just say that everyone is welcome for the moment to add constructive comments, i.e. comments that bring relevant information into the discussion, or that bring us closer to consensus. If the discussion starts getting out of hand, we may need to start asking people to move their conversation elsewhere. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Initial Proposals
I've read both the article and the discussion here but there's a lot going on. As a starting point, can each of the interested parties briefly summarize what they would like to see changed in the article as it currently stands? -- Jonathan Stray
22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments by RayosMcQueen
Thanks for your help on this Jonathan. Your background will be very helpful here. Proposals for the article are as follows:
1) Nine studies were provided by MonstretM to demonstrate health issues with irradiated foods. Of those nine studies thus far we were able to locate six in electronic form that are discussed below:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Food_irradiation#Osipova.2C_I.N._et_al._.E2.80.9CInfluence_of_the_storage_and_culinary_treatment_of_irradiated_potatoes_on_the_cytogenic_activity_of_potato_extracts..E2.80.9D_Voprosy_Pitaniya_.28USSR.29.2C_4:54-57.2C_1957. Note that this study is in Russian and it was only possible to find an English abstract. Please also note that the reference of the study provided by MonstretM does not quite match the found abstract so I would like verification if this is indeed the study we are referring to.
- and
I would appreciaten mediation of the disucions of the reference as there are mutual accusations of out of context citations. A special section for discussion of each of these studies has been made available.
2) Then there are a total of three studies remaining that we have not been able to obtain in electronic copy. A library in Karlsruhe, Germany that has provided some of the six studies we were able to obtain, informed me that the remaining copies might be available in paper form throughout various other German libriaries, but at this point I would like to initiate discussion on how to proceed if copies can not be obtained. My gut feeling would be to treat them as unverifiable citations, but I am sure that opinions will differ here. As I have invested considerable effort in located the studies we did find, the responsability of providing the remaining studies might lie with MonstretM who used them in to validate his opinion on health issues of irradiated foods.
3) The issue was also raised how to deal with the fact that thousands of studies on this topic exist and only those very view that allegedly present issues are singled out. I would like to see a mediated discussion on how to structure the information to make sure that we are giving a fair review. My proposal would be to focus on conclusions of scientific literature reviews of scientific panels that have been performed on numerous occasions rather than on layman interpretations of an arbitrary selection of individual studies. That proposal was contested and mediation will be helpful.
4) Lastly I would like to open a discussion on market reception and consumer acceptance of irradiated product. There was only one study provided which according to my bibliography arbitarily was amongst the most pessimistic available. I would like to propose we include additional studies that show the spectrum of findings. I can gladly help with providing additional studies that I am aware of.
5) If the group is able to establish that there is a strong scientific consensus that the consumption of irradiated within the parameters established by national and international health regulators does not lead to adverse effects for the consumer, then I think it would be appropriate to list that in the text.
RayosMcQueen 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments by GermanPina
I think the issues raised by RayosMcQueen are well prioritized. Beyond that, I would like to propose that we remove all statements on endorsement or criticism with irradiated food from the sections defining the technology, its use and the underlying principles and create a new separate section called: “Organizations endorsing Food Irradiation”, and other called “Controversy on Food irradiation", where we can discuss the various concerns and list the organizations that raise them. GermanPina 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding GermanPina's suggestion: I had already made a section called "Public perception and expert opinions," to contain endorsements and criticisms, and I agree that they should be kept separate from the rest of the article. But since there are numerous controversies surrounding food irradiation, including irradiation leaks, conflicts of interest, and questionable endorsements, I think there should be several sections on the controversies, which are not quite the same issue as criticisms of food irradiation for scientific and health reasons. I think having just one section would serve to marginalize all the various issues, which are significant in their own right. MonstretM 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments by MonstretM
Hi Jonathan, Thanks for volunteering your time and help. I wrote up a summary of the issues, but I need to edit for brevity. Please give me a day to respond. Thanks again. MonstretM 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
---
Here is a general summary of the problem areas in the article and in the discussion thus far:
I think the first issue we have to resolve is to get us all on the same page about what constitutes neutrality. Looking at the previous discussion, one of the editors stated that he would like to use the article to "clarify public doubts" about food irradiation. Statements like that clearly demonstrate an anti-NPOV agenda since it indicates a goal of using Misplaced Pages to sway public opinion. Also, some editors aggressively insist on applying the terms "mainstream" and "consensus," whereas I do not believe they are appropriate. For example, Dieter E wrote: "NPOV, neutrality, 'proven safe', 'pro-irradiation' as the mainstream of science." But I feel that the term "mainstream scientific consensus" is inappropriate and misleading, given the significant amount of members in the scientific, public health, and medical communities who have expressed their concerns about the long-term health implications of irradiated food. http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/epsteinsanitation.rtf
http://www.ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html
Furthermore, there are numerous controversies surrounding food irradiation and its endorsements. These controversies should be allowed to be documented in the article.
