WHY ORGANIC?

Organic means growing our food, which is to nourish us, without chemical aids during the growing process such as fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides, herbacides, larbicides etc and during the processing like colours, sweeteners, preservatives, colouring, stabilisers, emulsifiers. Why is this important? Well our body knows how to break down and use fats, carbohydrates to sugars, protein, amino acids etc. The question is what about sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate? Well sorry our body does not know what to do with that. So what happens? These chemicals are dealt with by either being stored in the body, normally in fat or in the form of a tumour or syst (not necessarily carcinogenic) or taken out of our body by a white blood cell or bound by a trace element so that it can be identified as "trash" and then removed. This sounds good, but trace elements and white blood cells build our immune system which is supposed to keep us healthy by fighting o and identifying diseases, so in effect our body is fighting what we eat every morning, lunch and dinner. We are constantly under attack by whatever we eat!!! The net effect is that our populations get sick a lot more now, than in the past and diseases like cancer grows. Today we have overweight people that are infact totally malnourished with weak immune systems.

But there is hope. Don't panic just eat organic!

So while organic does not include all the nasties, what does it include? At OFC we make it our mission to buy as many Demeter Certified Biodynamic products because they are our guarantee that crops have been grown slowly and in harmony with nature. This ensures that the crop grows strong so we have the highest amount of nutrients and trace elements possible. These build our immune system and gives our body the tools to repair itself.So my advice is a lifestyle of biodynamic food, with rest rather than fatigue, and peace rather than stress.

This is the recipe for success. Nils El Accad.

Go here to read the rest:

Organic Foods and Cafe

Organic farming is an alternative agricultural system which originated early in the 20th century in reaction to rapidly changing farming practices. Organic agriculture continues to be developed by various organic agriculture organizations today. It relies on fertilizers of organic origin such as compost, manure, green manure, and bone meal and places emphasis on techniques such as crop rotation and companion planting. Biological pest control, mixed cropping and the fostering of insect predators are encouraged. In general, organic standards are designed to allow the use of naturally occurring substances while prohibiting or strictly limiting synthetic substances.[2] For instance, naturally occurring pesticides such as pyrethrin and rotenone are permitted, while synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are generally prohibited. Synthetic substances that are allowed include, for example, copper sulfate, elemental sulfur and Ivermectin. Genetically modified organisms, nanomaterials, human sewage sludge, plant growth regulators, hormones, and antibiotic use in livestock husbandry are prohibited.[3][4] Reasons for advocation of organic farming include real or perceived advantages in sustainability,[5][6]openness, self-sufficiency, autonomy/independence,[6]health, food security, and food safety, although the match between perception and reality is continually challenged.

Organic agricultural methods are internationally regulated and legally enforced by many nations, based in large part on the standards set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), an international umbrella organization for organic farming organizations established in 1972.[7] Organic agriculture can be defined as:

an integrated farming system that strives for sustainability, the enhancement of soil fertility and biological diversity whilst, with rare exceptions, prohibiting synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, and growth hormones.[8][9][10][11]

Since 1990 the market for organic food and other products has grown rapidly, reaching $63 billion worldwide in 2012.[12]:25 This demand has driven a similar increase in organically managed farmland that grew from 2001 to 2011 at a compounding rate of 8.9% per annum.[13] As of 2011, approximately 37,000,000 hectares (91,000,000 acres) worldwide were farmed organically, representing approximately 0.9 percent of total world farmland.[12]:1

Agriculture was practiced for thousands of years without the use of artificial chemicals. Artificial fertilizers were first created during the mid-19th century. These early fertilizers were cheap, powerful, and easy to transport in bulk. Similar advances occurred in chemical pesticides in the 1940s, leading to the decade being referred to as the 'pesticide era'.[14] These new agricultural techniques, while beneficial in the short term, had serious longer term side effects such as soil compaction, erosion, and declines in overall soil fertility, along with health concerns about toxic chemicals entering the food supply.[15]:10 In the late 1800s and early 1900s, soil biology scientists began to seek ways to remedy these side effects while still maintaining higher production.

Biodynamic agriculture was the first modern system of agriculture to focus exclusively on organic methods.[16][17][18][19]: Its development began in 1924 with a series of eight lectures on agriculture given by Rudolf Steiner.[20][21] These lectures, the first known presentation of what later came to be known as organic agriculture,[16] were held in response to a request by farmers who noticed degraded soil conditions and a deterioration in the health and quality of crops and livestock resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers.[22] The one hundred eleven attendees, less than half of whom were farmers, came from six countries, primarily Germany and Poland.[16] The lectures were published in November 1924; the first English translation appeared in 1928 as The Agriculture Course.[23]

In 1921, Albert Howard and his wife Gabrielle Howard, accomplished botanists, founded an Institute of Plant Industry to improve traditional farming methods in India. Among other things, they brought improved implements and improved animal husbandry methods from their scientific training; then by incorporating aspects of the local traditional methods, developed protocalls for the rotation of crops, erosion prevention techniques, and the systematic use of composts and manures.[24] Stimulated by these experiences of traditional farming, when Albert Howard returned to Britain in the early 1930s[25] he began to promulgate a system of natural agriculture.

In July 1939, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, the author of the standard work on biodynamic agriculture (Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening),[26] came to the UK at the invitation of Walter James, 4th Baron Northbourne as a presenter at the Betteshanger Summer School and Conference on Biodynamic Farming at Northbourne's farm in Kent.[27] One of the chief purposes of the conference was to bring together the proponents of various approaches to organic agriculture in order that they might cooperate within a larger movement. Howard attended the conference, where he met Pfeiffer.[28] In the following year, Northbourne published his manifesto of organic farming, Look to the Land, in which he coined the term "organic farming." The Betteshanger conference has been described as the 'missing link' between biodynamic agriculture and other forms of organic farming.[27]

In 1940 Howard published his An Agricultural Testament. In this book he adopted Northbourne's terminology of "organic farming."[29] Howard's work spread widely, and he became known as the "father of organic farming" for his work in applying scientific knowledge and principles to various traditional and natural methods.[15]:45 In the United States J.I. Rodale, who was keenly interested both in Howard's ideas and in biodynamics,[30] founded in the 1940s both a working organic farm for trials and experimentation, The Rodale Institute, and the Rodale Press to teach and advocate organic methods to the wider public. These became important influences on the spread of organic agriculture. Further work was done by Lady Eve Balfour in the United Kingdom, and many others across the world.

Increasing environmental awareness in the general population in modern times has transformed the originally supply-driven organic movement to a demand-driven one. Premium prices and some government subsidies attracted farmers. In the developing world, many producers farm according to traditional methods that are comparable to organic farming, but not certified, and that may not include the latest scientific advancements in organic agriculture. In other cases, farmers in the developing world have converted to modern organic methods for economic reasons.[31]

Biodynamic agriculturists, who based their work on Steiner's spiritually-oriented anthroposophy, used the term "organic" to indicate that a farm should be viewed as a living organism,[19]:1719[27] in the sense of the following quotation:

"An organic farm, properly speaking, is not one that uses certain methods and substances and avoids others; it is a farm whose structure is formed in imitation of the structure of a natural system that has the integrity, the independence and the benign dependence of an organism"

The use of "organic" popularized by Howard and Rodale, on the other hand, refers more narrowly to the use of organic matter derived from plant compost and animal manures to improve the humus content of soils, grounded in the work of early soil scientists who developed what was then called "humus farming." Since the early 1940s the two camps have tended to merge.[32][33]

"Organic agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved..."

Organic farming methods combine scientific knowledge of ecology and modern technology with traditional farming practices based on naturally occurring biological processes. Organic farming methods are studied in the field of agroecology. While conventional agriculture uses synthetic pesticides and water-soluble synthetically purified fertilizers, organic farmers are restricted by regulations to using natural pesticides and fertilizers. An example of a natural pesticide is pyrethrin, which is found naturally in the Chrysanthemum flower. The principal methods of organic farming include crop rotation, green manures and compost, biological pest control, and mechanical cultivation. These measures use the natural environment to enhance agricultural productivity: legumes are planted to fix nitrogen into the soil, natural insect predators are encouraged, crops are rotated to confuse pests and renew soil, and natural materials such as potassium bicarbonate[35] and mulches are used to control disease and weeds. Genetically modified seeds and animals are excluded.

While organic is fundamentally different from conventional because of the use of carbon based fertilizers compared with highly soluble synthetic based fertilizers and biological pest control instead of synthetic pesticides, organic farming and large-scale conventional farming are not entirely mutually exclusive. Many of the methods developed for organic agriculture have been borrowed by more conventional agriculture. For example, Integrated Pest Management is a multifaceted strategy that uses various organic methods of pest control whenever possible, but in conventional farming could include synthetic pesticides only as a last resort.[36]

Organic farming encourages Crop diversity. The science of agroecology has revealed the benefits of polyculture (multiple crops in the same space), which is often employed in organic farming.[37] Planting a variety of vegetable crops supports a wider range of beneficial insects, soil microorganisms, and other factors that add up to overall farm health. Crop diversity helps environments thrive and protects species from going extinct.[38]

Organic farming relies heavily on the natural breakdown of organic matter, using techniques like green manure and composting, to replace nutrients taken from the soil by previous crops. This biological process, driven by microorganisms such as mycorrhiza, allows the natural production of nutrients in the soil throughout the growing season, and has been referred to as feeding the soil to feed the plant. Organic farming uses a variety of methods to improve soil fertility, including crop rotation, cover cropping, reduced tillage, and application of compost. By reducing tillage, soil is not inverted and exposed to air; less carbon is lost to the atmosphere resulting in more soil organic carbon. This has an added benefit of carbon sequestration, which can reduce green house gases and help reverse climate change.

Plants need nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as micronutrients and symbiotic relationships with fungi and other organisms to flourish, but getting enough nitrogen, and particularly synchronization so that plants get enough nitrogen at the right time (when plants need it most), is a challenge for organic farmers.[39]Crop rotation and green manure ("cover crops") help to provide nitrogen through legumes (more precisely, the Fabaceae family), which fix nitrogen from the atmosphere through symbiosis with rhizobial bacteria. Intercropping, which is sometimes used for insect and disease control, can also increase soil nutrients, but the competition between the legume and the crop can be problematic and wider spacing between crop rows is required. Crop residues can be ploughed back into the soil, and different plants leave different amounts of nitrogen, potentially aiding synchronization.[39] Organic farmers also use animal manure, certain processed fertilizers such as seed meal and various mineral powders such as rock phosphate and green sand, a naturally occurring form of potash that provides potassium. Together these methods help to control erosion. In some cases pH may need to be amended. Natural pH amendments include lime and sulfur, but in the U.S. some compounds such as iron sulfate, aluminum sulfate, magnesium sulfate, and soluble boron products are allowed in organic farming.[40]:43

Mixed farms with both livestock and crops can operate as ley farms, whereby the land gathers fertility through growing nitrogen-fixing forage grasses such as white clover or alfalfa and grows cash crops or cereals when fertility is established. Farms without livestock ("stockless") may find it more difficult to maintain soil fertility, and may rely more on external inputs such as imported manure as well as grain legumes and green manures, although grain legumes may fix limited nitrogen because they are harvested. Horticultural farms that grow fruits and vegetables in protected conditions often relay even more on external inputs.[39]

Biological research into soil and soil organisms has proven beneficial to organic farming. Varieties of bacteria and fungi break down chemicals, plant matter and animal waste into productive soil nutrients. In turn, they produce benefits of healthier yields and more productive soil for future crops.[41] Fields with less or no manure display significantly lower yields, due to decreased soil microbe community. Increased manure improves biological activity, providing a healthier, more arable soil system and higher yields.[42]

Organic weed management promotes weed suppression, rather than weed elimination, by enhancing crop competition and phytotoxic effects on weeds.[43] Organic farmers integrate cultural, biological, mechanical, physical and chemical tactics to manage weeds without synthetic herbicides.

