A note to start: the following isn’t a plant research article, it’s more of an opinion piece on a topic I feel is quite crucial for us, as consumers, to understand.

Earlier in the year we read about how easy it is to get tricked by fake organic milk. Recently I’ve noticed a higher surge of organic products in the market. The term “organic” has become an overused phrase that automatically makes one think “healthy”. Frozen yogurt shops are replacing ice cream shops. On the drag, here in Austin, where all of the students usually walk by for lunch, an organic burger place just opened. Everything they sell is apparently organic, they even make their own drinks, and everything is sweetened by cane sugar and tastes…well, strange.

I have found myself arguing with various friends about organic products and whether or not it’s worth it to spend that extra $3 on a bag of apples. What does it mean to be “organic” anyway? Why people are more inclined to buy a product if it that one word is printed on it? Food is natural, so why does that one word make it more natural?

Organic simply means that the plants are grown without the addition of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, processed without the addition of hormones or irradiation. However, there isn’t enough evidence yet to prove that organic food does in fact provide more nutrient value than the average half-priced produce. The biggest study conducted thus far was done by the European Union in 2007 and concluded that fruits and vegetables contained about 40% more antioxidants than conventionally farmed produce. Organic milk was known to have 60% more antioxidants, which can help fight cancer and heart disease. Organic diets for children are supposed to significantly lower exposure to organophosphorous pesticides, which in turn lowers health risks in the long term. Some of the articles cited below list which fruits and vegetables retain the highest amount of chemicals from pesticides and thus are the best candidates to buy from the organic section. At the top of the ‘buy organic’ list are apples, peaches and celery.

Besides nutrition, organic farms are better for the environment as they sustain more diverse ecosystems and cause less chemical pollution; they are also more energy efficient. However, they do utilize more land than conventional farms and thus it is argued that they are adding to our problems of rainforest deforestation and increasing global hunger. Although no consensus has been reached, research has shown that organic farming in general has lower yields than conventional farms. However a compilation study of 293 separate studies concluded that organic farming produced enough yield for the current world population as well as the expected increase.

Another reason to purchase organic products is to protect farmers. Various pesticides, especially in other areas such as South America, are known to endanger workers. Exposure to certain chemicals in these fertilizers and pesticides can cause Parkinson’s, skin diseases, miscarriages and other health problems.

Research also shows which countries have invested the most in organic agriculture in terms of the farming, research, and market sectors. As consumers it is important that we understand what we are spending our money on, where it is going and what this does for our families and ourselves. It is the responsibility of every consumer to be mindful of the impact that their purchase decisions have on the world.

Discussion Question: Knowing the pros and cons of organic vs conventional farming, how can the problem of land scarcity be solved for organic agriculture?

Links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090521200017.htm
http://orgprints.org/8400/01/Organic_Farming_in_Europe_Volume06_The_Environmental_Impacts_of_Organic_Farming_in_Europe.pdf
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/organic/policy/research/pdf/env-impacts2.pdf
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8526/8526.html
http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/greenview/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11911706
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309048753
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8418/8418.pdf
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86972.php
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2003/jun/cheltenham
http://orgprints.org/12892/01/12892.pdf