WHO is just one opinion -- controvertible at that -- on the safety of irradiated foods, and therefore their opinion must be indicated as such. See http://en.wikipedia.org/World_Health_Organization#Controversies Therefore, it would be ok to state that WHO has endorsed food irradiation, but it would be weasel text to insert a scientifically unverifiable, non-NPOV statement that "WHO concluded that irradiated foods are safe." The major issue here is what exactly we can validly conclude from the entire body of studies on food irradiation. I propose that the only broad statement we can provide in NPOV and in honesty about food irradiation is that the long-term health risks of irradiated foods are still unknown. For example, see http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/99f4372/99f-4372-bkg0001-Tab-56-Delincee.pdf
My proposal for the format of the section on scientific studies is to present the findings in simple, clear, unbiased terms. Also, to set a standard for the quality of the article, I propose that the editors should demonstrate understanding of proper research style, especially how to paraphrase. Several editors have taken issue with my method of research reporting, writing that "whenever citing a study, we should paraphrase the summary of the authors of the cited study as faithfully as possible, as anything else would qualify under the realm of original research." These editors then proceeded to submit statements that steal words and phrasing liberally from the original text. Here I suggest the editors are confusing the concepts of paraphrasing and original research. I propose that their preferred style of using the authors' exact words (without quotes) actually constitutes plagiarism, whereas my style of paraphrasing actually conforms to recommended practices. Furthermore, if we were to use direct quotations only (with quotes), I suggest that it would severely congest the article and diminish its quality.
On a related note, several editors have objected to my practice of reading and scanning the entire research studies for information, whereas they would prefer to reference only the text from the abstracts, which I feel is an arbitrary and unconventional request. To claim that an author concluded that irradiated foods are not safe, which I did NOT do, is quite different from saying something like, the study found that irradiated carrots were correlated with statistically significant depressed growth rates, which is consistent with the actual findings.
I also take issue with the claim that the studies cited in this article, which present information about specific health concerns of irradiated food, are "selective". One editor claims that there are "2500+ studies" on food irradiation, and claims that these studies have proven that irradiated foods are "wholesome". My opinion is that, by nature of the scientific process, these studies cannot prove that irradiated foods are safe, but can only prove that certain irradiated foods have failed to demonstrate an immediate health risk. Therefore, such comments that "irradiated food has been demonstrated safe and adequate for human consumption" should be removed from the article, and replaced with more neutral, factual statements, such as "apples irradiated at 1 kGy did not demonstrate acute toxicity" (hypothetical statement for purpose of illustration).
There are several other specific types of non-NPOV text that keep popping up in the article, such as editorializing, weasel text by use of direct quotations of non-NPOV opinions, and insertions of leading wording. For example, one editor changed a section title from the more descriptive and neutral, "Loss of trace nutrients and changes to flavor/odor/texture" to the more benign sounding, "Tolerance of food items to irradiation," which is an industry marketing term.
Regarding editorializing, certain editors insist on inserting non-NPOV and uncited, unverifiable text into the article. For example: "Besides a large number of studies that showed no adverse effect of consuming irradiated food, a few studies seemed to suggest adverse results." I propose that this text is non-NPOV, because many studies did find "adverse effects," although certain interpretations of those findings were that they did not present an immediate danger or risk. No matter how one individually interprets the findings, in terms of whether eating irradiated foods presents an acceptable level of risk or not, it is misleading to claim that there were "no adverse effects" or that "irradiated foods are shown to be safe".