Organic standards require rotation of annual crops,[44] meaning that a single crop cannot be grown in the same location without a different, intervening crop. Organic crop rotations frequently include weed-suppressive cover crops and crops with dissimilar life cycles to discourage weeds associated with a particular crop.[43] Research is ongoing to develop organic methods to promote the growth of natural microorganisms that suppress the growth or germination of common weeds.[45]

Other cultural practices used to enhance crop competitiveness and reduce weed pressure include selection of competitive crop varieties, high-density planting, tight row spacing, and late planting into warm soil to encourage rapid crop germination.[43]

Mechanical and physical weed control practices used on organic farms can be broadly grouped as:[46]

Some critics, citing work published in 1997 by David Pimentel of Cornell University,[48] which described an epidemic of soil erosion worldwide, have raised concerned that tillage contribute to the erosion epidemic.[49] The FAO and other organizations have advocated a 'no-till' approach to both conventional and organic farming, and point out in particular that crop rotation techniques used in organic farming are excellent no-till approaches.[49][50] A study published in 2005 by Pimentel and colleagues[51] confirmed that 'Crop rotations and cover cropping (green manure) typical of organic agriculture reduce soil erosion, pest problems, and pesticide use.' Some naturally sourced chemicals are allowed for herbicidal use. These include certain formulations of acetic acid (concentrated vinegar), corn gluten meal, and essential oils. A few selective bioherbicides based on fungal pathogens have also been developed. At this time, however, organic herbicides and bioherbicides play a minor role in the organic weed control toolbox.[46]

Weeds can be controlled by grazing. For example, geese have been used successfully to weed a range of organic crops including cotton, strawberries, tobacco, and corn,[52] reviving the practice of keeping cotton patch geese, common in the southern U.S. before the 1950s. Similarly, some rice farmers introduce ducks and fish to wet paddy fields to eat both weeds and insects.[53]

Organisms aside from weeds that cause problems on organic farms include arthropods (e.g., insects, mites), nematodes, fungi and bacteria. Organic practices include, but are not limited to:

Examples of predatory beneficial insects include minute pirate bugs, big-eyed bugs, and to a lesser extent ladybugs (which tend to fly away), all of which eat a wide range of pests. Lacewings are also effective, but tend to fly away. Praying mantis tend to move more slowly and eat less heavily. Parasitoid wasps tend to be effective for their selected prey, but like all small insects can be less effective outdoors because the wind controls their movement. Predatory mites are effective for controlling other mites.[40]:6690

Naturally derived insecticides allowed for use on organic farms use include Bacillus thuringiensis (a bacterial toxin), pyrethrum (a chrysanthemum extract), spinosad (a bacterial metabolite), neem (a tree extract) and rotenone (a legume root extract). Fewer than 10% of organic farmers use these pesticides regularly; one survey found that only 5.3% of vegetable growers in California use rotenone while 1.7% use pyrethrum.[55]:26 These pesticides are not always more safe or environmentally friendly than synthetic pesticides and can cause harm.[40]:92 The main criterion for organic pesticides is that they are naturally derived, and some naturally derived substances have been controversial. Controversial natural pesticides include rotenone, copper, nicotine sulfate, and pyrethrums[56][57]Rotenone and pyrethrum are particularly controversial because they work by attacking the nervous system, like most conventional insecticides. Rotenone is extremely toxic to fish[58] and can induce symptoms resembling Parkinson's disease in mammals.[59][60] Although pyrethrum (natural pyrethrins) is more effective against insects when used with piperonyl butoxide (which retards degradation of the pyrethrins),[61] organic standards generally do not permit use of the latter substance.[62][63][64]

Naturally derived fungicides allowed for use on organic farms include the bacteria Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pumilus; and the fungus Trichoderma harzianum. These are mainly effective for diseases affecting roots. Compost tea contains a mix of beneficial microbes, which may attack or out-compete certain plant pathogens,[65] but variability among formulations and preparation methods may contribute to inconsistent results or even dangerous growth of toxic microbes in compost teas.[66]

Some naturally derived pesticides are not allowed for use on organic farms. These include nicotine sulfate, arsenic, and strychnine.[67]

Synthetic pesticides allowed for use on organic farms include insecticidal soaps and horticultural oils for insect management; and Bordeaux mixture, copper hydroxide and sodium bicarbonate for managing fungi.[67] Copper sulfate and Bordeaux mixture (copper sulfate plus lime), approved for organic use in various jurisdictions,[62][63][67] can be more environmentally problematic than some synthetic fungicides dissallowed in organic farming[68][69] Similar concerns apply to copper hydroxide. Repeated application of copper sulfate or copper hydroxide as a fungicide may eventually result in copper accumulation to toxic levels in soil,[70] and admonitions to avoid excessive accumulations of copper in soil appear in various organic standards and elsewhere. Environmental concerns for several kinds of biota arise at average rates of use of such substances for some crops.[71] In the European Union, where replacement of copper-based fungicides in organic agriculture is a policy priority,[72] research is seeking alternatives for organic production.[73]

Raising livestock and poultry, for meat, dairy and eggs, is another traditional farming activity that complements growing. Organic farms attempt to provide animals with natural living conditions and feed. Organic certification verifies that livestock are raised according to the USDA organic regulations throughout their lives.[74] These regulations include the requirement that all animal feed must be certified organic.

Organic livestock may be, and must be, treated with medicine when they are sick, but drugs cannot be used to promote growth, their feed must be organic, and they must be pastured.[75]:19ff[76]

Also, horses and cattle were once a basic farm feature that provided labor, for hauling and plowing, fertility, through recycling of manure, and fuel, in the form of food for farmers and other animals. While today, small growing operations often do not include livestock, domesticated animals are a desirable part of the organic farming equation, especially for true sustainability, the ability of a farm to function as a self-renewing unit.

A key characteristic of organic farming is the rejection of genetically engineered plants and animals. On 19 October 1998, participants at IFOAM's 12th Scientific Conference issued the Mar del Plata Declaration, where more than 600 delegates from over 60 countries voted unanimously to exclude the use of genetically modified organisms in food production and agriculture.

Although opposition to the use of any transgenic technologies in organic farming is strong, agricultural researchers Luis Herrera-Estrella and Ariel Alvarez-Morales continue to advocate integration of transgenic technologies into organic farming as the optimal means to sustainable agriculture, particularly in the developing world,[77] as does author and scientist Pamela Ronald, who views this kind of biotechnology as being consistent with organic principles.[78]

Although GMOs are excluded from organic farming, there is concern that the pollen from genetically modified crops is increasingly penetrating organic and heirloom seed stocks, making it difficult, if not impossible, to keep these genomes from entering the organic food supply. Differing regulations among countries limits the availability of GMOs to certain countries, as described in the article on regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms.

Organic farmers use a number of traditional farm tools to do farming. Due to the goals of sustainability in organic farming, organic farmers try to minimize their reliance on fossil fuels. In the developing world on small organic farms tools are normally constrained to hand tools and diesel powered water pumps. A study evaluated the use of open-source 3-D printers (called RepRaps using a bioplastic polylactic acid (PLA) on organic farms.[79]PLA is a strong biodegradable and recyclable thermoplastic appropriate for a range of representative products in five categories of prints: handtools, food processing, animal management, water management and hydroponics.[79] Such open source hardware is attractive to all types of small farmers as it provides control for farmers over their own equipment; this is exemplified by Open Source Ecology, Farm Hack and FarmBot.[80]

Standards regulate production methods and in some cases final output for organic agriculture. Standards may be voluntary or legislated. As early as the 1970s private associations certified organic producers. In the 1980s, governments began to produce organic production guidelines. In the 1990s, a trend toward legislated standards began, most notably with the 1991 EU-Eco-regulation developed for European Union,[81] which set standards for 12 countries, and a 1993 UK program. The EU's program was followed by a Japanese program in 2001, and in 2002 the U.S. created the National Organic Program (NOP).[82] As of 2007 over 60 countries regulate organic farming (IFOAM 2007:11). In 2005 IFOAM created the Principles of Organic Agriculture, an international guideline for certification criteria.[83] Typically the agencies accredit certification groups rather than individual farms.

Organic production materials used in and foods are tested independently by the Organic Materials Review Institute.[84]

Using manure as a fertiliser risks contaminating food with animal gut bacteria, including pathogenic strains of E. coli that have caused fatal poisoning from eating organic food.[85] To combat this risk, USDA organic standards require that manure must be sterilized through high temperature thermophilic composting. If raw animal manure is used, 120 days must pass before the crop is harvested if the final product comes into direct contact with the soil. For products that don't directly contact soil, 90 days must pass prior to harvest.[86]

The economics of organic farming, a subfield of agricultural economics, encompasses the entire process and effects of organic farming in terms of human society, including social costs, opportunity costs, unintended consequences, information asymmetries, and economies of scale. Although the scope of economics is broad, agricultural economics tends to focus on maximizing yields and efficiency at the farm level. Economics takes an anthropocentric approach to the value of the natural world: biodiversity, for example, is considered beneficial only to the extent that it is valued by people and increases profits. Some entities such as the European Union subsidize organic farming, in large part because these countries want to account for the externalities of reduced water use, reduced water contamination, reduced soil erosion, reduced carbon emissions, increased biodiversity, and assorted other benefits that result from organic farming.[56]

Traditional organic farming is labor and knowledge-intensive whereas conventional farming is capital-intensive, requiring more energy and manufactured inputs.[87]

Organic farmers in California have cited marketing as their greatest obstacle.[88]

The markets for organic products are strongest in North America and Europe, which as of 2001 are estimated to have $6 and $8 billion respectively of the $20 billion global market.[55]:6 As of 2007 Australasia has 39% of the total organic farmland, including Australia's 1,180,000 hectares (2,900,000 acres) but 97 percent of this land is sprawling rangeland (2007:35). US sales are 20x as much.[55]:7 Europe farms 23 percent of global organic farmland (6,900,000ha (17,000,000 acres)), followed by Latin America with 19 percent (5.8 million hectares - 14.3 million acres). Asia has 9.5 percent while North America has 7.2 percent. Africa has 3 percent.[89]

Besides Australia,[1] the countries with the most organic farmland are Argentina (3.1 million hectares - 7.7 million acres), China (2.3 million hectares - 5.7 million acres), and the United States (1.6 million hectares - 4 million acres). Much of Argentina's organic farmland is pasture, like that of Australia (2007:42). Spain, Germany, Brazil (the world's largest agricultural exporter), Uruguay, and the UK follow the United States in the amount of organic land (2007:26).

