The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Consumers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-noteworthy consumer organization. Fails our notability guidelines, as there are no available third party sources about the subject to build an article from that are not press releases that can be found. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They seem to be the go-to for insight on anything organic-related at USA Today with 13 entries. The LA Times has mentioned them a few times here and here. I don't see how it can be argued they are non-noteworthy, since they are quite sought after for commentary, at least from my quick search. It is bothersome that this AfD is about an organization that heavily supported the idea of labeling GMOs in California recently, and that the nominator has shown at March Against Monsanto quite a tendency towards pro-GMO bias. I must admit, i do question whether the motives here are to improve this encyclopedia, or to diminish the presence of GMO opposition. petrarchan47tc 10:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not confuse my pro-science "bias" with a pro-Monsanto one. My motives here are simple, to improve the encyclopedia. Much like how every person quoted in the newspaper isn't notable enough for an article, neither is every consumer organization formed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pro-science bias is called scientism and it's to be avoided not encouraged. That you think this organization is not notable is one example of your faulty view as a practicing scientismist. If you had actually looked at the evidence with a critical POV as science requires, we wouldn't be having this discussion. OCA doesn't need to practice science in order to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to engage in direct democracy. OCA doesn't use science to wage boycotts or campaigns or to pressure companies and governments with lawsuits. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) received a six-page profile of its background and history in the Journal of Agricultural & Food Information in 2008.[1] The group got its start in 1998 when the USDA tried to implement flawed organic standards[2] and they fought back with a "Save Organic Standards" campaign that resulted in the USDA getting more comments than any other topic in history.[3] Their notability was established right out of the gate. Then, they achieved international fame in the media when they campaigned against Starbucks in 2001 with a national boycott,[4] at which time the Wall Street Journal and other pro-business sources went after them, giving them even more notable coverage. In 2007, the WSJ called the OCA "one of the leading opponents of rBGH" against its use by Starbucks, highlighting the notability of their campaign. In 2002, South Africa's Mail & Guardian cited them as representative of the organic lobby[5] and the 2007 book The Debate over Corporate Social Responsibility cited their 2003 campaign as one of the best examples of armchair activism.[6] For the last decade, publications like USA Today and The New York Times cite the OCA regularly regarding boycotts and lawsuits. The group received an enormous amount of coverage in 2005 when they (along with Bronner's Magic Soap) filed a lawsuit against the USDA over the right to use the organic label,[7] and their "Coming Clean Campaign" made it into the history books.[8][9] The debate over the definition of organic food used by the USDA led to a lawsuit by organic farmer Arthur Harvey which resulted in significant coverage of the OCA's role in the debate.[10][11] Chemical Week cited the OCA as a source on the 1,4-dioxane controversy back in 2008. (March 24, 2008, p. 50) The group has also become one of the largest backers of GMO labeling laws, with Biotech Week saying in 2012 that "The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has been a key funding and organizing driver of the GMO labeling effort" for Proposition 37. (September 5, 2012 p. 168) Even their biggest critics recognize this role.[12] The OCA are also one of the largest critics of GMO foods and Monsanto, and they appear as public interest representatives in the major news media virtually every day. Just last week alone, they were quoted by the New York Times on the GMO issue, and Russia Today conducted an entire segment with their spokesperson. Many news media sources also refer to the OCA as an authoritative source on organic products.[13] Both the Wall Street Journal and Western Farm Press (February 19, 2011) have vilified the organization and its spokespeople, giving them additional notability. Writer Harry Cline of Western Farm Press dedicated his entire column to attacking the group. The Humanist listed the OCA as a group whose "top priorities" include "efforts to push back against corporate rule by denying corporations the same rights as people". (February 19, 2011, p. 4) The Food Safety reference book confirms this claim in a spotlight piece on OCA's national director and the group.[14][15] Their fight against child labor was also covered by Pediatrics Week. (December 24, 2011 p. 81) These sources are a very small sample (and only a few campaigns are mentioned here) from an enormous number of sources about this organization, and one look at Google Books and Google Scholar shows that the OCA is cited in virtually every academic journal article and/or book on the subject of organic food certification. Based on this very small sample of sources supporting the article on this group, I am curious how the nominator could argue that it doesn't meet WP:ORG. Perhaps he has not heard of WP:BEFORE? Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all these links, you have one single nontrivial piece about the group, one that didn't turn up in my searches nor, apparently, anyone else's. I also cannot review the article to see how in depth it is, but granted that one exists. Is it enough to sustain an article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's enough to support the entire article that already exists, let alone sustain it, and many other articles. I'm extremely skeptical about your "search" methods. The group is mentioned in virtually every journal article, encyclopedia article, and book about the subject of organic food, agriculture, and GMOs. The Encyclopedia of American Environmental History writes, "In the United States and more developed parts of the world, some farmers, environmentalists, and consumers formed the Organic Consumers Association, which has vehemently protested the GE seeds produced by Monsanto and other seed companies." That same source says the OCA "was largely responsible for reversing a USDA ruling that would have allowed the labeling of clothing, cosmetics, and other nonfood products as organic while excepting these products from the same standards foods must meet to carry the same label." Which is exactly what I've already shown above with multiple sources. They are cited by the Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics and the also by the Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues, who names them as one of the primary organized groups representing consumers in the opposition to GMOs. They are named by the Worldmark Encyclopedia of the States as a notable organization "established in 1998...based in the town of Finland." Better Nutrition magazine includes them in their 75 year timeline of the history of the American natural food industry. Their protests and campaigns have been covered by hundreds of sources from Review of African Political Economy to the Journal of Consumer Research, and as I've shown above, they've been notable from 1998, when they were able to lobby 300,000 people to protest the initial standards for organic foods proposed by the USDA. Time magazine noted their role in the boycott of Horizon milk,[16] which was covered by USA Today,[17][18] The Orlando Sentinel,[19] Barron's,[20] and dozens of articles, all noting the role of the OCA. And, their policy and advisory board is more than notable.[21] Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the discussion above, there are plenty of secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability. However, the page really needs some work, to actually cite those sources, and to sound less like a press release from the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep They are notable, but the article is in the tone of a PR piece for them: it promotes their causes, not just tells us what they are. It's meant to appeal to supporters, not provide encyclopedic information to the general public. I think it can be rescued. If it turns out not to be rescuable in practice, we can bring it back for deletion as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.