In summary, I don't think that publishing the findings of studies that have shown probable health risks is biased, but rather honest and therefore important for the scope of a Misplaced Pages article on food irradiation issues.
Use of all other terminology such as "wholesome" and "safe" is misleading and pure conjecture, and belongs more in the realm of marketing and public relations rather than science. MonstretM 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments by MrArt
I would like to get the page protection removed as soon as possible. The current page is a bit of a mess due to the brief edit war.
My opinion on how to deal with the thousands of studies that have been made is as follows: If we can cite, say, half a dozen independent (preferably from different countries) scientific literature reviews of the safety of irradiated food, I think we can dispense with the requirement to cite individual papers, unless they post-date the reviews.
If these reviews use the words 'wholesome' and 'safe' (such as this report by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority then we can use those words, appropriately attributed, in the article.
Would someone with better wiki skills than me mind archiving some of the talk page? And perhaps each disputed report could have its own subpage.
MrArt 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a very good proposal. I would suggest we focus on recent reviews as they encompass all research since the beginning. RayosMcQueen 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Arved Deecke
My main goal for this article is to give perspective to the percieved scientific controversy of this technology. Food irradiation has been studied for over 60 years and it has been said that it is the best studied food technology to date. As stated in the article, it is fully indorsed by such important organizations as American Council on Science and Health, American Dietetic Association, American Medical Association, US Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture, Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Consumers League, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Center for Consumer Research, and the U.N. World Health Organization and many more. It is now permitted in over 60 countries up from the 40 mentioned in the current article so national regulators, academia, associations and individual scientist from 60 countries have concluded that the technology produces food that is wholesome and fit for human consumption.
I am, by the way, deliberately using the word "concluded" in disregard for User:MonstretM's comment as I cannot see why a regulator, individual, or scientific body cannot reach a conclusion after reviewing a topic. I am also using the word "wholesome" as it is a term used in scientific discourse to describe the suitability of a food additive, or process in all its attributes including nutritional, toxicological, and sensorial ones. The word "safe" on the other hand suggest only that such food material will not harm the consumer therefore as a term it is not as encompassing to describe this food materials adequacy. That being said I will certainly not let semantics stand in the way of consensus moving forward.
It is my opinion that the opponents of Food irradiation are mainly non government organization that lack constituency, mandate and scientific expertise on the subject. It is also my opinion that such organizations live of donations from their supporters and therefore have an economic requirement to maintain a suitable number of controversial topics for people to perceive a need for their advocacy thus donating to their cause. There certainly are some respectable concerns with food irradiation, such as globalization of the food supply, increased energy consumption to transport longer lasting food further, or competition to local farms, perhaps. All of these can and should be addressed in the final article. But I would like to help work on the pseudo-scientific allegations that there are health issues with irradiated food and RayosMcQueen’s diligent work in finding the studies cited repeatedly by many of these advocacy groups, is showing some of the gross and deliberate misrepresentations and distortions required to maintain that irradiated foods are anything but wholesome when applied within the regulated doses and conditions. In that sense these groups distort science to further ideology and I hope that Misplaced Pages will not make herself a platform for that.
In the light of 5000 deaths due to food borne illness in the U.S. as estimated by the center of disease control, the distortion of science that can be a part of the solution is not a casual feat.
Turning these opinions of mine into tangible proposals for the article, I would like to see the following:
1) Follow GermanPina’s suggestion in keeping the article neutral in all technical sections. The reader should first hear what irradiation is, how it works, what it can and can not accomplish and what the different methods are, and how saftey in the plant is handled and monitored.
2) If felt by the group that it is required create a section that talks about the more ideological concerns such as globalization, energy use in transport, etc.
3) Review the studies cited by MonstretM in the section provided by User:RayosMcQueen and jointly draw conclusions on how to deal with them in the article.
4) Provide complete coverage of consumer acceptance studies, as suggested earlier. I have asked for Dr. Christine Bruhn’s help on this topic as she and her department at the University of California, Davis is dedicated to the topic of food irradiation consumer research. I am sure she will be able to provide a bibliography of what has been done.
5) The “Tolerance” section needs clean up, as it is not helpful to the Misplaced Pages reader in determining whether irradiation is suitable for a specific commodity towards a specific treatment goal. A simple table showing maximum doses and adverse effects seen beyond those doses would be suitable.