In the European Union (EU25) 3.9% of the total utilized agricultural area was used for organic production in 2005. The countries with the highest proportion of organic land were Austria (11%) and Italy (8.4%), followed by the Czech Republic and Greece (both 7.2%). The lowest figures were shown for Malta (0.1%), Poland (0.6%) and Ireland (0.8%).[90][91] In 2009, the proportion of organic land in the EU grew to 4.7%. The countries with highest share of agricultural land were Liechtenstein (26.9%), Austria (18.5%) and Sweden (12.6%).[92] 16% of all farmers in Austria produced organically in 2010. By the same year the proportion of organic land increased to 20%.:[93] In 2005 168,000 ha (415,000 ac) of land in Poland was under organic management.[94] In 2012, 288,261 hectares (712,308 acres) were under organic production, and there were about 15,500 organic farmers; retail sales of organic products were EUR 80 million in 2011. As of 2012 organic exports were part of the government's economic development strategy.[95]

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.[96] Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries.[97][98] Cuba's organic strategy includes development of genetically modified crops; specifically corn that is resistant to the palomilla moth[97]

In 2001, the global market value of certified organic products was estimated at USD $20 billion. By 2002, this was USD $23 billion and by 2015 more than USD $43 billion.[99] By 2014, retail sales of organic products reached USD $80 billion worldwide.[100] North America and Europe accounted for more than 90% of all organic product sales.[100]

Organic agricultural land increased almost fourfold in 15 years, from 11 million hectares in 1999 to 43.7 million hectares in 2014.[100] Between 2013 and 2014, organic agricultural land grew by 500,000 hectares worldwide, increasing in every region except Latin America.[100] During this time period, Europes organic farmland increased 260,000 hectares to 11.6 million total (+2.3%), Asias increased 159,000 hectares to 3.6 million total (+4.7%), Africas increased 54,000 hectares to 1.3 million total (+4.5%), and North Americas increased 35,000 hectares to 3.1 million total (+1.1%).[100] As of 2014, the country with the most organic land was Australia (17.2 million hectares), followed by Argentina (3.1 million hectares), and the United States (2.2 million hectares).[100]

In 2013, the number of organic producers grew by almost 270,000, or more than 13%.[100] By 2014, there were a reported 2.3 million organic producers in the world.[100] Most of the total global increase took place in the Philippines, Peru, China, and Thailand.[100] Overall, the majority of all organic producers are in India (650,000 in 2013), Uganda (190,552 in 2014), Mexico (169,703 in 2013) and the Philippines (165,974 in 2014).[100]

Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[101] These differences among findings can often be attributed to variations between study designs including differences in the crops studied and the methodology by which results were gathered.

A 2012 meta-analysis found that productivity is typically lower for organic farming than conventional farming, but that the size of the difference depends on context and in some cases may be very small.[102] While organic yields can be lower than conventional yields, another meta-analysis published in Sustainable Agriculture Research in 2015, concluded that certain organic on-farm practices could help narrow this gap. Timely weed management and the application of manure in conjunction with legume forages/cover crops were shown to have positive results in increasing organic corn and soybean productivity. More experienced organic farmers were also found to have higher yields than other organic farmers who were just starting out.[103]

Another meta-analysis published in the journal Agricultural Systems in 2011 analyzed 362 datasets and found that organic yields were on average 80% of conventional yields. The author's found that there are relative differences in this yield gap based on crop type with crops like soybeans and rice scoring higher than the 80% average and crops like wheat and potato scoring lower. Across global regions, Asia and Central Europe were found to have relatively higher yields and Northern Europe relatively lower than the average.[104]

A 2007 study[105] compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that "organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base." The researchers also found that while in developed countries, organic systems on average produce 92% of the yield produced by conventional agriculture, organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms in developing countries, because the materials needed for organic farming are more accessible than synthetic farming materials to farmers in some poor countries. This study was strongly contested by another study published in 2008, which stated, and was entitled, "Organic agriculture cannot feed the world"[106] and said that the 2007 came up with "a major overestimation of the productivity of OA" "because data are misinterpreted and calculations accordingly are erroneous." Additional research needs to be conducted in the future to further clarify these claims.

A study published in 2005 compared conventional cropping, organic animal-based cropping, and organic legume-based cropping on a test farm at the Rodale Institute over 22 years.[107] The study found that "the crop yields for corn and soybeans were similar in the organic animal, organic legume, and conventional farming systems". It also found that "significantly less fossil energy was expended to produce corn in the Rodale Institutes organic animal and organic legume systems than in the conventional production system. There was little difference in energy input between the different treatments for producing soybeans. In the organic systems, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were generally not used". As of 2013 the Rodale study was ongoing[108] and a thirty-year anniversary report was published by Rodale in 2012.[109]

A long-term field study comparing organic/conventional agriculture carried out over 21 years in Switzerland concluded that "Crop yields of the organic systems averaged over 21 experimental years at 80% of the conventional ones. The fertilizer input, however, was 34 51% lower, indicating an efficient production. The organic farming systems used 20 56% less energy to produce a crop unit and per land area this difference was 36 53%. In spite of the considerably lower pesticide input the quality of organic products was hardly discernible from conventional analytically and even came off better in food preference trials and picture creating methods"[110]

In the United States, organic farming has been shown to be 2.9 to 3.8 times more profitable for the farmer than conventional farming when prevailing price premiums are taken into account.[111] Globally, organic farming is between 22 and 35 percent more profitable for farmers than conventional methods, according to a 2015 meta-analysis of studies conducted across five continents.[112]

The profitability of organic agriculture can be attributed to a number of factors. First, organic farmers do not rely on synthetic fertilizer and pesticide inputs, which can be costly. In addition, organic foods currently enjoy a price premium over conventionally produced foods, meaning that organic farmers can often get more for their yield.

The price premium for organic food is an important factor in the economic viability of organic farming. In 2013 there was a 100% price premium on organic vegetables and a 57% price premium for organic fruits. These percentages are based on wholesale fruit and vegetable prices, available through the United States Department of Agricultures Economic Research Service.[113] Price premiums exist not only for organic versus nonorganic crops, but may also vary depending on the venue where the product is sold: farmers markets, grocery stores, or wholesale to restaurants. For many producers, direct sales at farmers markets are most profitable because the farmer receives the entire markup, however this is also the most time and labor-intensive approach.[114]

There have been signs of organic price premiums narrowing in recent years, which lowers the economic incentive for farmers to convert to or maintain organic production methods.[115] Data from 22 years of experiments at the Rodale Institute found that, based on the current yields and production costs associated with organic farming in the United States, a price premium of only 10% is required to achieve parity with conventional farming.[115] A separate study found that on a global scale, price premiums of only 5-7% percent were needed to break even with conventional methods.[112] Without the price premium, profitability for farmers is mixed.[55]:11

For markets and supermarkets organic food is profitable as well, and is generally sold at significantly higher prices than non-organic food.[116]

In the most recent assessments of the energy efficiency of organic versus conventional agriculture, results have been mixed regarding which form is more carbon efficient. Organic farm systems have more often than not been found to be more energy efficient, however, this is not always the case. More than anything, results tend to depend upon crop type and farm size.[117]

A comprehensive comparison of energy efficiency in grain production, produce yield, and animal husbandry concluded that organic farming had a higher yield per unit of energy over the vast majority of the crops and livestock systems.[118] For example, two studies - both comparing organically- versus conventionally-farmed apples - declare contradicting results, one saying organic farming is more energy efficient, the other saying conventionally is more efficient.[117][119]

It has generally been found that the labor input per unit of yield was higher for organic systems compared with conventional production.[117]

Most sales are concentrated in developed nations. In 2008, 69% of Americans claimed to occasionally buy organic products, down from 73% in 2005. One theory for this change was that consumers were substituting "local" produce for "organic" produce.[120][121]

The USDA requires that distributors, manufacturers, and processors of organic products be certified by an accredited state or private agency.[122] In 2007, there were 3,225 certified organic handlers, up from 2,790 in 2004.[123]

Organic handlers are often small firms; 48% reported sales below $1 million annually, and 22% between $1 and $5 million per year.[124] Smaller handlers are more likely to sell to independent natural grocery stores and natural product chains whereas large distributors more often market to natural product chains and conventional supermarkets, with a small group marketing to independent natural product stores.[123] Some handlers work with conventional farmers to convert their land to organic with the knowledge that the farmer will have a secure sales outlet. This lowers the risk for the handler as well as the farmer. In 2004, 31% of handlers provided technical support on organic standards or production to their suppliers and 34% encouraged their suppliers to transition to organic.[125] Smaller farms often join together in cooperatives to market their goods more effectively.

93% of organic sales are through conventional and natural food supermarkets and chains, while the remaining 7% of U.S. organic food sales occur through farmers' markets, foodservices, and other marketing channels.[126]

In the 2012 Census, direct-to-consumer sales equaled $1.3 billion, up from $812 million in 2002, an increase of 60 percent. The number of farms that utilize direct-to-consumer sales was 144,530 in 2012 in comparison to 116,733 in 2002.[127] Direct-to-consumer sales include farmers markets, community supported agriculture (CSA), on-farm stores, and roadside farm stands. Some organic farms also sell products direct to retailer, direct to restaurant and direct to institution.[128] According to the 2008 Organic Production Survey, approximately 7% of organic farm sales went direct-to-consumers, 10% went direct to retailers, and approximately 83% went into wholesale markets. In comparison, only 0.4% of the value of convention agricultural commodities went direct-to-consumers.[129]

While not all products sold at farmers markets are certified organic, this direct-to-consumer avenue has become increasingly popular in local food distribution and has grown substantially since 1994. In 2014, there were 8,284 farmers markets in comparison to 3,706 in 2004 and 1,755 in 1994, most of which are found in populated areas such as the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast.[130]

Organic production is more labor-intensive than conventional production.[131] On the one hand, this increased labor cost is one factor that makes organic food more expensive.[131] On the other hand, the increased need for labor may be seen as an "employment dividend" of organic farming, providing more jobs per unit area than conventional systems.[132] The 2011 UNEP Green Economy Report suggests that "[a]n increase in investment in green agriculture is projected to lead to growth in employment of about 60 per cent compared with current levels" and that "green agriculture investments could create 47 million additional jobs compared with BAU2 over the next 40 years."[133] The UNEP also argues that "[b]y greening agriculture and food distribution, more calories per person per day, more jobs and business opportunities especially in rural areas, and market-access opportunities, especially for developing countries, will be available."

In 2007 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said that organic agriculture often leads to higher prices and hence a better income for farmers, so it should be promoted. However, FAO stressed that by organic farming one could not feed the current mankind, even less the bigger future population. Both data and models showed then that organic farming was far from sufficient. Therefore, chemical fertilizers were needed to avoid hunger.[134] Other analysis by many agribusiness executives, agricultural and ecological scientists, and international agriculture experts revealed the opinion that organic farming would not only increase the world's food supply, but might be the only way to eradicate hunger.[135]

FAO stressed that fertilizers and other chemical inputs can much increase the production, particularly in Africa where fertilizers are currently used 90% less than in Asia.[134] For example, in Malawi the yield has been boosted using seeds and fertilizers.[134] FAO also calls for using biotechnology, as it can help smallholder farmers to improve their income and food security.[136]

Also NEPAD, development organization of African governments, announced that feeding Africans and preventing malnutrition requires fertilizers and enhanced seeds.[137]

According to a more recent study in ScienceDigest, organic best management practices shows an average yield only 13% less than conventional.[138] In the world's poorer nations where most of the world's hungry live, and where conventional agriculture's expensive inputs are not affordable by the majority of farmers, adopting organic management actually increases yields 93% on average, and could be an important part of increased food security.[135][139]

Organic agriculture can contribute to ecologically sustainable, socio-economic development, especially in poorer countries.[140] The application of organic principles enables employment of local resources (e.g., local seed varieties, manure, etc.) and therefore cost-effectiveness. Local and international markets for organic products show tremendous growth prospects and offer creative producers and exporters excellent opportunities to improve their income and living conditions.[citation needed]

Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive. Globally, capacity building efforts are underway, including localized training material, to limited effect. As of 2007, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements hosted more than 170 free manuals and 75 training opportunities online.[citation needed]

In 2008 the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) stated that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long-term"[141] and that "yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used" and that soil fertility and drought resistance improved.[142]

The value of organic agriculture (OA) in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), particularly in poverty reduction efforts in the face of climate change, is shown by its contribution to both income and non-income aspects of the MDGs. These benefits are expected to continue in the post-MDG era. A series of case studies conducted in selected areas in Asian countries by the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) and published as a book compilation by ADB in Manila document these contributions to both income and non-income aspects of the MDGs. These include poverty alleviation by way of higher incomes, improved farmers' health owing to less chemical exposure, integration of sustainable principles into rural development policies, improvement of access to safe water and sanitation, and expansion of global partnership for development as small farmers are integrated in value chains.[143]

A related ADBI study also sheds on the costs of OA programs and set them in the context of the costs of attaining the MDGs. The results show considerable variation across the case studies, suggesting that there is no clear structure to the costs of adopting OA. Costs depend on the efficiency of the OA adoption programs. The lowest cost programs were more than ten times less expensive than the highest cost ones. However, further analysis of the gains resulting from OA adoption reveals that the costs per person taken out of poverty was much lower than the estimates of the World Bank,[144] based on income growth in general or based on the detailed costs of meeting some of the more quantifiable MDGs (e.g., education, health, and environment).[145]

Agriculture imposes negative externalities (uncompensated costs) upon society through public land and other public resource use, biodiversity loss, erosion, pesticides, nutrient runoff, subsidized water usage, subsidy payments and assorted other problems. Positive externalities include self-reliance, entrepreneurship, respect for nature, and air quality. Organic methods reduce some of these costs.[146] In 2000 uncompensated costs for 1996 reached 2,343 million British pounds or 208 per ha (84.20/ac).[147] A study of practices in the USA published in 2005 concluded that cropland costs the economy approximately 5 to 16 billion dollars ($3096/ha - $1239/ac), while livestock production costs 714 million dollars.[148] Both studies recommended reducing externalities. The 2000 review included reported pesticide poisonings but did not include speculative chronic health effects of pesticides, and the 2004 review relied on a 1992 estimate of the total impact of pesticides.

