Is organic food that much better for you?

Answer 1

Organic food is food produced according to organic standards, which means crops grown without the use of conventional pesticides, as well as artificial fertilizers or sewage sludge, animals reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones and food processed without ionizing radiation and without the use of a wide range of food additives. It is produced on all levels without the use of genetically modified organisms.[1] Historically, these farms have been small family-run farms.[2]

Once only available in small stores or farmers' markets, organic foods are becoming much more widely available. Organic food sales within the US have enjoyed 17 to 20 percent growth for the past few years[3] while sales of conventional food - while still larger in size - 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]

There is evidence that organic farms are more sustainable and environmentally sound, among other benefits (see benefits). These claims are also still subject to dispute and are not settled among scientists. One vocal critic in particular, Anthony Trewavas from England, has written detailed critiques of organic agriculture[5][6].

Fresh food
Fresh food is seasonal and perishable. Vegetables and fruits are the most available type of organic, fresh food, and are closely associated with organic farming. They are often 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 their purely "fresh" form.

Processed food
Processed food accounts for most of the items in a supermarket. Often, within the same store, both organic and conventional versions of products are available, and the price of the organic version is usually higher (see modern developments). Most processed organic food comes from large food conglomerates[7] producing and marketing products like canned goods, frozen vegetables, prepared dishes and other convenience foods is beyond the scope of small organic producers.

Processed organic food usually contains only (or at least a specified percentage of) organic ingredients and no artificial food additives, and is often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions (eg: no chemical ripening, no food irradiation).

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 first-hand 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
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.
United States: NOP Program Standards.
In the United States, the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.A. § 6501-22) created the National Organic Program (NOP). The regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205) are enfored 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]
Evidence of the benefits of organic food
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]
For the environment
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 or herbicides into the environment - some of which have the potential to harm local wildlife.
Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems. That is, 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 - 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 organicly 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]

[edit]
For producers
For those who work on farms, there have been many studies on the health effects of pesticide exposure.[17] 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.[18] 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,[19][20] cancer,[21] depression, neurologic deficits,[22][23] miscarriages, and birth defects. [24] Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.[25][26]

[edit]
For consumers
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.[27] A recent study in 2006 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.[28]

Most conventionally grown foods contain pesticides and herbicide residues (see Pesticide residues in food). 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.[29] The US EPA and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. Furthermore, some countries are slow to ban pesticides that have been unlisted in the United States. It is sometimes claimed that local conditions (meaning the pests causing crop damage) require that such pesticides be available for use.

[edit]
Criticism
Criticism of organic food and organic agriculture includes the following:

[edit]
Organic food is elitist
Critics claim that organic food is more expensive than conventional food and thus too highly priced to be affordable to most people.

[edit]
Food safety
Conventional food does contain pesticide residues - often multiple residues (see Pesticide residues in food for more information), but some toxicologists consider the amount to be so low as to have no effect on the consumer. In today's society, it is virtually impossible to grow produce "residue free" and even organically grown foods do not claim to be completely free of chemical residues.[30]

The potential health effects of minute quantities of pesticide residues described in the evidence of benefits section are subject to debate. Modern analytical chemistry is capable of detecting such small quantities of a substance that the meaning of a positive result is difficult to interpret, and many scientists think that such residues are without effect.[31] Pesticides are subjected to a battery of tests before they can be approved by EPA and "residue tolerances" are established above which produce containing these tolerances cannot be sold.

It should also be kept in mind that all substances are toxic at some level.[32] In fact Professors Lois Swirsky Gold and Bruce Ames have shown that 50% of all natural chemicals in food gave a positive test as a carcinogen when tested in rodents, casting doubt on the validity of the test methods.[33]

The author Thomas DeGregori argues that at the heart of the organic food movement are feelings of anti-technology and anti-modern science[34] 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.

[edit]
Organic food has "sold out"
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 there will be influence on the very definition of organic food and will change it from what it used to be. [35]

[edit]
Sustainability
Newer non-organic practices, particularly no-till agriculture, which relies on pesticides 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) [36][37]).