Arved Deecke 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Outstanding Issues
When we reach consensus on each issue, we can move it to the Resolved Issues section. If I missed something or there is an issue you feel needs to be added, please feel free do to so, but please also note it here, to bring your addition to the group's attention.
Please consider all of these points now open for (civil, constructive) discussion. Enjoy! --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Citations of controversial studies
I don’t think we need to settle the question of appropriate citation in its abstract form, or to try to define what constitutes “plagiarism.” I do agree that reading the through entire article is appropriate, however we must be careful (as always) to avoid quoting out of context. In this sense abstracts are often helpful as they are specifically written to be concise summaries of the author’s views. I also note that direct quotations, although perhaps uglier than paraphrasing, are at least indisputably accurate (if taken with appropriate context.)
- I'm going to refrain temporarily from commenting on the other sections until this section is resolved first. So let me start by saying that abstracts are helpful, but they are not often representative of the complete findings. I've never met a scientist or scholar who would tell me to look at just the abstract to review the findings of a study. A scientific report is meant to be reviewed from start to finish. Why? Because the abstract is merely a summary. It may contain the researcher's conclusions, but keep in mind that his interpretation of the findings is ultimately just another opinion and (most researchers would agree) can often be wrong. It is quite acceptable to report the findings of a study without contradicting the author's conclusions. I do agree, however, that it would constitute original research to interpret the findings of the study in a way that is incompatible with the author's conclusions. One of the criticisms of the FDA review is that only the abstracts were considered, which is an error of omission that leads to faulty conclusions. Therefore, by reviewing only the abstracts, one is liable to draw conclusions that are at odds with the findings, which most people would agree is a graver error. Therefore, my proposal is to avoid relying on mostly opinions and interpretations of scientific findings in the article, and allowing the data to speak for themselves whenever possible. MonstretM 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking over the talk page, the main dispute seems to have been in regards to referencing the two sentences, both from the abstracts of research papers
- since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots, some question is raised on the wholesomeness of irradiated carrots
and
- Decreased growth in male rats consuming (strawberries in their) powder form
MonstretM summarized these papers in the sentence "In several studies, rats that were fed various irradiated fruits and vegetables showed significant growth retardation and significantly depressed growth rates.”
Is this an appropriate summary? Discuss. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the previous discussion, I proposed a new summary for one of these studies' findings, which is: "Rats that were fed carrots irradiated at high doses showed depressed growth rates that were statistically significant." This is the text that we should consider for the current discussion, as the previous discussion already led me to revise the original text. I haven't gotten to the other studies yet, as first I would like to see what are the objections to this wording. MonstretM 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
While this was the only section that was discussed at length, it is my opinion that those studies cited by MonstretM were generally cited out of context often diametrically contradicting the authors conclusions. As examples, please consider the following example.
where the authors clearly concluded that there "were no consistent effects that could be linked to irradiation" and "irradiation was not a factor" while MonstretM used the study citing the following text "A diet of irradiated potatoes has been linked to shorter lifespans for offspring ..."
- I won't comment on this study until the first study is resolved, but I do propose that this discussion will not progress unless the other parties agree to stop their repeated false accusations and misrepresentations of the facts and issues at hand. MonstretM 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I do suggest we look at all the studies comparing the abstract to ]'s summary when discussion this issue. In the final text we can then well eliminate reference to these studies and focus on the reviews as was proposed by MrArt and RayosMcQueen. The problem as I see it is that the exact same studies are often used by a some groups opposing irradiation to alledge scientific proof that irradiation has adverse effects in disregard of the actual findings and the authors actual opinions. Maintaining this opinion therefore hinges on the readers relative inability to verfying the sources using misinformation as a way of doing business. This seems to me the key point that RayosMcQueen is raising in his reviews. It might actually good to clarify some of these misconceptions on Misplaced Pages, and I will leave this to the group to discuss. Arved Deecke 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I take issue with the statement: "using misinformation as a way of doing business," in reference to Deecke's opinion about nonprofits. Please note that Misplaced Pages is itself a nonprofit, and furthermore that those types of statements are completely irrelevant to this discussion. However, the following loaded statements by Arved Deecke do need to be addressed adequately by the mediator:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Food_irradiation/Mediation_discussion#Comments_by_Arved_Deecke
- I do propose that Arved Deecke has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest in this discussion, and that he should not be allowed to edit this article. And if he continues to make his outlandish and non-NPOV statements, and if no action is taken to remedy his conflict of interest, I will drop mediation and take this issue to the arbitration council. Jonathan, since you seem to be quite new to Misplaced Pages, I respectfully ask if you feel truly qualified to mediate such a complicated and heated debate. Your honesty in this case would be much appreciated as it would expedite the process of bringing this matter to the appropriate officials for resolution. In any case, I disagree with Arved Deecke's suggestion to use only 3rd party reviews, as it would be fundamentally flawed in the same manner that the FDA review was criticized for its cursory review of the studies. Furthermore, to report the findings, I suggest that we look at the complete studies, and not just the abstracts, but I do agree that we must not make broad statements or interpretations that conflict with the author's opinions.