It has been proposed that organic agriculture can reduce the level of some negative externalities from (conventional) agriculture. Whether the benefits are private or public depends upon the division of property rights.[149]

Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming and have found that organic techniques, while not without harm, are less damaging than conventional ones because they reduce levels of biodiversity less than conventional systems do and use less energy and produce less waste when calculated per unit area.[150][151]

A 2003 to 2005 investigation by the Cranfield University for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in the UK found that it is difficult to compare the Global Warming Potential (GWP), acidification and eutrophication emissions but "Organic production often results in increased burdens, from factors such as N leaching and N2O emissions", even though primary energy use was less for most organic products. N2O is always the largest GWP contributor except in tomatoes. However, "organic tomatoes always incur more burdens (except pesticide use)". Some emissions were lower "per area", but organic farming always required 65 to 200% more field area than non-organic farming. The numbers were highest for bread wheat (200+% more) and potatoes (160% more).[152][153]

The situation was shown dramatically in a comparison of a modern dairy farm in Wisconsin with one in New Zealand in which the animals grazed extensively.[154] Using total farm emissions per kg milk produced as a parameter, the researchers showed that production of methane from belching was higher in the New Zealand farm, while carbon dioxide production was higher in the Wisconsin farm. Output of nitrous oxide, a gas with an estimated global warming potential 310 times that of carbon dioxide was also higher in the New Zealand farm. Methane from manure handling was similar in the two types of farm. The explanation for the finding relates to the different diets used on these farms, being based more completely on forage (and hence more fibrous) in New Zealand and containing less concentrate than in Wisconsin. Fibrous diets promote a higher proportion of acetate in the gut of ruminant animals, resulting in a higher production of methane that must be released by belching. When cattle are given a diet containing some concentrates (such as corn and soybean meal) in addition to grass and silage, the pattern of ruminal fermentation alters from acetate to mainly propionate. As a result, methane production is reduced. Capper et al. compared the environmental impact of US dairy production in 1944 and 2007.[155] They calculated that the carbon footprint per billion kg (2.2 billion lb) of milk produced in 2007 was 37 percent that of equivalent milk production in 1944.

Researchers at Oxford university analyzed 71 peer-reviewed studies and observed that organic products are sometimes worse for the environment.[156] Organic milk, cereals, and pork generated higher greenhouse gas emissions per product than conventional ones but organic beef and olives had lower emissions in most studies.[156] Usually organic products required less energy, but more land.[156] Per unit of product, organic produce generates higher nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication and acidification potential than when conventionally grown.[157] Other differences were not significant.[157] The researchers concluded, as there is not singular way of doing conventional or organic farming, that the debate should go beyond the conventional vs organic debate, and more about finding specific solutions to specific circumstances.[157]

Proponents of organic farming have claimed that organic agriculture emphasizes closed nutrient cycles, biodiversity, and effective soil management providing the capacity to mitigate and even reverse the effects of climate change[158] and that organic agriculture can decrease fossil fuel emissions.[159] "The carbon sequestration efficiency of organic systems in temperate climates is almost double (575-700 kg carbon per ha per year - 510-625 lb/ac/an ) that of conventional treatment of soils, mainly owing to the use of grass clovers for feed and of cover crops in organic rotations."[160]

Critics of organic farming methods believe that the increased land needed to farm organic food could potentially destroy the rainforests and wipe out many ecosystems.[161][162]

According to the meta-analysis of 71 studies, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia emissions, eutrophication potential and acidification potential were higher for organic products,[157] although in one study "nitrate leaching was 4.4-5.6 times higher in conventional plots than organic plots".[163]

Excess nutrients in lakes, rivers, and groundwater can cause algal blooms, eutrophication, and subsequent dead zones. In addition, nitrates are harmful to aquatic organisms by themselves.[164]

The Oxford meta-analysis of 71 studies proved that organic farming requires 84% more land, mainly due to lack of nutrients but sometimes due to weeds, diseases or pests, lower yielding animals and land required for fertility building crops.[157] While organic farming does not necessarily save land for wildlife habitats and forestry in all cases,[156] the most modern breakthroughs in organic are addressing these issues with success.[165][166][167]

Professor Wolfgang Branscheid says that organic animal production is not good for the environment, because organic chicken requires doubly as much land as "conventional" chicken and organic pork a quarter more.[168] According to a calculation by Hudson Institute, organic beef requires triply as much land.[169] On the other hand, certain organic methods of animal husbandry have been shown to restore desertified, marginal, and/or otherwise unavailable land to agricultural productivity and wildlife.[170][171] Or by getting both forage and cash crop production from the same fields simultaneously, reduce net land use.[172]

In England organic farming yields 55% of normal yields.[173][174] While in other regions of the world, organic methods have started producing record yields.[175][176]

In organic farming synthetic pesticides are generally prohibited. A chemical is said to be synthetic if it does not already exist in the natural world. But the organic label goes further and usually prohibit compounds that exist in nature if they are produced by Chemical synthesis. So the prohibition is also about the method of production and not only the nature of the compound.

An non exhaustive list of organic approved pesticides with theirs Median lethal dose

While there may be some differences in the amounts of nutrients and anti-nutrients when organically produced food and conventionally produced food are compared, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results, and there is insufficient evidence to make claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food.[180][181][182][183][184] Claims that organic food tastes better are not supported by evidence.[181][185]

Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[186] and higher water retention.[187] This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years. Organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming.[188] An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield for nutrient-depleted soils in cold-temperate climates, arguing that much of the benefit from organic farming derives from imported materials that could not be regarded as self-sustaining.[189]

Read the original:

Organic farming - Wikipedia

Its an epic three-way battle this week organic vs conventional vs science. Three out of every four American grocery stores sell organic products, but what are you really getting when you buy them? Better taste? Fewer toxic chemicals? A cleaner environment? Farmers Mark, Andy, and Brian Reeves, nutritional epidemiologist Dr. Kathryn Bradbury, Prof. Cynthia Curl, and Prof. Navin Ramankutty help us sort it all out.

Sponsors:

For 15% off your first purchase at Ministry of Supply, clickhere, and use offer code SCIENCEVS15 at checkout. This offer is good through September 10th, 2016.

Credits:

This episode has been produced by Heather Rogers, Lynn Levy, Caitlin Kenney, Austin Mitchell, and Kaitlyn Sawrey. Editing by Annie-Rose Strasser and Alex Blumberg. Fact checking by Michelle Harris. Production Assistance by Diane Wu and Shruti Ravindran. Special thanks to Stevie Lane and Joseph Lavelle Wilson. Sound design and music production by Matthew Boll, mixing by Martin Peralta and Haley Shaw. Music written by Bobby Lord.

Selected References:

Read more from the original source:

#5 Organic Food Gimlet Media

To call a food organic simply means that its been produced using environmentally sound methods methods that emphasize the use of renewable resources, soil conversation, and water conservation to keep a high quality growing environment.

Organic foods are produced without pesticides & chemical fertilizers. They dont have genetically modified organisms, are not processed with irradiation, industrial solvents, or with chemical food additives.

For meats and dairy, organic implies that the livestock has been raised in a healthy, humane environment, with fresh air and outdoor access, no antibiotics, or growth hormones. The livestock is fed organically grown feed.

To see the USDAs exact definition & regulations, you can check out the National Agricultural Libraryand the USDAs National Organic Program.

There are four levels of organic labeling.

Where organic food has legal definitions & standards for what it actually is created with, the word natural in food labeling does not. In general, its supposed to imply that the food is minimally processed and does not contain any manufactured ingredients. However, there are no official standards for natural food. The FAO (Food & Agricultural Organization) does not recognize the term natural. The FDA and USDA both do not have any rules for natural labeling. In fact, the FDA has discouraged the food industry from using the term.

In a perfect world, food manufacturers would not call their food or ingredients natural if they werent but as there is no legal meaning to natural, it means manufacturers have almost free reign to call their foods natural even if they are not.

There is even an act, The Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Actthat prohibits labeling food that is false or misleading, however, it doesnt give any specifics.

Ultimately, it is up to you, the consumer, to be responsible with your food purchase choices.

1. Organic Farming is less toxic for the environment.

Industrial farming uses synthetic pesticides, which can drift downstream and cause serious damage to non-farming communities. These farming methods can damage the soil and make it harder to grow healthy crops for future generations. Organic farming limits these toxic chemicals in our environment.

2. Organic Farming is better for your body.

When foods are grown with pesticides & chemicals, where do you think those chemicals end up? Pesticides can do decrease fertility, increase your risk of cancer, and do damage to your nervous system. Organic foods generally have higher levels of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants than their conventional counterparts.

3. Organic Food Tastes Great!

The truth is, organic food simply tastes better. It makes sense that the food that is grown in a real growing environment would be more flavorful.

4. Helps Local & Family Farmers

While organic farming has grown from nothing to a $51 billion dollar industry in the span of around 20 years, only .7% of the total worlds farmland is organically farmed. There are over 13,000 certified organic producers in the United States. The more demand for organic food, the bigger the industry will get. And as the industry grows, more farms will use organic farming methods to satisfy the demand. So its a win-win! You eat organic foods, and more organic foods get farmed.

5. Organic Food Meets Strict USDA Standards

The USDA has created standards for organic foods and organic farming designed to protect you when purchasing organic foods. Organic foods are safe, good for you, and highly regulated to make sure that you continue to be safe in choosing organic foods.

Theres a lot of misinformation out there about organic food here are the top 3 myths that weve found and information dispelling them.

1. Organic Food is the same as Natural Food

Organic food actually has legal definitions and regulations as to what you can call organic, and what you cannot. Natural food does not so natural food is NOT the same organic food.

2. Organic Food Costs Too Much

While organic food in general is 10-40% more expensive than its conventional counterparts, we believe that the benefits of eating organically far outweigh the costs. You are what you eat the more organically grown food you put in your body, and the less toxic chemicals you put in your body, the better.

3. Organic Food Has No Taste

This is simply untrue. Although taste is ultimately subjective, we believe that organic snack food tastes phenomenal, organic fruits and vegetables are much better tasting than their conventional versions, and organic meats simply cannot be beat by conventional ones.

We sell a large amount of high quality organic foods here on True Foods Market. Just search Organic in our search bar to see what we have to offer!

