Organic foods are produced according to certain production standards. For crops, it means they were grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial fertilizers, human waste, or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without ionizing radiation or food additives.[1] For animals, it means they were reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones. In most countries, organic produce must not be genetically modified.
Increasingly, organic food production is legally regulated. Currently, the United States, the European Union, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain organic certification in order to market food as organic.
Historically, organic farms have been relatively small family-run farms[2] — which is why organic food was once only available in small stores or farmers' markets. Now, organic foods are becoming much more widely available — organic food sales within the United States have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year for the past few years[3] while sales of conventional food have grown at only about 2 to 3 percent a year. This large growth is predicted to continue, and many companies are jumping into the market.[4]
Types of organic food
Mixed organic bean sproutsSee also: Organic farming for information on the production of organic food.
Organic foods can be either fresh or processed, based on production methods.
[edit] Fresh food
Fresh, "unprocessed" organic food, such as vegetables and fruits are purchased directly from growers, at farmers' markets, from on-farm stands, supermarkets, through speciality food stores, and through community-supported agriculture (CSA) projects. Unprocessed animal products like organic meat, eggs, dairy, are less commonly available in "fresh" form.
In Australia, organic eggs must be from free-range hens, rather than from battery chickens[5]. Animals for the organic market may not be fed growth hormones or drugs such as steroids or antibiotics.
[edit] Processed food
Often, within the same supermarket, both organic and conventional versions of products are available, although the price of the organic version is usually higher (see modern developments). Most processed organic food comes from large food conglomerates[6] producing and marketing products like canned goods, frozen vegetables, prepared dishes and other convenience foods.
Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients, or where there are a number of ingredients, at least a minimum percentage of the plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in Australia). Any non-organically produced ingredients must still meet requirements. It must be free of artificial food additives, and is often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions (no chemical ripening, no food irradiation, and no genetically modified ingredients, etc.).
They may also be required to be produced using energy-saving technologies and packaged using recyclable or biodegradable materials when possible.[5]
[edit] Identifying organic food
At first, organic food comprised mainly fresh vegetables. Early consumers interested in organic food would look for chemical-free, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers: "Know your farmer, know your food" was the motto. Personal definitions of what constituted "organic" were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored.
Consumer demand for organic foods continues to increase, and high volume sales through mass outlets, like supermarkets, is rapidly replacing the direct farmer connection. For supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labelling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.
A "certified organic" label is usually the only way for consumers to know that a processed product is "organic".
[edit] Legal definition
The National Organic Program (run by the USDA) is in charge of the legal definition of organic in the United States and does organic certification. It administers the Organic Seal to products and producers that meet strict requirements.Main article: Organic certification
To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:
Australia: NASAA Organic Standard.
Britain: Organic Farmers and Growers Organic Standards and the Soil Association
Canada: Canada Gazette, Government of Canada.
Japan: JAS Standards.
United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards.
Sweden: KRAV
In the United States, the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. § 6501-22) required that the USDA develop national standards for organic products.[7] The regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205) are enforced by the USDA through the National Organic Program under this act. These laws essentially require that any product that claims to be organic must have been manufactured and handled according to specific NOP requirements. A USDA Organic seal identifies products with at least 95% organic ingredients.
[edit] Motivations
Main article: Motivations for organic agriculture
Defining the benefits of organic food has largely been left to word of mouth, occasional media coverage, and the promotional efforts of organic advocates. Even though many large food and beverage corporations, like Kraft Foods, have rapidly moved to acquire significant stake in both fresh and processed organic products,[8] the specific sales points of "organics" go largely unmentioned on product packaging and in advertising.
These comparisons need to be evaluated with care because neither conventional nor organic farming practices are uniform.
[edit] Environmental impact
In several surveys that have looked at smaller studies to build an overall comparison between conventional and organic systems of farming a general agreement on benefits has been built. In these surveys[9][10] it has been found that:
Organic farms do not release synthetic pesticides into the environment — some of which have the potential to harm local wildlife.
Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
See "Organic FAQs" in the journal Nature for more details.[11]
One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide.[12] Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[13] Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[14] and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years. One study of two organic farming systems and one conventional found that, in one year's severe crop season drought, organic soybean yields were 52% and 96% higher than the conventional system and organic maize yields were 37% higher in one system, but 62% lower in the other.[15] Studies are also consistent in showing that organic farms are more energy efficient.[16]
One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming. [17]
[edit] Pesticides and farmers
For those who work on farms, there have been many studies on the health effects of pesticide exposure.[18] Even when pesticides are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems.[19] In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions,[20][21] cancer,[22] depression, neurologic deficits,[23][24] miscarriages, and birth defects.[25] Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.[26][27]
However, some argue that farmworkers and their families can be protected from the effects of pesticides through the use of genetically-modified crops. Whereas organic farms use no artificial pesticides, genetically-modified crops often require less or no pesticide spraying and reports by think-tanks like the Hudson Institute have shown a reduction in pesticide usage and environmental footprint.[28][29] However, genetically-modified crops are the subject of controversy on their own.