- I disagree with the proposal to eliminate references to the original studies, as the reviews themselves are less scientifically sound and lack objectivity. The best way to maintain NPOV is to report just the findings of the studies and let them speak for themselves. Opinions are not of much value to Misplaced Pages, and reviews/interpretations are nothing more than opinions, and their inclusion would constitute mostly weasel text. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements
- I disagree with Arved Deecke's statement that the scientific studies concluded that food irradiation has no adverse effects, which is merely his opinion, and in a court of law, most of Deecke's above statements would be thrown out as they would be considered leading and biased. Please note that I have consistently avoided inserting opinions and interpretations of the studies into the article as well as the discussions, therefore maintaining NPOV, whereas Arved Deecke has consistently attempted to insert non-NPOV statements into the article. MonstretM 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh. So you are suggesting that there has been misinformation on these studies floating around for a long time. Is it the consensus of this group to address each of the disputed studies individually? If so, we can move the discussion from the main talk page into the Outstanding Issues section on this page. --Jonathan Stray 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I think the most straightforward and logical way to handle this issue would be to use only the original studies as references, and present only the original findings in the article. The 3rd party reviews are actually the most controversial. Therefore, I agree that we should review the disputed studies individually and cite them in the article. 3rd party reviews should only be used in special circumstances. MonstretM 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can certainly relate to Arved Deecke's point: When I was looking for those studies on the internet it was mainly organizations like Public Citizen or Food and Water Watch that have long held a stance against food irradiation that cited them often making claims towards their content that were identical or similar to those of MonstretM. In my opinion the claim made was usually distorted significantly from the authors conclusions suposedly for reasons of ideology and a discussion of these studies would certainly help to establish this as fact. At the same time no one ever seems to have digitized and published most of these studies which to me suggests an interest in maintaining in keeping the actual content of these studies hard to come by. Mainstream science seems to have abandoned those studies or integrated them into the wealth of food irradiation research. While I would welcome clarification on the underlying realities behind these studies, I am thinking that the Misplaced Pages user is best served if presented with the conclusions of relevant reviews, rather than being side tracked by controversies he / she may or may not be able to relate to. Regardless of what the final article will look like, we can certainly discuss the studies here if that is what the group wants to do. RayosMcQueen 23:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I take issue with RayosMcQueen's statements, such as "distorted significantly from the authors conclusions suposedly for reasons of ideology" and "which to me suggests an interest in maintaining in keeping the actual content of these studies hard to come by" and "Mainstream science seems to have abandoned those studies or integrated them into the wealth of food irradiation research" as they are completely leading, unverifiable, and most of all false. I do not agree to using 3rd party reviews unless their methodology is completely transparent and will be subjected to the same stringent review process we are giving to the individual studies that are being disputed.
- I will not agree to the fundamentally flawed review procedure suggested by RayosMcQueen. He states that "I am thinking that the Misplaced Pages user is best served if presented with the conclusions of relevant reviews, rather than being side tracked by controversies he / she may or may not be able to relate to." This kind of statement is revealing as it exhibits a desired strategy that only serves private interests who would like important information not to be made available to the public. Misplaced Pages is not the tool for that type of goal. MonstretM 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What should we do about missing studies?