Heres a sample of some of the organic foods that we sell:

Peanut Butter: http://truefoodsmarket.com/peanutbutter-creamy-unsalted-org-16-ozs.html

Baby Food: http://truefoodsmarket.com/baby-sweet-peas-organic-3-x-4-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/cabana-banana-organic-3-x-4-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/country-apples-organic-3-x-4-ozs.html

Rice: http://truefoodsmarket.com/long-grain-brown-rice-organic-2-lbs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/lundberg-basmati-white-rice-organic-2-lbs.html

Oats: http://truefoodsmarket.com/steel-cut-oats-whole-grain-organic-35-ozs-35-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/certified-gluten-free-rolled-oats-44-ozs.html

Pasta: http://truefoodsmarket.com/angel-hair-semolina-pasta-org-12-ozs-12-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/brown-rice-penne-pasta-organic-12-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/spaghetti-whole-wheat-organic-2-5-lbs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/penne-pasta-ww-organic-2-5-lbs.html

Quinoa: http://truefoodsmarket.com/quinoa-organic-33-oz-33-oz.html

Coffee: http://truefoodsmarket.com/maya-chocolate-herbal-coffee-organi-11-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/maya-chai-herbal-coffee-organic-11-ozs.html

http://truefoodsmarket.com/maya-caffe-herbal-coffee-organic-11-ozs.html

Marinara Sauce: http://truefoodsmarket.com/pasta-sauce-marinara-organic-25-ozs.html

Condiments

Yellow Mustard: http://truefoodsmarket.com/yellow-mustard-organic-16-ozs.html

Dijon Mustard: http://truefoodsmarket.com/dijon-mustard-organic-8-ozs.html

Tomato Ketchup: http://truefoodsmarket.com/tomato-ketchup-organic-24-ozs.html

Salsa: http://truefoodsmarket.com/salsa-mild-16-ozs.html

Seasonings

Chili Powder: http://truefoodsmarket.com/chili-powder-mild-organic-4-ozs.html

Cayenne Pepper: http://truefoodsmarket.com/cayenne-ground-organic-4-ozs.html

Cilantro: http://truefoodsmarket.com/cilantro-cut-sifted-organic-4-ozs.html

Cinnamon: http://truefoodsmarket.com/cinnamon-ground-organic-4-ozs.html

Coriander Seed: http://truefoodsmarket.com/coriander-seed-ground-organic-4-ozs.html

Cumin Seed: http://truefoodsmarket.com/cumin-seed-ground-organic-4-ozs.html

Curry Powder: http://truefoodsmarket.com/curry-powder-organic-4-ozs.html

Garlic Granules: http://truefoodsmarket.com/garlic-granules-organic-4-ozs.html

Garlic Powder: http://truefoodsmarket.com/garlic-powder-organic-4-ozs.html

If you enjoy Organic Foodthen youve come to the right place at True Foods Market. Happy shopping!

See more here:

Organic Food | Organic Foods | Benefits Of Organic Food

Organic certification is a certification process for producers of organic food and other organic agricultural products. In general, any business directly involved in food production can be certified, including seed suppliers, farmers, food processors, retailers and restaurants.

Requirements vary from country to country (List of countries with organic agriculture regulation), and generally involve a set of production standards for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping that include:

In some countries, certification is overseen by the government, and commercial use of the term organic is legally restricted. Certified organic producers are also subject to the same agricultural, food safety and other government regulations that apply to non-certified producers.

Certified organic foods are not necessarily pesticide-free, certain pesticides are allowed.[2]

Organic certification addresses a growing worldwide demand for organic food. It is intended to assure quality and prevent fraud, and to promote commerce. While such certification was not necessary in the early days of the organic movement, when small farmers would sell their produce directly at farmers' markets, as organics have grown in popularity, more and more consumers are purchasing organic food through traditional channels, such as supermarkets. As such, consumers must rely on third-party regulatory certification.

For organic producers, certification identifies suppliers of products approved for use in certified operations. For consumers, "certified organic" serves as a product assurance, similar to "low fat", "100% whole wheat", or "no artificial preservatives".

Certification is essentially aimed at regulating and facilitating the sale of organic products to consumers. Individual certification bodies have their own service marks, which can act as branding to consumersa certifier may promote the high consumer recognition value of its logo as a marketing advantage to producers.

To certify a farm, the farmer is typically required to engage in a number of new activities, in addition to normal farming operations:

In addition, short-notice or surprise inspections can be made, and specific tests (e.g. soil, water, plant tissue) may be requested.

For first-time farm certification, the soil must meet basic requirements of being free from use of prohibited substances (synthetic chemicals, etc.) for a number of years. A conventional farm must adhere to organic standards for this period, often two to three years. This is known as being in transition. Transitional crops are not considered fully organic.

Certification for operations other than farms follows a similar process. The focus is on the quality of ingredients and other inputs, and processing and handling conditions. A transport company would be required to detail the use and maintenance of its vehicles, storage facilities, containers, and so forth. A restaurant would have its premises inspected and its suppliers verified as certified organic.

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) represent an alternative to third party certification,[4] especially adapted to local markets and short supply chains. They can also complement third party certification with a private label that brings additional guarantees and transparency. PGS enable the direct participation of producers, consumers and other stakeholders in:

Participatory Guarantee Systems are also referred to as "participatory certification".[5]

The word organic is central to the certification (and organic food marketing) process, and this is also questioned by some. Where organic laws exist, producers cannot use the term legally without certification. To bypass this legal requirement for certification, various alternative certification approaches, using currently undefined terms like "authentic" and "natural", are emerging. In the US, motivated by the cost and legal requirements of certification (as of Oct. 2002), the private farmer-to-farmer association, Certified Naturally Grown, offers a "non-profit alternative eco-labelling program for small farms that grow using USDA Organic methods but are not a part of the USDA Certified Organic program."[6]

In the UK, the interests of smaller-scale growers who use "natural" growing methods are represented by the Wholesome Food Association, which issues a symbol based largely on trust and peer-to-peer inspection.

Organic certification, as well as fair trade certification, has the potential to directly and indirectly contribute to the achievement of some of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which are the eight international development goals that were established following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, with all United Nations member states committed to help achieve the MDGs by 2015. With the growth of ethical consumerism in developed countries, imports of eco-friendly and socially certified produce from the poor in developing countries have increased, which could contribute towards the achievement of the MDGs. A study by Setboonsarng (2008) reveals that organic certification substantially contributes to MDG1 (poverty and hunger) and MDG7 (environmental sustainability) by way of premium prices and better market access, among others. This study concludes that for this market-based development scheme to broaden its poverty impacts, public sector support in harmonizing standards, building up the capacity of certifiers, developing infrastructure development, and innovating alternative certification systems will be required.[7]

The body Codex Alimentarius of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations was established in November 1961. The Commission's main goals are to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.[8][9] One of their goals is to provide proper food labelling (general standard, guidelines on nutrition labelling, guidelines on labelling claims).

In the United States the situation is undergoing its own FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

In some countries, organic standards are formulated and overseen by the government. The United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan have comprehensive organic legislation, and the term "organic" may be used only by certified producers. Being able to put the word "organic" on a food product is a valuable marketing advantage in today's consumer market, but does not guarantee the product is legitimately organic. Certification is intended to protect consumers from misuse of the term, and make buying organics easy. However, the organic labeling made possible by certification itself usually requires explanation. In countries without organic laws, government guidelines may or may not exist, while certification is handled by non-profit organizations and private companies.

Internationally, equivalency negotiations are underway, and some agreements are already in place, to harmonize certification between countries, facilitating international trade. There are also international certification bodies, including members of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) working on harmonization efforts. Where formal agreements do not exist between countries, organic product for export is often certified by agencies from the importing countries, who may establish permanent foreign offices for this purpose. In 2011 IFOAM introduced a new program - the IFOAM Family of Standards - that attempts to simplify harmonization. The vision is to establish the use of one single global reference (the COROS) to access the quality of standards rather than focusing on bilateral agreements.[10]

The Certcost was a research project that conducted research and prepared reports about the certification of organic food.[11] The project was supported by the European Commission and was active from 2008-2011. The website will be available until 2016.[12]

In the United States, organic is a labeling term for food or agricultural products (food, feed or fiber) that have been produced according to USDA organic regulations, which define standards that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. USDA standards recognize four types of organic production:

Organic agricultural operations should ultimately maintain or improve soil and water quality, and conserve wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.[13]

In the U.S., the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 "requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances which identifies synthetic substances that may be used, and the nonsynthetic substances that cannot be used, in organic production and handling operations."[14]

Also in the U.S., the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated regulations establishing the National Organic Program (NOP). The final rule was published in the Federal Register in 2000.

USDA Organic certification confirms that the farm or handling facility (whether within the United States or internationally) complies with USDA organic regulations. Farms or handling facilities can be certified by private, foreign, or State entities, whose agents are accredited by the USDA (accredited agents are listed on the USDA website). Any farm or business that grosses more than $5,000 annually in organic sales must be certified. Farms and businesses that make less than $5,000 annually are exempt, and must follow all the requirements as stated in the USDA regulations except for two requirements:

Exempt operations are also barred from selling their products as ingredients for use in another producer or handlers certified organic product, and may be required by buyers to sign an affidavit affirming adherence to USDA organic regulations.[13]

Before an operation may sell, label or represent their products as organic (or use the USDA organic seal), it must undergo a 3-year transition period where any land used to produce raw organic commodities must be left untreated with prohibited substances.[15]

Operations seeking certification must first submit an application for organic certification to a USDA-accredited certifying agent including the following:[13]

Certifying agents then review the application to confirm that the operations practices follow USDA regulations, and schedule an inspection to verify adherence to the OSP, maintenance of records, and overall regulatory compliance[16]

Inspection The during the site visit, the inspector observes onsite practices and compares them to the OSP, looks for any potential contamination by prohibited materials (or any risk of potential contamination), and takes soil, tissue, or product samples as needed. At farming operations, the inspector will also examine the fields, water systems, storage areas, and equipment, assess pest and weed management, check feed production, purchase records, livestock and their living conditions, and records of animal health management practices. For processing and handling facilities, the inspector evaluates the receiving, processing, and storage areas for organic ingredients and finished products, as well as assessing any potential hazards or contamination points (from sanitation systems, pest management materials, or nonorganic processing aids). If the facility also processes or handles nonorganic materials, the inspector will also analyze the measures in place to prevent comingling.[13]

If the written application and operational inspection are successful, the certifying agent will issue an organic certificate to the applicant. The producer or handler must then submit an updated application and OSP, pay recertification fees to the agent, and undergo annual onsite inspections to receive recertification annually. Once certified, producers and handlers can have up to 75% of their organic certification costs reimbursed through the USDA Organic Certification Cost-Share Programs.[13]

Federal legislation defines three levels of organic foods.[17] Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients, methods, and processing aids can be labeled "100% organic" (including raw agricultural commodities that have been certified), while only products with at least 95% organic ingredients may be labeled "organic" (any non-organic ingredients used must fall under the exemptions of the National List). Under these two categories, no nonorganic agricultural ingredients are allowed when organic ingredients are available. Both of these categories may also display the "USDA Organic" seal, and must state the name of the certifying agent on the information panel.[18]

A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients," but may not display the USDA Organic seal. Any remaining agricultural ingredients must be produced without excluded methods, including genetic modification[14], irradiation, or the application of synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, or biosolids. Non-agricultural ingredients used must be allowed on the National List. Organic ingredients must be marked in the ingredients list (e.g., "organic dill" or with an asterisk denoting organic status).[19] In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them.[20]

Products made with less than 70% organic ingredients can not be advertised as "organic," but can list individual ingredients that are organic as such in the product's ingredient statement. Also, USDA ingredients from plants cannot be genetically modified.[20]

Livestock feed is only eligible for labeling as 100% Organic or Organic."[21]

Alcoholic products are also subject to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau regulations. Any use of added sulfites in wine made with organic grapes means that the product is only eligible for the made with labeling category and therefore may not use the USDA organic seal. Wine labeled as made with other organic fruit cannot have sulfites added to it.[22]

Organic textiles made be labeled organic and use the USDA organic seal if the finished product is certified organic and produced in full compliance with USDA organic regulations. If all of a specific fiber used in a product is certified organic, the label may state the percentage of organic fibers and identify the organic material.[23]

Organic certification mandates that the certifying inspector must be able to complete both trace-back and mass balance audits for all ingredients and products. A trace-back audit confirms the existence of a record trail from time of purchase/production through the final sale. A mass balance audit verifies that enough organic product and ingredients have been produced or purchased to match the amount of product sold. Each ingredient and product must have an assigned lot number to ensure the existence of a proper audit trail.[24]

Some of the earliest organizations to carry out organic certification in North America were the California Certified Organic Farmers, founded in 1973, and the voluntary standards and certification program popularized by the Rodale Press in 1972.[25] Some retailers have their stores certified as organic handlers and processors to ensure organic compliance is maintained throughout the supply chain until delivered to consumers, such as Vitamin Cottage Natural Grocers, a 60-year-old chain based in Colorado.

