From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Organic foods are foods that are produced using methods of organic farming -- that do not involve modern synthetic inputs such as synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or chemical food additives.[1] The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture known as the Green Revolution.[2] Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, organic food is food produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organizations.
Evidence on substantial differences between organic food and conventional food is insufficient to make claims that organic food is safer or more healthy than conventional food.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] With respect to taste, the evidence is also insufficient to make scientific claims that organic food tastes better.[5][3] Many supporters of the organic foods movement believe that pesticides, herbicides and artificial additives found in non-organic food might be carcinogenic. The American Cancer Society (ACS) has said "whether organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer because they are less likely to be contaminated by compounds that might cause cancer is largely unknown" but "vegetables, fruits, and whole grains should form the central part of a person's diet, regardless of whether they are grown conventionally or organically".[10]
/ABS/Auto%20Blog%20Samurai/data/Organic%20Food/bing/200px-Organic_mixed_beans_shoots.jpg)
For the vast majority of its history, agriculture can be described as having been organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new chemicals introduced to the food supply.[11] The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture known as the Green Revolution.[2]
In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[12] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life. This class of molecules includes everything likely to be considered edible, and include most pesticides and toxins too, therefore the term "organic" and, especially, the term "inorganic" (sometimes wrongly used as a contrast by the popular press) are both technically inaccurate and completely inappropriate when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves.
Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, non-use of unapproved pesticides, 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. As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection. Today there is no limit to organic farm sizes and many large corporate farms currently have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.
/ABS/Auto%20Blog%20Samurai/data/Organic%20Food/bing/200px-National_Organic_Program.jpg)
Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, organic food is food produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organizations.
In the United States, organic production is a system that is managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and regulations in Title 7, Part 205 of the Code of Federal Regulations to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.[13] If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.[14]
Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States,[15] Canada, and Australia). Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients. Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic.[16] However, under US federal organic standards, if pests and weeds are not controllable through management practices, nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, "a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases."[17] Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle[18] in light of unknown risks of nanotechnology.[19]:5-6 The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others.[20][21]:2, section 1.4.1(l)
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:
The USDA carries out routine inspections of farms that produce USDA Organic labeled foods.[29] On April 20, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[30]
There is widespread public belief that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and tastes better than conventional food; these beliefs have fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices.[4][6][7][31]
Psychological effects such as the “halo” effect which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food and which may be akin to religious experiences in some people are in addition important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food.[3] An example of the halo effect was demonstrated by Schuldt and Schwarz.[32] Their results showed that university students inferred that organic cookies were lower in calories and could be eaten more often than conventional cookies. This effect was observed even when the nutrition label conveyed an identical calorie content. The effect was more pronounced among participants who were strong supporters of organic production and had strong feelings about environmental issues. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common.[3][32]
A 2009 literature review concluded that in the scientific literature examined, “there is broad agreement ...(that) most studies that have compared the taste and organoleptic quality of organic and conventional foods report no consistent or significant differences between organic and conventional produce. Therefore, claiming that all organic food tastes different from all conventional food would not be correct. However, among the well-designed studies with respect to fruits and vegetables that have found differences, the vast majority favour organic produce.”[5][31] There is evidence that some organic fruit is drier than conventionally grown fruit; a slightly drier fruit may also have a more intense flavor due to the higher concentration of flavoring substances.[3]
A 2000 FAO report noted an unpublished study in which Golden Delicious apples "were found to be firmer and received higher taste scores than conventionally grown apples"[33]
Some foods, such as bananas, are picked when unripe, then artificially induced to ripen using a chemical (such as propylene or ethylene) while in transit, possibly producing a different taste.[34] The issue of ethylene use in organic food production is contentious; opponents claiming that its use only benefits large companies, and opens the door to weaker organic standards.[35]
With respect to chemical differences in the composition of organically grown food compared with conventionally grown food, studies have examined differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residues. These studies generally suffer from confounding variables, and are difficult to generalize due to differences in the tests that were done, and in the methods of testing, and also because the vagaries of agriculture affect the chemical composition of food; these variables include variations in weather (season to season as well as place to place); crop treatments (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.); soil composition; the cultivar used, and in the case of meat and dairy products, the parallel variables in animal production.[6] Treatment of the foodstuffs after initial gathering (whether milk is pasteurized or raw), the length of time between harvest and analysis, as well as conditions of transport and storage, also affect the chemical composition of a given item of food.[6] Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is drier than conventionally grown produce; a higher content in any chemical category may be explained higher concentration rather than in absolute amounts.[3]
A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products, and found that results varied from study to study.[6] Produce studies reported on ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) (31 studies), beta-carotene (a precursor for Vitamin A) (12 studies), and alpha-tocopherol (a form of Vitamin E) (5 studies) content; milk studies reported on beta-carotene (4 studies) and alpha-tocopherol levels (4 studies). Few studies examined vitamin content in meats, but these found no difference in beta-carotene in beef, alpha-tocopherol in pork or beef, or vitamin A (retinol) in beef. The authors analyzed 11 other nutrients reported in studies of produce. Only 2 nutrients were significantly higher in organic than conventional produce: phosphorus (median difference, 0.15 mg/kg [minimum difference, -18 mg/kg; maximum difference, 530 mg/kg]) and total phenols (median difference, 31.6 mg/kg [minimum difference, -1700 mg/kg; maximum difference, 10,480 mg/kg]). The result for phosphorus was statistically homogenous, but removal of 1 study reduced the summary effect size and rendered the effect size statistically insignificant. The finding for total phenols was heterogeneous statistically and became statistically insignificant when two studies not reporting sample size were removed. Too few studies of animal products reported on other nutrients for effect sizes to be calculated. The few studies of milk that the authors found were all (but for one) of raw milk, and suggest that raw organic milk may contain significantly more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids (median difference, 0.5 g/100 g [minimum difference, 0.23 g/100 g; maximum difference, 4.5 g/100 g]) and vaccenic acid than raw conventional milk (median difference, 0.26 g/100 g [minimum difference, 0.11 g/100 g; maximum difference, 3.1 g/100 g]).