We need to be able to find any references we want to cite, as per WP:VERIFY. I will assume that RayosMcQueen has made a good faith attempt to locate the missing papers. Does anyone else want to try? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with abandoning studies that can not be produced for everybodies review RayosMcQueen 23:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Rayos (may I call you Rayos?) do you have online access to academic journals? I could look there, if you haven't already. --Jonathan Stray 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Most certainly you can call me Rayos. Believe me I have looked all over. I just don't think those studies were ever scanned. Someone would probably need to go to a reputable library and get a hard copy of the actual journals. We would then need to get a translator for the russian study. I feel I have done my share of data mining at this point and see the burden of proof with those who whish to cite the remaining studies. I have asked a library in Germany to scan a review of most of these studies and will make that available if I get something back. RayosMcQueen 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
How to handle “thousands of studies”
RayosMcQueen’s suggestion of citing recent review studies in the scientific literature strikes me as very reasonable. Summarization of many studies is a tricky business, original research in its own right which we have neither the mandate nor the capacity to carry out. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to state “mainstream” or “consensus” opinions?
The equal validity section of the WP:NPOV FAQ states that the NPOV policy "does not stop us from describing the majority views as such". The undue weight section of NPOV says that "Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." My reading of this is that if there is clearly a "mainstream" or majority opinion, we must say so. Otherwise we run the risk of exaggerating the prominence of minority opinions, which of course we must also discuss. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If so, is the “mainstream” or “consensus” opinion that irradiated foods are “safe”?
Well, is it? Do we have references to good review papers from which to determine whether this is or not the case? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly would think so. I will try to get a bibliography. RayosMcQueen 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to state that irradiated foods are “safe”?
It is appropriate to note what the scientific consensus is. Is it also appropriate to state that irradiated foods are safe as fact?
MonstretM has raised the broader epistemological issue of whether it is actually possible to draw conclusions on safety from the existing evidence. He claims that “the only broad statement we can provide in NPOV and in honesty about food irradiation is that the long-term health risks of irradiated foods are still unknown.” Unless someone can point us to a solid study which specifically tracks the long-term health-risks of irradiated food, it is true that these risks are unknown.
This is an issue with very many new technologies, and it is reasonable to take the position that humanity should proceed carefully with these unknown risks. This is known as the Precautionary Principle. It may be appropriate to discuss this point briefly, and link to this article. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think Dr. Kathreen M. Shea in her report to the American Acamdemy of Pedriaticians has done a wonderful balancing act when writing:
- Hundreds of animal feeding studies of irradiated food, including multigenerational studies, have been performed since 1950.18 Endpoints investigated have included subchronic and chronic changes in metabolism, histopathology, and function of most systems; reproductive effects; growth; teratogenicity; and mutagenicity. Because a large number of studies has been performed, some have demonstrated adverse effects of irradiation, but no consistent pattern has emerged.18,19 Independent reviews of the scientific evidence by a series of expert committees, including the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation, as well as the FDA have concluded that irradiation of foods under specified conditions is safe.14,17,20
- I suggest we consider adapting this text for our article including its references. Please see http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/106/6/1505 for the entire report. RayosMcQueen 23:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we discuss the WHO opinion?
We could cite the WHO if they have performed their own research according to accepted standards of science. Otherwise, we could just list them in the “organizations endorsing” section --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The WHO like most regulators have performed scientific reviews of exisitng publications to draw conclusions for future policy. I agree with the suggestion you made elsewhere, Jonathan, that such reviews present original research in their own right and if we go the route of presenting scientific reviews rather than individual studies then such publications by the WHO, the FDA and others will certainly be appropriate examples. RayosMcQueen 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
”Wholesome” And “Safe”
I gather from Arveed Deecke’s comments that both of these words have specific technical meanings within the scientific literature. However, they also have meanings and connotations in English. It is appropriate to use “wholesome” and “safe” this general article for non-scientists only where the usual English definition of the word accurately represents the scientific meaning, or where the scientific usage is otherwise clarified. In this sense these terms are similar to “significant” in the sense of statistically significant, a word which must also be handled carefully.