[edit] Pesticide residue
A study published in 2002 showed that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods."[30][31]
Monitoring of pesticide residues in the United States is carried out by the Pesticide Data Program (part of USDA, which was was created in 1990. It has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides - with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent results found in 2005 that:
“ These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent compound and metabolite(s) combined], 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. ”
—USDA, Pesticide Data Program[32]
Several studies corroborate this finding by having found that that while 77 percent of conventional food carries synthetic pesticide residues, only about 25 percent of organic food does.[33] [34] [35] [36]
While the studies by the USDA have shown that conventional food contains more synthetic pesticide residues, studies in Canada show a different picture. Annual and comprehensive Canadian government studies by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency consistently find that only about 10 percent of conventionally farmed food carries any pesticide residues at all. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
The Canadian studies are relevant because samples of all foods sold in Canada are included in the annual testings — whether farmed in Canada or in the United States or some other country. (A large amount of food that is sold in Canada is imported from the USA, including about 90 percent of all organic food sold in Canada.)
A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[45] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[46] However, the fact that diet is the major source of pesticide ingestion does not mean that pesticides are ingested at amounts that could ever prove harmful;[citation needed] modern pesticides biodegrade into harmless components in the body;[citation needed] and food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child's lifetime ingestion of each pesticide.[citation needed]
Yet, the potential health effects of pesticide residues found in food are virtually nonexistent[citation needed]. Modern analytical chemistry is capable of detecting such small quantities of a substance — even a single molecule — that a "positive" result is meaningless. Many scientists in 1990 thought that such residues are without effect.[47]
Pesticides are subjected to a battery of tests before they can be approved by the EPA [2] and "residue tolerances" are established above which produce exceeding these tolerances cannot be sold. These tolerances take into account the maximum amount of any pesticide that anyone could ever ingest in an entire lifetime, from all possible food sources, assuming a worst case scenario.
Scientists do know exactly where pesticide go, exactly when and how they break down and where their metabolites go.[citation needed] They conduct numerous metabolism studies — analyzing blood, urine, exhaled breath, fat tissue and so on — for the initial chemical and all metabolites related to each pesticide. In fact, every molecule of a pesticide’s metabolites is tracked to its final destination. Using what is called metabolic analysis, a radioactive label or marker is attached to every molecule of the pesticide before testing. This allows scientists to follow every molecule through the body to see how many leave in feces or in urine, and how many settle in body organs and for how long. Radioactive testing is so stringent that scientists really do know where every molecule of a pesticide and its metabolites ultimately ends up. [48] [49]
In fact, very few pesticides ever make it all the way through such rigorous testing to approval. Compare prescription medicines — which we ingest deliberately — with pesticides. Only one drug out of every 5,000 makes it all the way from lab to pharmacy. [50] [51] But after an average 9.1 years of testing, only one active pesticide ingredient is ultimately approved for every 140,000 that are first synthesized. [52]
Furthermore Lois Swirsky Gold and Bruce Ames argue :"Whereas public perceptions tend to identify chemicals as being only synthetic and only synthetic chemicals as being toxic, every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose," and have shown that 50% of all natural chemicals in food gave a positive test as a carcinogen when tested in rodents, casting doubt on any link of food residues and cancer risk.[53]
Author Thomas DeGregori argues that at the heart of the organic food movement are feelings of anti-technology and anti-modern science[54] and points out that it is modern science, after all, that has increased the life expectancy of many people and helps to feed the world's growing population.
There is controversial data on the health implications of certain pesticides. The herbicide Atrazine, for example, has been shown in some experiments to be a teratogen, even at concentrations as low as 0.1 part per billion, to emasculate male frogs by causing their gonads to produce eggs — effectively turning males into hermaphrodites.[55] However, Anthony Trewavas and numerous other scientists such Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky, have put forth that concerns about residues are greatly over-stated and that naturally occurring chemicals offer the same or greater risks.[56][57]
In fact, weight-for-weight, pesticide residues are less toxic than numerous other chemicals found everywhere, such as salt, caffeine,[58] or vitamin B6.
Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of specific pesticides derived from plants. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum, and rotenone. Some organic pesticides, such as rotenone, have high toxicity to fish and aquatic creatures with some toxicity to mammals including humans. [59]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. One example of this slow process is exemplified by the pesticide Dichlorvos, or DDVP, which as recently as the year 2006 the EPA proposed its continued sale. The EPA has almost banned this pesticide on several occasions since the 1970s, but it never did so despite considerable evidence that suggests DDVP is not only carcinogenic but dangerous to the human nervous system — especially in children.[60]
[edit] Taste
A 2001 study by researchers at Washington State University concluded, under judgement by a panel of tasters, that organic apples were sweeter. Along with taste and sweetness, the texture as well as firmness of the apples were also rated higher than those grown conventionally. These differences are attributed to the greater soil quality resulting from organic farming techniques compared to those of conventional farming.[61]
A small study looking at processed organic foods, found participants could not differentiate organic and conventional varieties of a rice cakes or vitabrits.[5]
[edit] Nutritional value
Some studies have shown higher nutrient levels in organic fruit and vegetables compared with conventionally grown. However, due to the difficulty with designing such experiments, the evidence is not considered conclusive.[5]
Most studies show that organic food is better for you because it lacks harmful dyes and hormones[citation needed], however, some studies — including a 2002 meta-analysis, which is a review of all past studies on the subject — found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguisable difference in taste. [62] [63] [64] [65]
[edit] Criticisms
Newer non-organic practices, particularly no-till agriculture, which relies on herbicides to clear the land, offer considerable improvements in energy efficiency. Anthony Trewavas argues that the sustainability of organic agriculture is less than that of conventional agriculture (see Trewavas (2000)[66][67]).
Soil benefits: Trevavas also argues that many of the soil benefits of organic agriculture have been demonstrated to be due to crop rotation, which is not an exclusively organic strategy (see Trewavas (2000) cited above).
Land usage: Organic food growers lose a significantly larger portion of their crops to pests, mold, etc, and therefore require significantly higher land usage to generate the same amount of product. One study shows that a crop of organic tomatoes, for example, would use approximately 642% more land than one grown via conventional methods.[citation needed]
Organic farming could deepen world hunger: Experts, including Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, PhD[citation needed], agree that to feed an expected 9 billion people by 2050, farm output must triple. [68] Without greater productivity, that would require 108 percent of Earth’s land area. Higher conventional yields are the answer, stresses Moore. However, when Badgley et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 293 organic vs. conventional yield comparisons, they found that the ratio of organic yields to conventional yields for the food categories included ranged from 0.988 for meat products to 2.080 for fruits. The authors concluded that not only could organic agriculture support the current global population, but a significantly larger population than now exists, while possibly even reducing the agricultural land base.[69]
yet Avery points out that more than 100 of the critical 133 "developing world" studies cited by Badgley et al. were not organic; that they double, triple, and even quintuple counted yields from the same studies; failed to cite unfavorable organic yields; and cited "high" organic yield ratios that were significantly lower than average non-organic crop yields. [70]
John Kent, Lecturer in Agricultural Protection, from the School of Agriculture at Charles Sturt University in Australia supports the idea that organically grown food is not as sustainable, arguing that while organically grown food certainly has its place in today's free market, the world population could not be fed with pesticide-free agriculture.[citation needed]
[edit] Cost
Critics claim that organic food is more expensive than conventional food and thus too highly priced to be affordable to persons on a lower income. Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products.[71] Processed organic foods vary greatly in price when compared to their conventional counterparts. An Australian study by Choice magazine in 2004 found processed organic foods in supermarkets to be 65% more expensive, but noted this was not consistent. Some products were more than twice the price (such as chocolate), others were similarly priced (jam).[5]
Prices may be higher because organic produce is produced on a smaller scale, and may need to be milled or processed separately.
[edit] Commercialization
Organic food began as a small movement with farmers rejecting the use of conventional farming practices. With the market share of Organic food outpacing much of the food industry many big companies have moved into this market. With these large companies, and with the creation of a legal certification framework (2002 in the US), there is worry that the very definition of organic food will change from what it used to be.[72]
[edit] History
Main article: History of organic farming
Modern agriculture, utilizing large amounts of artificial chemical inputs, monocultures, and intensive farming methods, is a recent phenomenon. Indeed, one could argue that almost the entire history of agriculture consists of what would be now termed "organic farming".