Violations of USDA Organic regulations carry fines up to $11,000 per violation, and can also lead to suspension or revocation of a farm or businesss organic certificate.[13]

Once certified, USDA organic products can be exported to countries currently engaged in organic trade agreements with the U.S., including Canada, the European Union, Japan, and Taiwan, and do not require additional certification as long as the terms of the agreement are met.[13]

In Canada, certification was implemented at the federal level on June 30, 2009. Mandatory certification is required for agricultural products represented as organic in import, export and inter-provincial trade, or that bear the federal organic logo.[26] In Quebec, provincial legislation provides government oversight of organic certification within the province, through the Quebec Accreditation Board (Conseil D'Accrditation Du Qubec). Only products that use at least 95% organic materials in production are allowed to bear the Canadian organic logo. Products between 70-95% may declare they have xx% of organic ingredients, however they do not meet requirements to bear the certified logo.[27] Transitioning from a conventional agricultural operation to an organic operation takes the producers up to three years to receive organic certification, during which time products cannot be marketed as organic products, and producers will not receive pricing premiums on their goods during this time.[28] Cows, sheep, and goats are the only livestock that are allowed to be transitioned to organic, under Canada's regulations. They must undergo organic management for one year before their products can be considered certified organic.[29]

EU countries acquired comprehensive organic legislation with the implementation of the EU-Eco-regulation 1992. Supervision of certification bodies is handled on the national level. In March 2002 the European Commission issued a EU-wide label for organic food. It has been mandatory throughout the EU since July 2010.[30] and has become compulsory after a two-year transition period.[31]

In 2009 a new logo was chosen through a design competition and online public vote.[32][33] The new logo is a green rectangle that shows twelve stars (from the European flag) placed such that they form the shape of a leaf in the wind. Unlike earlier labels no words are presented on the label lifting the requirement for translations referring to organic food certification.[34]

The new EU organic label has been implemented since July 2010 and has replaced the old European Organic label. However, producers that have had already printed and ready to use packaging with the old label were allowed to use them in the upcoming 2 years.[35]

The development of the EU organic label was develop based on Denmark's organic food policy and the rules behind the Danish organic food label which at the moment holds the highest rate of recognition among its users in the world respectively 98% and 90% trust the label. The current EU organic label is meant to signal to the consumer that at least 95% of the ingredients used in the processed organic food is from organic origin and 5% considered an acceptable error margin.[36]

Besides the public organic certification regulation EU-Eco-regulation in 1992, there are various private organic certifications available:

Following private bodies certify organic produce: KEZ, o. p. s. (CZ-BIO-001), ABCert, AG (CZ-BIO-002) and BIOCONT CZ, s. r. o. (CZ-BIO-003). These bodies provide controlling of processes tied with issueing of certificate of origin. Controlling of compliancy (to (ES) no 882/2004 directive) is provided by government body KZZ (Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture)."9"|Source: "Information on organic produce of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic"

In France, organic certification was introduced in 1985. It has established a green-white logo of "AB - agriculture biologique." The certification for the AB label fulfills the EU regulations for organic food. The certification process is overseen a public institute ("Agence franaise pour le dveloppement et la promotion de l'agriculture biologique" usually shortended to "Agence bio") established in November 2001. The actual certification authorities include a number of different institutes like Aclave, Agrocert, Ecocert SA, Qualit France SA, Ulase, SGS ICS.

In Germany the national label was introduced in September 2001 following in the footsteps of the political campaign of "Agrarwende" (agricultural major shift) led by minister Renate Knast of the Greens party. This campaign was started after the mad-cow disease epidemic in 2000. The effects on farming are still challenged by other political parties. The national "Bio"-label in its hexagon green-black-white shape has gained wide popularity - in 2007 there were 2431 companies having certified 41708 products. The popularity of the label is extending to neighbouring countries like Austria, Switzerland and France.

In the German-speaking countries there have been older non-government organizations that had issued labels for organic food long before the advent of the EU organic food regulations. Their labels are still used widely as they significantly exceed the requirements of the EU regulations. An organic food label like "demeter" from Demeter International has been in use since 1928 and this label is still regarded as providing the highest standards for organic food in the world.[citation needed] Other active NGOs include Bioland (1971), Biokreis (1979), Biopark (1991), Ecoland (1997), Ecovin (1985), Ga e.V. (1989), Naturland (1981) and Bio Suisse (1981).

In Greece, organic certification is available from eight (8) organizations approved by EU.[40] The major of them are BIOHELLAS and the DIO (Greek: - )[1]

In Ireland, organic certification is available from the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association, Demeter Standards Ltd. and Organic Trust Ltd.

In Switzerland, products sold as organic must comply at a minimum with the Swiss organic regulation (Regulation 910.18).[41] Higher standards are required before a product can be labelled with the Bio Suisse label.[42]

In Sweden, organic certification is handled by the organisation KRAV (agriculture) with members such as farmers, processors, trade and also consumer, environmental and animal welfare interests.[43]

In the United Kingdom, organic certification is handled by a number of organizations, regulated by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), of which the largest are the Soil Association and Organic Farmers and Growers. UK certification bodies are required to meet the EU minimum organic standards for all member states; they may choose to certify to standards that exceed the minimums, as is the case with the Soil Association.[44][45]

The farmland converted to produce certified organic food has seen a significant evolution in the EU15 countries, rising from 1.8% in 1998 to 4.1% in 2005. For the current EU25 countries however the statistics report an overall percentage of just 1.5% as of 2005. However the statistics showed a larger turnover of organic food in some countries, reaching 10% in France and 14% in Germany. In France 21% of available vegetables, fruits, milk and eggs were certified as organic. Numbers for 2010 show that 5.4% of German farmland has been converted to produce certified organic food, as has 10.4% of Swiss farmland and 11.7% of Austrian farmland.[46] Non-EU countries have widely adopted the European certification regulations for organic food, to increase export to EU countries.

In Australia, organic certification is performed by several organisations that are accredited by the Biosecurity[47] section of the Department of Agriculture (Australia), formerly the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, under the National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce.[48] All claims about the organic status of products sold in Australia are covered under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.[49]

In Australia, the The Organic Federation of Australia is the peak body for the organic industry in Australia[50] and is part of the government's Organic Consultative Committee Legislative Working Group that sets organic standards.[51]

Department of Agriculture accreditation is a legal requirement for all organic products exported from Australia.[48] Export Control (Organic Produce Certification) Orders are used by the Department to assess organic certifying bodies and recognise them as approved certifying organisations. Approved certifying organisations are assessed by the Department for both initial recognition and on an at least annual basis thereafter to verify compliance.[52]

In the absence of domestic regulation, DOA accreditation also serves as a 'de facto' benchmark for certified product sold on the domestic market.[53] Despite its size and growing share of the economy "the organic industry in Australia remains largely selfgoverned. There is no specific legislation for domestic organic food standardisation and labelling at the state or federal level as there is in the USA and the EU".[54]

The Department has several approved certifying organisations that manage the certification process of organic and bio-dynamic operators in Australia. These certifying organisations perform a number of functions on the Department's behalf:[55]

As of 2015, there are seven approved certifying organisations:[57]

There are 2567 certified organic businesses reported in Australia in 2014. They include 1707 primary producers, 719 processors and manufacturers, 141 wholesalers and retailers plus other operators.[58]

Australia does not have a logo or seal to identify which products are certified organic, instead the logos of the individual certifying organisations are used.[48][59]

In China, the organic certification are administrate by government agency named Certification and Accreditation Administration of the Peoples Republic of China (CNCA). While the implementation of certification works, including site checking, lab test on soil, water, product qualities are perform by China Quality Certification Center (CQC) which is an agency of Administration of Quality Supervision,Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). Organic certification procedure in china are perform according to China Organic Standard GB19630.1-42005 which issued on year 2005. This standard had governed standard procedure for Organic certification process perform by CQC, including application, inspection, lab test procedures, certification decision, post certification administration each. The certificate issue by CQC are valid for 1 year.

There are 2 logo are currently apply by CQC for Organic Certification, including Organic Logo and Conversion to Organic Logo.

In India, APEDA regulates the certification of organic products as per National Standards for Organic Production. "The NPOP standards for production and accreditation system have been recognized by European Commission and Switzerland as equivalent to their country standards. Similarly, USDA has recognized NPOP conformity assessment procedures of accreditation as equivalent to that of US. With these recognitions, Indian organic products duly certified by the accredited certification bodies of India are accepted by the importing countries."[60] Organic food products manufactured and exported from India are marked with the India Organic certification mark issued by the APEDA.[61] APEDA has recognized 11 inspection certification bodies, some of which are branches of foreign certification bodies, others are local certification bodies.

In Japan, the Japanese Agricultural Standard (JAS) was fully implemented as law in April 2001. This was revised in November 2005 and all JAS certifiers were required to be re-accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture.[62]

As of 2014 the The Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) had no organic certification process, but instead relied on international certification bodies; it does not track local producers who claim to have gotten organic certification.[63]

Organic certification is not without its critics. Some of the staunchest opponents of chemical-based farming and factory farming practices also oppose formal certification. They see it as a way to drive independent organic farmers out of business, and to undermine the quality of organic food.[64] Other organizations such as the Organic Trade Association work within the organic community to foster awareness of legislative and other related issues, and enable the influence and participation of organic proponents.

Originally, in the 1960s through the 1980s, the organic food industry was composed of mainly small, independent farmers, selling locally. Organic "certification" was a matter of trust, based on a direct relationship between farmer and consumer. Critics[65] view regulatory certification as a potential barrier to entry for small producers, by burdening them with increased costs,[66] paperwork, and bureaucracy[67]

In China, due to government regulations, international companies wishing to market organic produce must be independently certified. It is reported that "Australian food producers are spending up to $50,000 to be certified organic by Chinese authorities to crack the burgeoning middle-class market of the Asian superpower."[68] Whilst the certification process is described by producers "extremely difficult and very expensive", a number of organic producers have acknowledged the ultimately positive effect of gaining access to the emerging Chinese market. For example, figures from Australian organic infant formula and baby food producer Bellamy's Organic indicate export growth, to China alone, of 70 per cent per year since gaining Chinese certification in 2008,[68] while similar producers have shown export growth of 20 per cent to 30 per cent a year following certification[69]

Peak Australian organic certification body, Australian Certified Organic, has stated however that "many companies have baulked at risking the money because of the complex, unwieldy and expensive process to earn Chinese certification."[68] By comparison, equivalent certification costs in Australia are less than $2,000 (AUD),[70] with costs in the United States as low as $750 (USD) for a similarly sized business.[71]

Manipulation of certification regulations as a way to mislead or outright dupe the public is a very real concern. Some examples are creating exceptions (allowing non-organic inputs to be used without loss of certification status) and creative interpretation of standards to meet the letter, but not the intention, of particular rules. For example, a complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against Bayliss Ranch, a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent, charged that tap water had been certified organic, and advertised for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water introduced during the distilling process, were certified organic, and promoted as an organic base that could then be used in a claim of organic content. The case was dismissed by the USDA, as the products had been actually used only in personal care products, over which the department at the time extended no labeling control. The company subsequently adjusted its marketing by removing reference to use of the extracts in food products. Several months later, the USDA extended its organic labeling to personal care products; this complaint has not been refiled.[72]

In 2013 the Australia Consumer Competition Commission said that water can no longer be labelled as organic water because, based on organic standards, water cannot be organic and it is misleading and deceptive to label any water as such.[73]

The label itself can be used to mislead many customers that foods labelled as being organic are safer, healthier, and more nutritious.[74][75][76][77][78][79][80]

Critics of formal certification also fear an erosion of organic standards. Provided with a legal framework within which to operate, lobbyists can push for amendments and exceptions favorable to large-scale production, resulting in "legally organic" products produced in ways similar to current conventional food.[81] Combined with the fact that organic products are now sold predominantly through high volume distribution channels such as supermarkets, the concern is that the market is evolving to favor the biggest producers, and this could result in the small organic farmer being squeezed out.