Similarly, organic chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional chicken (median difference, 1.99 g/100 g [minimum difference, 0.94 g/100 g; maximum difference, 17.9 g/100 g]). The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and conventional raw milk. Minor differences in ascorbic acid, protein concentration and several micronutrients have been identified between organic and conventional foods.[36][37]
A 2003 study found that the total phenolic content was significantly higher in organically grown marionberries, strawberries, and corn compared to their conventionally grown counterparts.[38]
The amount of nitrogen content in certain vegetables, especially green leafy vegetables and tubers, has been found to be lower when grown organically as compared to conventionally.[4] When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels,[39] while literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.[4][3]
The 2012 meta-analysis determined that detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples and 38% of conventional produce samples. Organic produce had 30% lower risk for contamination with any detectable pesticide residue than conventional produce. This result was statistically heterogeneous, potentially because of the variable level of detection used among these studies. Only 3 studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.[6]
The 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). Four of the 5 studies found higher risk for contamination among organic produce. When the authors removed the 1 study (of lettuce) that found higher contamination among conventional produce, organic produce had a 5% greater risk for contamination than conventional alternatives. While bacterial contamination is common among both organic and conventional animal products, differences in the prevalence of bacterial contamination between organic and conventional animal products were statistically insignificant.[6]
With respect to scientific knowledge of health benefits from a diet of organic food, several factors limit our ability to say that there is any health benefit, or detriment, from such a diet. The 2012 meta-analysis noted that "there have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of populations consuming predominantly organic versus conventionally produced food controlling for socioeconomic factors; such studies would be expensive to conduct."[6] The 2009 meta-analysis noted that "Most of the included articles did not study direct human health outcomes. In 10 of the included studies (83%), a primary outcome was the change in antioxidant activity. Antioxidant status and activity are useful biomarkers but do not directly equate to a health outcome. Of the remaining 2 articles, 1 article recorded proxy-reported measures of atopic manifestations as its primary health outcome, whereas the other article examined the fatty acid composition of breast milk and implied possible health benefits for infants from the consumption of different amounts of conjugated linoleic acids from breast milk."[7] In addition, as discussed above, difficulties in accurately and meaningfully measuring chemical differences between organic and conventional food make it difficult to extrapolate health recommendations based solely on chemical analysis.
As of 2012, the scientific consensus is that while "consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food.... the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[40] A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 years' worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."[41] There is no support in the scientific literature that the lower levels of nitrogen in certain organic vegetables translates to improved health risk.[4]
Claims of improved safety of organic food has largely focused on pesticide residues.[4] These concerns are driven by the facts that "(1) acute, massive exposure to pesticides can cause significant adverse health effects; (2) food products have occasionally been contaminated with pesticides, which can result in acute toxicity; and (3) most, if not all, commercially purchased food contains trace amounts of agricultural pesticides."[4] However, as is frequently noted in the scientific literature: "What does not follow from this, however, is that chronic exposure to the trace amounts of pesticides found in food results in demonstrable toxicity. This possibility is practically impossible to study and quantify;" therefore firm conclusions about the relative safety of organic foods have been hampered by the difficulty in proper study design and relatively small number of studies directly comparing organic food to conventional food.[4][5][3][31][42]
Additionally, the Carcinogenic Potency Project,[43] which is a part of the US EPA's Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network,[44] has been systemically testing the carcinogenicity of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, and building a publicly available database of the results[45] for the past ~30 years. Their work attempts to fill in the gaps in our scientific knowledge of the carcinogenicity of all chemicals, both natural and synthetic, as the scientists conducting the Project described in the journal, Science, in 1992:
Toxicological examination of synthetic chemicals, without similar examination of chemicals that occur naturally, has resulted in an imbalance in both the data on and the perception of chemical carcinogens. Three points that we have discussed indicate that comparisons should be made with natural as well as synthetic chemicals.