Soil benefits: Many of the soil benefits of organic agriculture have been demonstrated to be due to crop rotation, which is not an inherently organic strategy (see Trewavas (2000) cited above).
Pesticide use: It is a common misconsception that organic agriculture does not use pesticides. Some pesticides used on organic farms contain the heavy metal copper, which can lead to copper accumulation in the soil. Other pesticides that are approved for use by organic producers include ryania, sabadilla, and rotenone.[38]
Toxicity of "organic pesticides": Conventional pesticides must be thoroughly studied before they can be placed on the market. However, such studies are not required for the pesticides used in organic agriculture [citation needed]. For example, the botanical pesticide Sabadilla is highly toxic to honeybees, and according to the California Department of Environmental Protection its mammalian toxicology has not been fully studied.[39]
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, that if all farmers decided to farm in such a way, "we would soon find ourselves in a grave situation."[40]

Answer 2

The human Digestive system was not designed for synthetic food. That explains the problems we experience with such foods.The organic foods are the best for man.To begin with , we don't have to struggle with our own internal mechanism rebelling against the synthetic one. That makes sure that the full energy generated by the food taken goes to benefit the body.There is the other aspect of the hormones and other interventions done through processed and synthetic food. Precocious puberty in children, premature menopause in elders, etc. some of the price we are paying for the indiscriminate use of Non-organic food.

Answer 3

Yes. In many cases the non-organic counterpart can be diseased..like Milk & Cheese. Other organics do not put a stress on your immune system to deal with chemicls to kill bugs etc.
It is not always possbile to eat 100% organic so pick the foods that are as clean as you can get.

Answer 4

How do you really know the food is organic

Answer 5

There is no difference in the nutrition. However, it is much healthier in that there are no chemicals used on organic foods. This is what makes it healthier for us and the environment.

Answer 6

I don't think it's necessarily better for you, but it certainly does taste better ;)

Answer 7

yes, because it doesn't have all those chemicals and steroids in the meat.. but it will hurt your wallet!!!

Answer 8

Just don't get that e-coli.

Answer 9

not really. just cost more.

Answer 10

Not really...

Answer 11

That is a big lie, it's a good idea but mostly impossible to accomplish, see this article from BWeek magazine:

The Organic Myth
Next time you're in the supermarket, stop and take a look at Stonyfield Farm yogurt. With its contented cow and green fields, the yellow container evokes a bucolic existence, telegraphing what we've come to expect from organic food: pure, pesticide-free, locally produced ingredients grown on a small family farm.

So it may come as a surprise that Stonyfield's organic farm is long gone. Its main facility is a state-of-the-art industrial plant just off the airport strip in Londonderry, N.H., where it handles milk from other farms. And consider this: Sometime soon a portion of the milk used to make that organic yogurt may be taken from a chemical-free cow in New Zealand, powdered, and then shipped to the U.S. True, Stonyfield still cleaves to its organic heritage. For Chairman and CEO Gary Hirshberg, though, shipping milk powder 9,000 miles across the planet is the price you pay to conquer the supermarket dairy aisle. "It would be great to get all of our food within a 10-mile radius of our house," he says. "But once you're in organic, you have to source globally."

Hirshberg's dilemma is that of the entire organic food business. Just as mainstream consumers are growing hungry for untainted food that also nourishes their social conscience, it is getting harder and harder to find organic ingredients. There simply aren't enough organic cows in the U.S., never mind the organic grain to feed them, to go around. Nor are there sufficient organic strawberries, sugar, or apple pulp -- some of the other ingredients that go into the world's best-selling organic yogurt.
Now companies from Wal-Mart (WMT ) to General Mills (GIS ) to Kellogg (K ) are wading into the organic game, attracted by fat margins that old-fashioned food purveyors can only dream of. What was once a cottage industry of family farms has become Big Business, with all that that implies, including pressure from Wall Street to scale up and boost profits. Hirshberg himself is under the gun because he has sold an 85% stake in Stonyfield to the French food giant Groupe Danone. To retain management control, he has to keep Stonyfield growing at double-digit rates. Yet faced with a supply crunch, he has drastically cut the percentage of organic products in his line. He also has scaled back annual sales growth, from almost 40% to 20%. "They're all mad at me," he says.

As food companies scramble to find enough organically grown ingredients, they are inevitably forsaking the pastoral ethos that has defined the organic lifestyle. For some companies, it means keeping thousands of organic cows on industrial-scale feedlots. For others, the scarcity of organic ingredients means looking as far afield as China, Sierra Leone, and Brazil -- places where standards may be hard to enforce, workers' wages and living conditions are a worry, and, say critics, increased farmland sometimes comes at a cost to the environment.

Everyone agrees on the basic definition of organic: food grown without the assistance of man-made chemicals. Four years ago, under pressure from critics fretting that the term "organic" was being misused, the U.S. Agriculture Dept. issued rules. To be certified as organic, companies must eschew most pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, bioengineering, and radiation. But for purists, the philosophy also requires farmers to treat their people and livestock with respect and, ideally, to sell small batches of what they produce locally so as to avoid burning fossil fuels to transport them. The USDA rules don't fully address these concerns.