In the United States large food companies, have "assumed a powerful role in setting the standards for organic foods."[82] Many members of standard-setting boards come from large food corporations.[82] As more corporate members have joined, many nonorganic substances have been added to the National List of acceptable ingredients.[82] The United States Congress has also played a role in allowing exceptions to organic food standards. In December 2005, the 2006 agricultural appropriations bill was passed with a rider allowing 38 synthetic ingredients to be used in organic foods, including food colorings, starches, sausage and hot-dog casings, hops, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, and gelatin; this allowed Anheuser-Busch in 2007 to have its Wild Hop Lager certified organic "even though [it] uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides."[83][84]

See the rest here:

Organic certification - Wikipedia

The USDA National Organic Program (NOP) defines organic as follows:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.

Back to Top

100% Organic: Made with 100% organic ingredients

Organic: Made with at least 95% organic ingredients

Made With Organic Ingredients: Made with a minimum of 70% organic ingredients with strict restrictions on the remaining 30% including no GMOs (genetically modified organisms)

Products with less than 70% organic ingredients may list organically produced ingredients on the side panel of the package, but may not make any organic claims on the front of the package.

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

However, some recently published studies in peer-reviewed journals have shown organic foods to have higher nutritional value. For example, researchers at the University of California, Davis, recently found that organic tomatoes had higher levels of phytochemicals and vitamin C than conventional tomatoes.

Back to Top

An increasing number of consumers are also of the opinion that organic food tastes better. Because organic food is grown in well-balanced soil, it makes sense that these healthy plants have a great taste. Try organic food for yourself and see what you think!

Back to Top

See the article here:

Organic.org - Organic FAQ

By Colleen Huber, Naturopathyworks

A common perception is that whole organic food is so expensive that it is out-of-budget for the average family or even for the average single consumer. It is also commonly perceived that the average grocery purchase of processed foods at a neighborhood supermarket, using the store discounts, makes the processed food diet within the budget of most families.

If you go along with those who accept the above hypothesis on faith, you may be quite surprised by what you find in this article.

Knowing what I spend on groceries in an average week for my all whole-food, mostly organic-eating family, I had to test the conventional wisdom for myself. So one day in January 2005 I went to a typical supermarket right around the corner from me to see how the other half lives ...

Jotting down in my notebook many processed foods as well as their weights and prices, with all the store savings, I prepared a long list of foods from which I could construct a hypothetical week's worth of processed food for a family of three.

Below you will find a menu of all processed food items for a week, and a list of prices for all the groceries that I hypothetically bought. Then I assembled my hypothetical purchases into a meal plan for a family of three, which you will see below, along with the price list.

Following that, you will find a week's menu and price list for mostly organic, all whole-food meals for the same family of three.

For the sake of simplicity and realistic comparison, I stuck to the following constraints:

There are no leftovers from before the beginning of the week, nor saved at the end (empty refrigerator beginning and end, and no throwing out food; everything purchased gets eaten by the three hypothetical family members).

Unless specified otherwise, all beverage consumption is water.

There are no separate snacks, except for Sunday afternoon, unless an individual saves part of a meal to snack on later.

Neither the cheapest generic brands, nor the most expensive brands were chosen, but rather a brand in the middle, especially if it was on sale.

Portions are listed per family member of a three-person family, although the heartiest appetite in the family may consume some part of the portion left by the smallest appetite. It is assumed that everyone eats the same food at the same time everyday, and that the six ounces of soda at every lunch is either carried in a thermos to work or school, or that this family is on vacation at home, eating every meal at home together and pouring their soda directly from a large bottle kept in the refrigerator.

It is assumed that no family member is deliberately restricting calories, or is otherwise restricting any type of food.

The cold bottled coffee at breakfast may seem a bit extravagant, but consider that this replaces visits to coffee shops or any other form of coffee or tea or recreational beverage. Also, the all-processed food family does not get milk with their cereal, but rather cold, bottled, sugared coffee.

Now consider a menu prepared entirely from whole, organic and free-range foods. One might consider such a diet to be extravagantly expensive. Yet the cost for a week's worth of organic whole food groceries for a family of three is about the same as for the "cheap" processed food.

The same rules apply as with the processed food. No leftovers from the beginning of the week or saved at the end (empty refrigerator beginning and end, with no waste). No restaurant eating or take-out. No beverages other than water. No snacks except for what one person may save for later from his/her apportioned meal. No deliberate calorie restriction, and everyone eats until full.

All meals are listed for one person only of a three-person family, assuming that those with larger appetites may have more, and those of smaller appetites may have an equal amount less, in order to balance out to the average portions listed below.

A significant difference is that the processed food eating family gets a dessert of an ice cream bar, while the whole food eating family gets no dessert. The whole food eating family, however, generally gets much bigger meal portions. The reason behind this is partly demographic realism: those who eat denatured food are missing nutrients that they seek in desserts and other denatured foods, whereas whole food eaters feel completely full when eating in proper proportions for their metabolic types.

We made no attempt to quantify the salad ingredients. Fresh plants and salads are such anarchy of ingredients, they defy standardization. Cooking large meals with whole foods is a little trickier to quantify than packages of pre-weighed processed foods.

The difference is made up in the leftovers. For example, the large crockpot chicken stew at the beginning of the week, the eggplant curry in the middle of the week, and the roast beef at the end are massive enough not only for everyone's dinner, but also for two days' lunches as well, with generous one-pound portions. The one-pound portions of stew are about half added water by weight.

Both the salmon dinners and squash-and-broccoli raab dinners are small enough that the leftovers put together make just one lunch for the family. The advantage to cooking enormous crockpot or Dutch oven meals, with subsequent leftovers, is that although it is more time-consuming to prepare whole food from scratch, it is easier just to do it in fewer larger amounts during the week. If this still seems daunting, please see my article, Cook Whole Food from Scratch, and Keep Your Day Job.

You will notice the savings of $1.22 with a mostly organic, whole-food diet. In fact, our organic food price list shows higher than realistic prices in two ways: The prices shown are at retail health food stores in the Phoenix area. But also in this area, there are at least three organic food-buying groups, with prices for organic produce at about $1.00 per pound.

To find organic food buying groups, co-ops, health food stores, local retail farms and farmers markets in your area, see localharvest.com.

Furthermore, if you have a backyard, especially here in the Southwest, you can save further in ways that processed food eaters can't: Almost all year we grow salad greens, herbs, braising greens of some kind and/or various squashes. (The salad herbs oregano, thyme, mint and parsley never quit here in any season!)

Subtracting the prices of what we are currently pulling out of our backyard garden from what is on the sample menu:

Which means we spend only $122.42 - $5.07 = $117.35 in an average week for a three-person family, which is $6.29 less than the family eating all processed food.

Of course, gardeners in colder climates tend to have really prolific harvests in summer and fall, which is when they will realize much better savings. Processed food eaters are entirely dependent on commercial supply, no matter what the season.

However, the biggest savings of the whole-food eating family has yet to be calculated, as we consider the difference in medical care needs between whole food eaters on the one hand, and those who will continue eating for decades such chemicals as MSG (a.k.a. hydrolyzed wheat protein and several other names), carcinogens or nerve poisons (a.k.a. pesticides), sugar, aspartame and other sweeteners, as well as margarine and other trans-fatty acids, to name some of the most infamous processed food ingredients.

As a wise saying goes, the best reason to eat organic is that pesticides don't know when to stop killing.

Now answer honestly: Can you afford NOT to eat whole organic food?

Colleen Huber, 46, is a wife, mother and student at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in Tempe, Ariz., where she is training to be a naturopathic physician. Her original research on the mechanism of migraines has appeared in Lancet and Headache Quarterly, and was reported in The Washington Post.

Her double blind placebo controlled research in homeopathy has appeared in Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, European Journal of Classical Homeopathy, and Homeopathy Today. Her website Naturopathy Works introduces naturopathic medicine to the layperson and provides references to the abundant medical literature demonstrating that natural medicine does work.

Continued here:

Your Family Could be Eating Organic Food for the Same ...

1. In study after study, research from independent organizations consistently shows organic food is higher in nutrients than traditional foods. Research shows that organic produce is higher in vitamin C, antioxidants, and the minerals calcium, iron, chromium, and magnesium.

2. Theyre free of neurotoxinstoxins that are damaging to brain and nerve cells. A commonly-used class of pesticides called organophosphates was originally developed as a toxic nerve agent during World War I. When there was no longer a need for them in warfare, industry adapted them to kill pests on foods. Many pesticides are still considered neurotoxins.

3. Theyre supportive of growing childrens brains and bodies. Childrens growing brains and bodies are far more susceptible to toxins than adults. Choosing organic helps feed their bodies without the exposure to pesticides and genetically-modified organisms, both of which have a relatively short history of use (and therefore safety).

4. They are real food, not pesticide factories. Eighteen percent of all genetically-modified seeds (and therefore foods that grow from them) are engineered to produce their own pesticides. Research shows that these seeds may continue producing pesticides inside your body once youve eaten the food grown from them! Foods that are actually pesticide factoriesno thanks.

5. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that pesticides pollute the primary drinking source for half the American population. Organic farming is the best solution to the problem. Buying organic helps reduce pollution in our drinking water.

6. Organic food is earth-supportive (when big business keeps their hands out of it). Organic food production has been around for thousands of years and is the sustainable choice for the future. Compare that to modern agricultural practices that are destructive of the environment through widespread use of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers and have resulted in drastic environmental damage in many parts of the world.

7. Organic food choices grown on small-scale organic farms help ensure independent family farmers can create a livelihood. Consider it the domestic version of fair trade.

8. Most organic food simply tastes better than the pesticide-grown counterparts.

9. Organic food is not exposed to gas-ripening like some non-organic fruits and vegetables (like bananas).

10. Organic farms are safer for farm workers. Research at the Harvard School of Public Health found a 70 percent increase in Parkinsons disease among people exposed to pesticides. Choosing organic foods means that more people will be able to work on farms without incurring the higher potential health risk of Parkinsons or other illnesses.

11. Organic food supports wildlife habitats. Even with commonly used amounts of pesticides, wildlife is being harmed by exposure to pesticides.

12. Eating organic may reduce your cancer risk. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60% of herbicides, 90% of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides potentially cancer-causing. It is reasonable to think that the rapidly increasing rates of cancer are at least partly linked to the use of these carcinogenic pesticides.

13. Choosing organic meat lessens your exposure to antibiotics, synthetic hormones, and drugs that find their way into the animals and ultimately into you.

14. Organic food is tried and tested. By some estimates genetically-modified food makes up 80% of the average persons food consumption. Genetic modification of food is still experimental. Avoid being part of this wide scale and uncontrolled experiment.