1) The vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed to occur naturally. Nevertheless, the public tends to view chemicals as only synthetic and to think of synthetic chemicals as toxic despite the fact that every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose. The daily average exposure of Americans to burnt material in the diet is ~2000 mg, and exposure to natural pesticides (the chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves) is ~1500 mg. In comparison, the total daily exposure to all synthetic pesticide residues combined is ~0.09 mg. Thus, we estimate that 99.99% of the pesticides humans ingest are natural. Despite this enormously greater exposure to natural chemicals, 79% (378 out of 479) of the chemicals tested for carcinogenicity in both rats and mice are synthetic (that is, do not occur naturally).
2) It has often been wrongly assumed that humans have evolved defenses against the natural chemicals in our diet but not against the synthetic chemicals. However, defenses that animals have evolved are mostly general rather than specific for particular chemicals; moreover, defenses are generally inducible and therefore protect well from low doses of both synthetic and natural chemicals.
3) Because the toxicology of natural and synthetic chemicals is similar, one expects (and finds) a similar positivity rate for carcinogenicity among synthetic and natural chemicals. The positivity rate among chemicals tested in rats and mice is ~50%. Therefore, because humans are exposed to so many more natural than synthetic chemicals (by weight and by number), humans are exposed to an enormous background of rodent carcinogens, as defined by high-dose tests on rodents. We have shown that even though only a tiny proportion of natural pesticides in plant foods have been tested, the 29 that are rodent carcinogens among the 57 tested, occur in more than 50 common plant foods. It is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.[46]
While studies have shown via chemical analysis, as discussed above, that organically grown fruits and vegetables have significantly lower pesticide residue levels, the significance of this finding on actual health risk reduction is debatable as both conventional foods and organic foods generally have pesticide levels well below government established guidelines for what is considered safe.[4][3][6] This view has been echoed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture[39] and the UK Food Standards Agency.[8]
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.[47] A study published in 2006 by Lu et al measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children 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.[48] The conclusions of Lu et al were hotly contested in the literature.[49][50]
More specifically, claims related to pesticide residue of increased risk of infertility or lower sperm counts have not been supported by the evidence in the medical literature.[4] Likewise the American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated their official position that "whether organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer because they are less likely to be contaminated by compounds that might cause cancer is largely unknown."[10] Reviews have noted that the risks from microbiological sources or natural toxins are likely to be much more significant than short term or chronic risks from pesticide residues.[4][3]
In looking at possible increased risk to safety from organic food consumption, reviews have found that although there may be increased risk from microbiological contamination due to increased manure use as fertilizer from organisms like E. coli O157:H7 during organic produce production, there is little evidence of actual incidence of outbreaks which can be positively blamed on organic food production.[4][5][3] One outbreak of E. coli in Germany was blamed on organic farming of bean sprouts.[51][52]
Demand for organic foods is primarily concern for personal health and concern for the environment.[53] Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products.[54] According to the USDA, Americans, on average, spent $1,347 on groceries in 2004;[55] thus switching entirely to organics would raise their cost of groceries by about $135 to $539 per year ($11 to $45 per month) assuming that prices remained stable with increased demand. Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts.
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 jumped from US $23 billion in 2002[56] to $52 billion in 2008.[57]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.United States Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year in the early 2000s[59] while sales of conventional food have grew only about 2 to 3 percent a year.[60] The US organic market grew 9.5% in 2011, breaking the $30bn barrier for the first time, and continued to outpace sales of non-organic food.[58]In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.[61]Organic products accounted for 3.7% of total food and beverage sales, and 11.4% of all fruit and vegetable sales in the year 2009.[62]As of 2012[update], most independent organic food processors in the USA had been acquired by multinational firms.[64]Canada Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada.[65]Organic food sales by grocery stores were 28% higher in 2006 than in 2005.[65]British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.[66]Austria In 2011, 7.4% of all food products sold in Austrian supermarkets (including discount stores) were organic.[67] In 2007, 8,000 different organic products were available.[68]Italy Since 2000, the use of some organic food is compulsory in Italian schools and hospitals. A 2002 law of the Emilia Romagna region implemented in 2005, explicitly requires that the food in nursery and primary schools (from 3 months to 10 years) must be 100% organic, and the food in meals at schools, universities and hospitals must be at least 35% organic.[69]Poland In 2005 7 percent of Polish consumers buy food that was produced according to the EU-Eco-regulation. The value of the organic market is estimated at 50 million Euros (2006).[70]Romania 70%-80% of the local organic production, amounting to 100 million Euros in 2010, is exported. The organic products market grew to 50 million Euros in 2010.[71]UK Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003).[72][where?] In 2010, the UK sales of organic products fell 5.9% to £1.73 billion. 86% of households buy organic products, the most popular categories being dairies (30.5% of sales) and fresh fruits and vegetables (23.2% of sales). 4.2% of UK farmland is organically managed.[73]Cuba After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.[74] Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may be genetically modified, for example[75][76]), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba's forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products
Magnolia Pictures 
Make text smaller Make text larger 
A basket of fresh produce from J. Glebocki Farms. This may, or may not, be representatiave of an actual share, depending on what's in season. A share will contain six to eight seasonal vegetables weighing about a pound or a pound and a half each. Potatoes will be in 8 to 12 pound bags. (Photo courtesy of J. Glebocki Farms)
J. Glebocki Farms' market stall in the growing season. (Photo courtesy J. Glebock Farms)