Hence the organic paradox: The movement's adherents have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, but success has imperiled their ideals. It simply isn't clear that organic food production can be replicated on a mass scale. For Hirshberg, who set out to "change the way Kraft (KFT ), Monsanto (MON ), and everybody else does business," the movement is shedding its innocence. "Organic is growing up."

Certainly, life has changed since 1983, when Hirshberg teamed up with a back-to-the-land advocate named Samuel Kaymen to sell small batches of full-fat plain organic yogurt. Kaymen had founded Stonyfield Farm to feed his six kids and, as he puts it, "escape the dominant culture." Hirshberg, then 29, had been devoted to the environment for years, stung by memories of technicolor dyes streaming downriver from his father's New Hampshire shoe factories. He wrote a book on how to build water-pumping windmills and, between 1979 and 1983, ran the New Alchemy Institute, an alternative-living research center on Cape Cod. He was a believer.

But producing yogurt amid the rudimentary conditions of the original Stonyfield Farm was a recipe for nightmares, not nirvana. Meg, an organic farmer who married Hirshberg in 1986, remembers the farm as cold and crowded, with a road so perilous that suppliers often refused to come up. "I call it the bad old days," she says. Adds her mother, Doris Cadoux, who propped up the business for years: "Every time Gary would come to me for money, Meg would call to say 'Mama, don't do it."'

Farming without insecticides, fertilizers, and other aids is tough. Laborers often weed the fields by hand. Farmers control pests with everything from sticky flypaper to aphid-munching ladybugs. Manure and soil fertility must be carefully managed. Sick animals may take longer to get well without a quick hit of antibiotics, although they're likely to be healthier in the first place. Moreover, the yield per acre or per animal often goes down, at least initially. Estimates for the decline from switching to organic corn range up to 20%.

Organic farmers say they can ultimately exceed the yields of conventional rivals through smarter soil management. But some believe organic farming, if it is to stay true to its principles, would require vastly more land and resources than is currently being used. Asks Alex Avery, a research director at the Hudson Institute think tank: "How much Bambi habitat do you want to plow down?"

IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD
For a sense of why Big Business and organics often don't mix, it helps to visit Jack and Anne Lazor of Butterworks Farm. The duo have been producing organic yogurt in northeastern Vermont since 1975. Their 45 milking cows are raised from birth and have names like Peaches and Moonlight. All of the food for the cows -- and most of what the Lazors eat, too -- comes from the farm, and Anne keeps their charges healthy with a mix of homeopathic medicines and nutritional supplements. Butterworks produces a tiny 9,000 quarts of yogurt a week, and no one can pressure them to make more. Says Jack: "I'd be happiest to sell everything within 10 miles of here."

But the Lazors also embody an ideal that's almost impossible for other food producers to fulfill. For one thing, they have enough land to let their modest-sized herd graze for food. Many of the country's 9 million-plus dairy cows (of which fewer than 150,000 are organic) are on farms that will never have access to that kind of pasture. After all, a cow can only walk so far when it has to come back to be milked two or three times a day.
ETHICAL CHALLENGES?
Absolutely not, say critics such as Mark Kastel, director of the Organic Integrity Project at the Cornucopia Institute, an advocacy group promoting small family farms. "Organic consumers think they're supporting a different kind of ethic," says Kastel, who last spring released a high-profile report card labeling 11 producers as ethically challenged.

Kastel's report card included Horizon Organic Dairy, the No. 1 organic milk brand in the U.S., and Aurora Organic Dairy, which makes private-label products for the likes of Costco and Safeway Inc. Both dairies deny they are ethically challenged. But the two do operate massive corporate farms. Horizon has 8,000 cows in the Idaho desert. There, the animals consume such feed as corn, barley, hay, and soybeans, as well as some grass from pastureland. The company is currently reconfiguring its facility to allow more grazing opportunities. And none of this breaks USDA rules. The agency simply says animals must have "access to pasture." How much is not spelled out. "It doesn't say [livestock] have to be out there, happy and feeding, 18 hours a day," says Barbara C. Robinson, who oversees the USDA's National Organic Program.

But what gets people like Kastel fuming is the fact that big dairy farms produce tons of pollution in the form of manure and methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide -- gases blamed for warming the planet. Referring to Horizon's Idaho farm, he adds: "This area is in perpetual drought. You need to pump water constantly to grow pasture. That's not organic."
By Diane Brady