Organic food
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (July 2009) |
Organic food production is a heavily regulated industry, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as "organic" within their borders. Most certifications allow some chemicals and pesticides to be used[citation needed], so consumers should be aware of the standards for qualifying as "organic" in their respective locales.
Historically, organic farms have been relatively small family-run operations, which is why organic food was once only available in small stores or farmers' markets.[citation needed] However, since the early 1990s organic food production has had growth rates of around 20% a year, far ahead of the rest of the food industry, in both developed and developing nations. As of April 2008, organic food accounts for 1–2% of food sales worldwide.[citation needed]
Contents
[hide]- 1 Meaning and origin of the term
- 2 Identifying organic food
- 3 Environmental impact
- 4 Safety and pesticides
- 5 Nutritional value and taste
- 6 Cost
- 7 Related movements
- 8 Facts and statistics
- 9 See also
- 10 References
- 11 Further reading
- 12 External links
Meaning and origin of the term
In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."[3] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic," to refer to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life.
Identifying organic food
Mixed organic bean sprouts- See also: Organic farming for information on the production of organic food.
Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, non-use of unapproved pesticides, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers: "Know your farmer, know your food" was the motto. Personal definitions of what constituted "organic" were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored. As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection. Today there is no limit to organic farm sizes and many large corporate farms currently have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.
The USDA carries out routine inspections of farms that produce USDA Organic labeled foods.[5] Of the 30 third party inspectors 15 of them have been placed under probation after an audit. On April 20, 2010, the Department of Agriculture said that it would begin enforcing rules requiring the spot testing of organically grown foods for traces of pesticides, after an auditor exposed major gaps in federal oversight of the organic food industry.[6]
Legal definition
Main article: Organic certification
To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:- Australia: Australian Organic Standard and NASAA Organic Standard
- Canada: Canada Gazette, Government of Canada
- European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
- Sweden: KRAV
- United Kingdom: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
- Norway: Debio Organic certification
- India: NPOP, (National Program for Organic Production)
- Japan: JAS Standards.
- United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards
Environmental impact
Several surveys and studies have attempted to examine and compare conventional and organic systems of farming. The general consensus across these surveys[7][8] is that organic farming is less damaging for the following reasons:
- Organic farms do not consume or release synthetic pesticides into the environment—some of which have the potential to harm soil, water and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
- Organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, i.e., populations of plants and insects, as well as animals.
- When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste, e.g., waste such as packaging materials for chemicals.
A 2003 investigation by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs in the UK found, similar to other reports, that organic farming "can produce positive environmental benefits", but that some of the benefits were decreased or lost when comparisons are made on "the basis of unit production rather than area".[11]
Yield
One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms using 50% less fertilizer and 97% less pesticide.[12] Studies comparing yields have had mixed results.[13] Supporters claim that organically managed soil has a higher quality[14] and higher water retention. This may help increase yields for organic farms in drought years.One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming.[15] Findings like these, and the dependence of organic food on manure from low-yield cattle, has prompted criticism from scientists that organic farming is environmentally unsound and incapable of feeding the world population.[9] Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the "green revolution," and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process.[10] Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, responds to this by pointing out that the average yield of world agriculture is substantially lower than modern sustainable farming yields. Bringing average world yields up to modern organic levels could increase the worlds food supply by 50 %.[16]
A 2007 study [17] 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. (from the abstract)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. On the other hand, communities that lack sufficient manure to replenish soils would struggle with organic farming, and the soil would degrade rapidly.[18]
Energy efficiency
A study of the sustainability of apple production systems showed that in comparing a conventional farming system to an organic method of farming, the organic system is more energy efficient.[19] However, this is debatable due to organic farming's large use of tillage for weed control. Also increased fuel use from incorporating less nutrient dense fertilizers results in higher fuel consumption rates. The general analysis is that organic production methods are usually more energy efficient because they do not use chemically synthesized nitrogen. But they generally consume more petroleum because of the lack of other options for weed control and more intensive soil management practices.[citation needed]Energy efficiency is hard to determine; in the case listed above the author cites a book written in 1976. The true value of efficiency and energy consumption in relation to organic farms has yet to be determined.