15. Organic food supports greater biodiversity. Diversity is fundamental to life on this planet. Genetically-modified and non-organic food is focused on high yield monoculture and is destroying biodiversity.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Visit link:

15 Reasons To Eat Organic Food | Care2 Healthy Living

This article is about food that complies with the standards of organic farming. For food advertised as "natural", see natural foods.

Organic food is food produced by methods that comply with the standards of organic farming. Standards vary worldwide, but organic farming in general features practices that strive to cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Organizations regulating organic products may restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in farming. In general, organic foods are also usually not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents or synthetic food additives.[1]

Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Mexico, 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 produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by regional organizations, national governments and international organizations. Although the produce of kitchen gardens may be organic, selling food with an organic label is regulated by governmental food safety authorities, such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or European Commission (EC).[2]

There is not sufficient evidence in medical literature to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventionally grown food. While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically- and conventionally-produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results.[3][4][5][6][7] Claims that organic food tastes better are generally not supported by evidence.[4][8]

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 products, generally deemed not organic, introduced into food production.[9] The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture.[10]

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 farmingin contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[11] Early soil scientists also described the differences in soil composition when animal manures were used as "organic", because they contain carbon compounds where superphosphates and haber process nitrogen do not. Their respective use affects humus content of soil.[12][13] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic" in chemistry, which refers 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) as they apply to organic chemistry is an equivocation fallacy when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves. Properly used in this agricultural science context, "organic" refers to the methods grown and processed, not necessarily the chemical composition of the food.

Ideas that organic food could be healthier and better for the environment originated in the early days of the organic movement as a result of publications like the 1943 book The Living Soil[14][15] and Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease (1945).[16]

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. Later, "Know your farmer, know your food" became the motto of a new initiative instituted by the USDA in September 2009.[17] 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, many large corporate farms have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied upon. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.[citation needed]

In the 1970s, interest in organic food grew with the publication of Silent Spring[18] and the rise of the environmental movement, and was also spurred by food-related health scares like the concerns about Alar that arose in the mid-1980s.[19]

Organic food production is a self-regulated industry with government oversight in some countries, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification based on government-defined standards in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, foods marketed as organic are produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organic industry trade organizations.

In the United States, organic production is managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) 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.[20] If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.[21]

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,[22] 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.[23] Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic.[24] 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."[25] Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle[26] in light of unknown risks of nanotechnology.[27]:56 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.[28][29]: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:

In the United States, there are four different levels or categories for organic labeling. 1)100% Organic: This means that all ingredients are produced organically. It also may have the USDA seal. 2)Organic: At least 95% or more of the ingredients are organic. 3)Made With Organic Ingredients': Contains at least 70% organic ingredients. 4)Less Than 70% Organic Ingredients: Three of the organic ingredients must be listed under the ingredient section of the label.[39] In the U.S., the food label "natural" or "all natural" does not mean that the food was produced and processed organically.[40][41]

There is widespread public belief that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and better tasting than conventional food.[42] Consumers purchase organic foods for different reasons, including concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment, human health, and animal welfare.[43]

The most important reason for purchasing organic foods seems to be beliefs about the products' health-giving properties and higher nutritional value.[44] These beliefs are promoted by the organic food industry,[45] and have fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices and difficulty in confirming these claimed benefits scientifically.[3][5][6][46][47] Organic labels also stimulate the consumer to view the product as having more positive nutritional value.[48]

Psychological effects such as the halo effect, which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food, are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food.[4][pageneeded] The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common.[4][pageneeded][49]

In China the increasing demand for organic products of all kinds, and in particular milk, baby food and infant formula, has been "spurred by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children who had consumed baby formula laced with melamine" in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk the largest in the world as of 2014.[50][51][52] A Pew Research Centre survey in 2012 indicated that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety as a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008.[53]

There is no good evidence that organic food tastes better than its non-organic counterparts.[8] 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.[4][pageneeded]

Some foods, such as bananas, are picked when unripe, are cooled to prevent ripening while they are shipped to market, and then are induced to ripen quickly by exposing them to propylene or ethylene, chemicals produced by plants to induce their own ripening; as flavor and texture changes during ripening, this process may affect those qualities of the treated fruit.[54][55] The issue of ethylene use to ripen fruit in organic food production is contentious because ripeness when picked often does affect taste; opponents claim that its use benefits only large companies and that it opens the door to weaker organic standards.[56][57]

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, the methods of testing, and 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.[3][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.[3][6] Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is drier than conventionally grown produce; a higher content in any chemical category may be explained by higher concentration rather than in absolute amounts.[4][pageneeded]

Many people believe that organic foods have higher content of nutrients and thus are healthier than conventionally produced foods. However, scientists have not been equally convinced that this is the case as the research conducted in the field has not shown consistent results.

A 2009 systematic review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that organically produced foodstuffs are not richer in vitamins and minerals than conventionally produced foodstuffs.[58] The results of the systematic review only showed a lower nitrogen and higher phosphorus content in organic produced compared to conventionally grown foodstuffs. Content of vitamin C, calcium, potassium, total soluble solids, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, and sodium did not differ between the two categories.[59]

A 2014 meta-analysis of 343 studies[3] found that organically grown crops had 17% higher concentrations of polyphenols than conventionally grown crops. Concentrations of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols, and anthocyanins were elevated, with flavanones being 69% higher.

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 two nutrients were significantly higher in organic than conventional produce: phosphorus and total polyphenols).[citation needed] A 2011 literature review found that organic foods had a higher micronutrient content overall than conventionally produced foods.[60]

Similarly, organic chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional chicken. The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and conventional raw milk.[61][62]

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat as conventional meat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.[63] Another meta-analysis published the same year found no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and conventional milk, but significantly higher levels of overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic milk than in conventional milk.[64]

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.[5] When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels.[65] Early literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.[4][pageneeded][5] However, a 2014 review found lower concentrations of cadmium, particularly in organically grown grains.[3]

The amount of pesticides that remain in or on food is called pesticides residue. In the United States, before a pesticide can be used on a food crop, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must determine whether that pesticide can be used without posing a risk to human health.[66]

A 2012 meta-analysis determined that detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples and 38% of conventional produce samples. 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] A 2014 meta-analysis found that conventionally grown produce was four times more likely to have pesticide residue than organically grown crops.[3]

The American Cancer Society has stated that no evidence exists that the small amount of pesticide residue found on conventional foods will increase the risk of cancer, though it recommends thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables. They have also stated that there is no research to show that organic food reduces cancer risk compared to foods grown with conventional farming methods.[67]

The Environmental Protection Agency maintains strict guidelines on the regulation of pesticides by setting a tolerance on the amount of pesticide residue allowed to be in or on any particular food.[68][69] Although some residue may remain at the time of harvest, residue tend to decline as the pesticide breaks down over time. In addition, as the commodities are washed and processed prior to sale, the residues often diminish further.

A 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). 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 also statistically insignificant.[6]

Organic meat certification in the United States requires farm animals to be raised according to USDA organic regulations throughout their lives. These regulations require that livestock are fed certified organic food that contains no animal byproducts.[70] Further, organic farm animals can receive no growth hormones or antibiotics, and they must be raised using techniques that protect native species and other natural resources. Irradiation and genetic engineering are not allowed with organic animal production.[70][71][72] One of the major differences in organic animal husbandry protocol is the "pasture rule":[70] minimum requirements for time on pasture do vary somewhat by species and between the certifying agencies, but the common theme is to require as much time on pasture as possible and reasonable.[73][74]

There is little scientific evidence of benefit or harm to human health from a diet high in organic food, and conducting any sort of rigorous experiment on the subject is very difficult. A 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] A 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."[46] 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.

With regard to the possibility that some organic food may have higher levels of certain anti-oxidants, evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting.[75][76][77][78][79]

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."[80] 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."[81] There is no support in the scientific literature that the lower levels of nitrogen in certain organic vegetables translates to improved health risk.[5]

The main difference between organic and conventional food products are the chemicals involved during production and processing. The residues of those chemicals in food products have dubious effects on the human health. All food products on the market including those that contain residues of pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones and other types of chemicals that are used during production and processing are said to be safe.[82]

Claims of improved safety of organic food has largely focused on pesticide residues.[5] 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."[5] 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][pageneeded][5][8][47][83]

Additionally, the Carcinogenic Potency Project,[84] which is a part of the US EPA's Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network,[85] has been systemically testing the carcinogenicity of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, and building a publicly available database of the results[86] 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.

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][pageneeded][5][6] This view has been echoed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture[65] and the UK Food Standards Agency.[7]

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.[88] 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 from negligible levels to undetectable levels when the children switched to an organic diet, the authors presented this reduction as a significant reduction in risk.[89] The conclusions presented in Lu et al. were criticized in the literature as a case of bad scientific communication.[90][91]

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.[5] 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."[92] 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][pageneeded][5]

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][pageneeded][5][8] The 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak was blamed on organic farming of bean sprouts.[93][94]

Demand for organic foods is primarily driven by concerns for personal health and for the environment.[95] Global sales for organic foods climbed by more than 170 percent since 2002 reaching more than $63 billion in 2011[96] while certified organic farmland remained relatively small at less than 2 percent of total farmland under production, increasing in OECD and EU countries (which account for the majority of organic production) by 35 percent for the same time period.[97] Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products, to several times the price.[98] Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts.

While organic food accounts for 12% of total food production worldwide, the organic food sales market is growing rapidly with between 5 and 10 percent of the food market share in the United States according to the Organic Trade Association,[99] significantly outpacing sales growth volume in dollars of conventional food products. World organic food sales jumped from US $23 billion in 2002[100] to $63 billion in 2011.[101]

Production and consumption of organic products is rising rapidly in Asia, and both China and India are becoming global producers of organic crops[102] and a number of countries, particularly China and Japan, also becoming large consumers of organic food and drink.[50][103] The disparity between production and demand, is leading to a two-tier organic food industry, typified by significant and growing imports of primary organic products such as dairy and beef from Australia, Europe, New Zealand and the United States.[104]

More here:

Organic food - Wikipedia

The step-by-step instructions in Put 'em Up will have the most timid beginners filling their pantries and freezers with the preserved goodness of summer in no time. An extensive Techniques section includes complete how-to for every kind of preserving: refrigerating and freezing, air- and oven-drying, cold- and hot-pack canning, and pickling. And with recipe yields as small as a few pints or as large as several gallons, readers can easily choose recipes that work for the amount of produce and time at hand.

Real food advocate Sherri Brooks Vinton offers recipes with exciting flavor combinations to please contemporary palates and put preserved fruits and vegetables on dinner-party menus everywhere. Pickled Asparagus Wasabi Beans are delicious additions to holiday relish trays; Sweet Pepper Marmalade perks up cool-weather roasts; and Berry Bourbon is an unexpected base for a warming cocktail.

The best versions of tried-and-true favorites are all here too. Bushels of fresh-picked apples are easily turned into applesauce, dried fruit rings, jelly, butter, or even brandy. Falling-off-the-vine tomatoes can be frozen whole, oven dried, canned, or made into a tangy marinara. Options for pickling cucumbers range from Bread and Butter Chips and Dills Spears to Asian Ice-Box Pickles. There's something delicious for every pantry!

Recommended Product for Wiser Living: Today, more than ever before, our society is seeking ways to live more conscientiously. To help bring you the very best inspiration and information about greener, more sustainable lifestyles, MOTHER EARTH NEWS is recommending books to readers. For 40 years, MOTHER EARTH NEWS has been North America's "Original Guide to Living Wisely," creating books and magazines for people with a passion for self-reliance and a desire to live in harmony with nature.

Follow this link:

MOTHER EARTH NEWS - Organic Gardening, DIY, Renewable ...