Rising consumer awareness of organic methods began in the 1950s with the promotion of organic gardening. In the 1960s and 1970s, one effect of a growing grassroots concern with environmental issues was the appearance of more elaborate approaches to organic food, including food-buying co-ops and dedicated organic producers. In the 1970s and 1980s, private sector organic certification and development of regulations at the governmental level began around the world. In the 1990s, formal organic certification began to be legislated in various countries, and this trend continues to today. During the same period, the organic food market experienced a sustained surge in growth, expanding at around 20% a year (exceeding the rest of the food industry by a factor of at least 10). Organic baby food is popular too, sales of which increased 21.6 percent in 2006, while baby food overall has only grown 3.1 percent in the same year.[73] The first years of the 21st century saw multinational food corporations taking major stakes in the organic market, and this has dramatically increased the variety, availability and falling cost of processed organic food.[citation needed]
[edit] Modern developments
The prices for organic food have been, and continue to be, higher than their conventional counterparts. This is because farmers who grow organic food have to meet stricter quality standards to have their products certified organic. More labor is required to achieve this, bringing up the cost.
Since the 1980s there has been a growth trend in supermarkets that carry large volumes of organic food. This includes Whole Foods Market in the US, and Waitrose in the UK. With large volume sales, these retailers have been bringing the price of organic food down.
In the United States the pressure to bring the cost down will vastly increase soon because in 2006, Wal-Mart, the largest grocery retailer, announced plans to increase the amount of organic food available in its stores.[74] Both conventionally grown and organic versions of certain products will be available, but Wal-Mart intends to keep the price of the organic versions to no more than 10% over the price of the conventionally grown counterparts.
Because of Wal-Mart's size and business practices, their move into selling organic food has some people worried.[75] Specifically, the increase in demand for organic food will require that more organic produce be imported.[76] Secondly, the push to lower prices might "virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable".[77]
[edit] Related movements
Various alternative organic standards are emerging. They generally bypass formal certification, which can be expensive and cumbersome, and provide their own definition of organic food. One such, the Authentic Food standard, proposed by leading US organic farmer Eliot Coleman, includes criteria that are incompatible with current agribusiness: =
Fresh fruits and vegetables, milk, eggs and meat products are produced within a 50-mile radius of their place of their final sale.
The seed and storage crops (grains, beans, nuts, potatoes, etc.) are produced within a 300-mile radius of their final sale.
Only traditional processed foods such as cheese, wine, bread and lactofermented products may claim, "Made with Authentic ingredients."[78]
Some are also implementing new approaches to defining and buying food. Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is one such approach, that cuts out all the middlemen by having consumers partner with local farmers. CSA members prepurchase "shares" in a season's harvest, and pick up their weekly portions from distribution sites. Thus, consumers provide direct financing for farms, participate in the risks and rewards of annual growing conditions, and participate with farmers in distribution networks.
CSA is one example of "buying locally," which is often valued by both the organic food consumer and producer. Generally speaking, locally-grown seasonal food can be brought to market more quickly than food that has to be transported long distances, and therefore can be better tasting and to some degree more nutritious by virtue of its freshness. Additionally, the act of buying foods that are locally-grown benefits local farmers and other employers. This local food approach is seen as a direct investment in one's own community and a way to reduce economic dependence.
Organic food is also often linked with the fair trade movement, based on the principle that social and environmental sustainability are inextricably interdependent.
[edit] Facts and statistics
Organic Seals
United States
Japan
Germany
Australia
Greece
While organic food accounts for 1–2% of total food sales worldwide, the organic food market is growing rapidly, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations.
World organic food sales were US $23 billion in 2002.[79]
The world organic market has been growing by 20% a year since the early 1990s, with future growth estimates ranging from 10-50% annually depending on the country.
In the United States, where organic food is federally regulated by the National Organic Program:
"Organic products are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores, and account for approximately 1-2% of total food sales in the U.S." — Feb 2003[80]
Two thirds of organic milk and cream and half of organic cheese and yogurt are sold through conventional supermarkets.[81]
In the European Union, organic food is regulated by the EU-Eco-regulation
Austria:
The government has created incentives so that within the next few years, 10% of its food will comprise locally grown organic foods. [citation needed]
Germany:
Baby food is almost exclusively organic, and over 30% of bread baked in Munich is organic.[3]
Italy:
Existing legislation calls for all school lunches to be organic by 2005. [citation needed]
Poland:
Since May 2004, products of certified organic farms in Poland are allowed to carry the EU organic farming label, but it is not obligatory. This sign certifies that a given product was produced according to the EU 2092/91 organic farming regulation and therefore can be freely traded and marketed on the whole Common Market. In 2005 already 168,000 ha of land were under organic management. The value of the organic market in Poland is estimated at Eur 50 million (2006). [4]
UK:
By January 2005, 686,100 ha of land was managed to organic standards. Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003). [5]
In Cuba:
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, the government converted the entire country to organic agriculture, and currently organic agriculture is the mainstream and many pesticides are not permitted by law. [6] However, Cuba defines "organic" differently from many countries and encourages genetically engineered crops, particularly those with enhanced nutritional content and vaccines from GMO plants. [7][8]