Pesticides and farmers
There are studies detailing the effects and side effects of pesticides upon the health of farm workers.[20] Even when pesticides are organic, and are used correctly, they still end up in the air and bodies of farm workers. Through these studies, organophosphate pesticides have become associated with acute health problems such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems.[21] In addition, there have been many other studies that have found pesticide exposure is associated with more severe health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions,[22][23] cancer,[24] depression, neurologic deficits,[25][26] miscarriages, and birth defects.[27] Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurological outcomes and cancer in organophosphate-exposed workers.[28][29] Those pesticides found to cause major health problems are banned for use in agriculture, conventional or organic, in many developed counties.Imported fruits and vegetables from Latin America are more likely to contain high level of pesticides,[30] even pesticides banned for use in the United States.[31] Migratory birds, such as Swainson's Hawks, have wintering grounds in Argentina where thousands of them were found dead from monocrotophos insecticide poisoning.[citation needed]
Safety and pesticides
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.[32] A recent study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 schoolchildren before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[33] Food residue limits established by law are set specifically with children in mind and consider a child's lifetime ingestion of each pesticide.[34]There are controversial data on the health implications of certain pesticides. For example, the herbicide Atrazine has been shown in some experiments to be a teratogen, causing demasculinization in male frogs exposed to small concentrations. Under the effects of Atrazine, male frogs were found to have greatly increased occurrences of either malformed gonads, or testicular gonads which contain non-degenerate eggs.[35] Effects were however significantly reduced in high concentrations, as is consistent with other teratogens affecting the endocrine system, such as estradiol.
Organic farming standards do not allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do allow the use of specific pesticides derived from plants. The most common organic pesticides, accepted for restricted use by most organic standards, include Bt, pyrethrum and rotenone. Rotenone has high toxicity to fish and aquatic creatures, causes Parkinson's disease if injected into rats, and shows other toxicity to mammals.[36]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies periodically review the licensing of suspect pesticides, but the process of de-listing is slow. One example of this slow process is exemplified by the pesticide Dichlorvos, or DDVP, which as recently as the year 2006 the EPA proposed its continued sale. The EPA has almost banned this pesticide on several occasions since the 1970s, but it never did so despite considerable evidence that suggests DDVP is not only carcinogenic but dangerous to the human nervous system—especially in children.[37] The EPA "has determined that risks do not exceed levels of concern",[38] a study of longterm exposure to DDVP in rats showed no toxic effects.[39]
A study published in 2002 showed that "Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods."[40][41]
Monitoring of pesticide residues in the United States is carried out by the Pesticide Data Program, a branch of the USDA created in 1990. It has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides – with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent results found in 2005 that:
| “ | These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent compound and metabolite(s) combined], 30 percent contained 1 pesticide, and slightly over 40 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. | ” |
Nutritional value and taste
In April 2009, results from Quality Low Input Food (QLIF), a 5-year integrated study funded by the European Commission,[53] confirmed that "the quality of crops and livestock products from organic and conventional farming systems differs considerably."[54] Specifically, results from a QLIF project studying the effects of organic and low-input farming on crop and livestock nutritional quality "showed that organic food production methods resulted in some case: (a) higher levels of nutritionally desirable compounds (e.g., vitamins/antioxidants and poly-unsaturated fatty acids such as omega-3 and CLA); (b) lower levels of nutritionally undesirable compounds such as heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues and glyco-alkaloids in a range of crops and/or milk; (c) a lower risk of faecal Salmonella shedding in pigs." but also showed no significant difference between traditionally grown foods on other studies.[55] The QLIF study also concludes that "further and more detailed studies are required to provide proof for positive health impacts of organic diets on human and animal health."[54] Alternatively, according to the UK's Food Standards Agency, "Consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food. However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."[56] 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."[57] Other studies have found no proof that organic food offers greater nutritional values, more consumer safety or any distinguishable difference in taste.[58][59][60][61] A recent review of nutrition claims showed that organic food proponents are unreliable information sources which harm consumers, and that consumers are wasting their money if they buy organic food believing that that it contains better nutrients.[62]Regarding taste, a 2001 study concluded that organic apples were sweeter by blind taste test. Firmness of the apples was also rated higher than those grown conventionally.[63] Limited use of food preservatives may cause faster spoilage of organic foods. Current studies have not found differences in the amounts of natural biotoxins between organic and conventional foods.[64]
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar