Talk:Coalition for Safe Affordable Food

I created this page

I created this page to document the industry front group, which is an astroturfing organization set up by industry strategic organizations to defend the industry by affecting public policy and perception.

Sourcing and situating this organization

An editor removed the reference to the New York Times article here. I was about to do the same, after thinking about it last night. The article indeed doesn't mention CFSAF in its body, only in the document that is linked to it as supplement showing the emails of Kevin Folta and the involvement of CFSAF in a general lobbying and perception campaign by Monsanto and others in the industry. That may be useful reading for the curious, but it's not the place of Wikipedia to promote any position, but only to represent what's already stated in reliable sources, so i'm thankful for the good editing by Smartse. SageRad (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's going to be a question as to how this group is described. It is an industry alliance with a mission that is not stated in full completeness by the organization itself, and it seems to be deceptive in appearing to be a consumer advocacy organization whereas it seems to actually advocate for industry objectives, whatever the interests of consumers, and it also seems to be involved in public perception campaigns, working as a PR/lobbying group to promote an agenda. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Friends of the Earth source does describe the organization as follows:

The Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food was founded by the Grocery Manufactures Association, the Biotechnology Industry Organization and CropLife America (the trade association for agrochemical producers), to respond to state GMO labeling initiatives and advance a federal voluntary GMO labeling bill that would preempt and prevent mandatory labeling at the local, state and federal levels.69 To accomplish its policy objectives, the Coalition actively promotes its core pro-GMO messages via its website, aggressive press outreach, social media and other vehicles, stating on its website that GMOs help “provide Americans with a safe, abundant and affordable food supply,” that “GMOs are safe,” that they are “better for the environment” and use “less water” and “pesticides”70 — despite numerous articles and studies challenging these assertions.

Note that the organization's mission does say:

provides “policy makers, media, consumers and all stakeholders with the facts about ingredients grown through GM technology” and “advocates for common-sense policy solutions that will only further enhance the safety of the GM crops and protect the vital role they play in today’s modern global food supply chain”

These sources might support the claim that it generally advocates for the industry, which was removed here by another editor. SageRad (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sage. Of the various sources I read, it only seems to be involved in the GM labelling debate (or at least that's what's garnered coverage). I don't think that those sources support "generally advocate for the agrochemical industry" since GM isn't agchem. I don't think that FOE are a particularly strong source since they are just as biased as the organisation themselves. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any sources really discussing the organisation in depth, which is why I tagged it as WP:ORG isn't currently met. It seems to me that it would be better merged and redirected into an article on labelling. Surprisingly that doesn't exist at the moment as GMO food labelling redirects to Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Labeling. It sounds like the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 is notable as well, which is an alternative location for it to be mentioned. SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smartse. I know that this organization is very notable, as it's in so many news articles, and it's actively and strongly lobbying the U.S. Congress. I think this article needs to remain. It could be linked to the article on labeling, for sure.

In my thinking, the GMO and agrochemical industries are very intersectional. We could discuss the language used. Perhaps it's all "biotechnology industry".

As for the scope of the org's mission, they say it is to "policy makers, media, consumers and all stakeholders with the facts about ingredients grown through GM technology" and FOE writes about them that "the Coalition actively promotes its core pro-GMO messages via its website, aggressive press outreach, social media and other vehicles". That's where i got that from. We could say that they promote positive public perception about GMOs as well as the lobbying efforts. SageRad (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Times article is obviously relevant. At the very least it can be mentioned in an "Additional reading" section. As for the topic, it is clearly notable, tag or no. Jusdafax 18:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to say that i don't think the NY Times article is directly relevant as a source here, and that it wouldn't be fruitful or right to put it in an "Additional reading" section. It actually does not mention CFSAF at all in the text of the article. There is a lot of correspondence from and about CFSAF in the linked document that contains some of the emails from the FOIA request on Folta, but that is not exactly a source that is relevant to the article either, unless we find a source that actually does connect the two explicitly, which might be out there. We can't do original research or coatracking. I wish to describe the reality as best as possible in NPOV terms. I do think it's surely notable, though, with so many news stories about it, opinion pieces, and such large scale actions of importance like lobbying the U.S. Congress among other things. SageRad (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us talk about edits

Two recent edits that i have reverted are interesting but had no talk here.

One was to remove from the mention of "CropLife" that it is "(the trade association for agrochemical producers)". This is true, and important for understanding the context. The other organizations are self-explanatory by their names, but "CropLife" does not explain what this organization does, or is, so a brief parenthetical mention is useful for a reader who may not actually click the link. They will know more about the organization CFSAF in this way. Why remove it?

The other is probably more touchy. It removed the calling of the organization a "front group". There are sources that call this org a front group or an astroturfing group, and that would be an important quality of this organization if true. There is no reason not to call it this, if it is this.

SageRad (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

RE the second point - only FOE describe them as a front group so it best to qualify it as such rather than saying that they straight up. I think the explanation of what CropLife is is helpful though. SmartSE (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the dialogue. I appreciate it. I think it's probably best to attribute the descriptor of "front group" as well, but i do think it's relevant in situating this organization's importance in the world. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Point of fact: It's not only FOE who calls them a "front group". This source in the article does as well, and probably so do some other source. SageRad (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Scourge of Trumpton, i have reverted your edit here as there has been talk about this on the talk page. Please discuss if you wish. SageRad (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is part of the bigger WP:NPOV problem around GMOs, the desire to add labels like "front group" etc, taking any opportunity to suggest that organizations on one side of the debate are all part of a Big Agriculture lobby. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a problem in terms of WP:NPOV that some people want to exclude reality from some articles that are touchy to an industry agenda. Your phrasing of the issue makes it completely one-sided and makes it seem that the NPOV problem stems from people who want to include things like when an industry group appears to be a consumers group and lobbies for industry objectives and works closely with Monsanto and their PR firm Ketchum and people like Kevin Folta, closely, to tell a story and make it appear to be coming from independent sources, or "white hats". That's part of the story and Wikipedia must be able to tell the whole story accurately. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your accusation of edit warring here is off base, and that is obvious from the edit history and the dialogue here, with timestamps, and you were pinged in regard to your edit and given the reason for reversion. I would appreciate you striking that accusation. SageRad (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)