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 healthier 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]
Meaning and origin of the term
For more details on on the production of organic food, see Organic farming.
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.[10] 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."[11] 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.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed]
Small specialty health food stores and co-operatives were instrumental to bringing organic food to a wider audience.[citation needed] As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed]
Legal definition
Main article: Organic certification
See also: List of countries with organic agriculture regulation
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.[12] If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.[13]
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,[14] 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.[15] 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."[16] Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle[17] in light of unknown risks of nanotechnology.[18]: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.[19][20]: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:
- Australia: NASAA Organic Standard[21]
- Canada:[22]
- European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
- Sweden: KRAV[23]
- United Kingdom: DEFRA[24]
- Norway: Debio Organic certification[25]
- India: NPOP, (National Program for Organic Production)[26]
- Japan: JAS Standards[27]
- United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards
Public perception
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][30]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.[31] 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][31]
Taste
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][30] 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".[32]
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.[33] 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.[34]
Differences in chemical composition of organically and conventionally grown food
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]Nutrients
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.[35][36]
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.[37]
Anti-nutrients
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,[38] 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]Pesticide residues
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 three studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.[6] The American Cancer Society has stated that no evidence exist that pesticide residue will lead to any form of cancer. [39]Bacterial contamination
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 five 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]Health and safety
Health effects of organic food diet
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 ten 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 two articles, one 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]
No comments:
Post a Comment