I don’t think we need to ban all scientific vocabulary; indeed, familiarizing the public with scientific terminology is a Good Thing. However, we need to proceed carefully with all such terms (wholesome, safe, tolerance, significant), adding clarifying remarks wherever necessary. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I looked up the definition of "wholesome" on http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wholesome and came back with the following result:
- 1. conducive to moral or general well-being; salutary; beneficial: wholesome recreation; wholesome environment.
- 2. conducive to bodily health; healthful; salubrious: wholesome food; wholesome air; wholesome exercise.
- 3. suggestive of physical or moral health, esp. in appearance.
- 4. healthy or sound.
- While I think that the term is appropriate to describe food products that are nutrious, healthy and free of adverse effects, I will not get stuck on semantics either. RayosMcQueen 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
”Tolerance”
MonstretM noted that “one editor changed a section title from the more descriptive and neutral, ‘Loss of trace nutrients and changes to flavor/odor/texture’ to the more benign sounding, ‘Tolerance of food items to irradiation,’ which is an industry marketing term.”
“Tolerance”, like “wholesome” and “safe”, may or may not be a scientific term in this field with specific meaning – I don’t know. See the discussion about scientific terms above. Other than that, “Tolerance of food items to irradiation” may be read to imply that food items generally do not suffer when exposed when irradiated, but “Loss of trace nutrients and changes to flavor/odor/texture” is just as leading, in the other direction.
It seems to be clear that excessive irradiation will destroy food in various ways, and this could be noted, as per Arveed’s suggestion of “a simple table showing maximum doses and adverse effects seen beyond those doses.” However, if we do this we also need to note the ‘’usual’’ doses and discuss what happens then. After the body of the section is written and agreed on, we can work out a title which accurately reflects the contents. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Irradiation tolerance is the scientific term as I know it. We could deal with the dilemma you raise by calling the section "Maximum doses tolerated by different food items and adverse effects beyond those doses. We should also list permitted doses for each food group for perspective. RayosMcQueen 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Now I'm not so sure if the table is the best approach -- does the average reader need all this technical information about maximum does that will never be applied to their food? Actually, I find the information currently there in the locked article to be much more relevant than the proposed chart; as usual, this is merely my opinion and I could be convinced otherwise --Jonathan Stray 00:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Remove Endorsements etc. From Technology Section?
Agreed. They definitely don’t belong there. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree RayosMcQueen 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Create section on market and consumer acceptance?
First of all, I’m not sure if this is relevant to the article, though I am open to being convinced. If it is, how do we summarize it well? Unlike the scientific literature, there is no obvious place to go for well-researched overview. Should we put this under the (potential) "controversy" section? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Consumer acceptance is an important question that many users of Misplaced Pages will be looking to find an answer two when reviewing the article. Maybe we can summarize with irradiation markets, what is out there, and how the markets responded. There are also many surveys that we could quote if the group feel that there is merit in doing so. RayosMcQueen 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Create “Organizations Endorsing Food Irradiation” section?
Organizations endorsing is probably relevant. I could be convinced either way. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Create “controversy" section?
I think “controversy” may be a reasonable thing to include in the main article, as it certainly exists. However, we must be careful here that the Controversy section is itself NPOV. (see WP:NPOV section on Article Structure.) We also need to be clear on what the “controversy” section is for. Does scientific evidence on health issues belong there, or is this section just for societal and historical aspects of food irradiation? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The controversy, although maintained by a relatively small group of people is a reality associated with the technology. While it might be fine to not make mention to it if the group determines that there is really no sound reason for such controversy there are good reasons to include reference to it in a neutral well referenced way:
- 1) The Misplaced Pages user might have already come accross the controversy asking what the underlying issues are.
- 2) We will certainly expose the article to future edit wars if we do not include an explanation. Opponents of irradiation might find what we determine to be a neutral view, actually biased towards irradiation and what ever we come up with as a result of the current exercise should stand the test of time.
- 3) I am sure that other members in this mediation group will have a strong issue with elimination of any reference to people thinking differently than mainstream science.
Again Dr. Kathrine Sheas section on Controversy is very well written: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/106/6/1505
Create section which discusses globalization, energy use in transport, etc?
Like “controversy”, these are not a problem with irradiation per se, but worth mentioning as irradiation is an enabling technology which could worsen these problems. Could we put this in with related discussion that currently exists in the “economics” section? Should we retitle that section? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)