FAQ on Organic Foods

This answer is brought to you by many of the Australian nutrition professionals who regularly contribute to a nutrition email discussion group.
Date of last update: Feb 2005

View Summary FAQ on Organic Foods

What exactly are ‘organic foods’

Although minor variations in standards exist across countries, the term 'organic food' is usually taken to mean a food that has been produced without artificial fertilisers and that has not been subject to treatment with synthetic pesticides or growth promoters of any type, including hormones and antibiotics. Although vaccines may be used in animals grown for organic food production, the use of veterinary drugs is generally avoided or minimised except for genuine remedial care, in which case such meat animals may be withdrawn from certification.

Organic production may also require:

The composting of fresh manures for microbial safety reasons;
That animals in organic production have access to free-ranging environments; and
That animal feedstuffs are of appropriate organic quality.

For example, rendered animal protein (which may have contributed to mad-cow disease in Britain ) is generally not allowed. No organic food should have been subjected to food irradiation, and the use of genetic modification (GM) is also precluded. Materials and methods allowable under organic standards are complex and involve stipulation of animal husbandry standards as well as approved processing and production inputs.

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is responsible for the organic inspection and certification system in collaboration with approved certifying organisations in Australia . This system was set up so that buyers of organic products could be confident that certified produce was grown and processed according to organic principles. The system is supported by Commonwealth legislation and the National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce (National Standard).

A copy of the current organic standard can be seen at:

http://www.bfa.com.au/_files/Organic_Standard_Version6_REVISIONS.pdf

Why do organic foods usually cost more than conventional foods and why are some people prepared to pay extra?

Production yields are often, but not always, lower on organic farms because organic food production does not involve the use of artificial fertilisers, pesticides and other technological aids. Also, labour intensity is greater and many organic farms are smaller than conventional farms, thus missing economies of scale. In Australia you can expect to pay at least a 20 per cent premium for organic food and sometimes much more.

On the other hand, profits on organic farms can be good because of lower costs for fertilisers and pesticides – even if yields are lower. In the UK and Europe , where organic production is higher than in Australia , supermarket prices are coming down significantly as organic production increases.

Many people are prepared to spend the extra money largely on the grounds that they believe organic foods are more nutritious and safer than foods produced by conventional methods. An additional argument used in support of organic food is that it 'tastes better'. Finally, organic food production is often claimed to be less harmful to the environment and to food producers, and many people are willing to accept the extra cost associated with such benefits.

Is there any evidence for greater nutritional value of organic foods compared to conventional foods?

Although several reviews have indicated some consistent differences in favour of organic versus conventional produce, this is difficult to interpret because some of these studies may not have been conducted in a truly scientific manner. Even so, the best of these studies show consistency in higher vitamin C, (and perhaps iron and magnesium), in organic food and consistently less unwanted and potentially toxic nitrates. A simple reason has been postulated for some of the differences observed, particularly for minerals – organic produce may have lower water content, so minerals (and some other nutrients) may be more concentrated in organic than conventional produce.

In recent years this analysis has been extended to include other food components such as antioxidants – potentially important substances in human nutrition – in addition to vitamins and minerals. Levels of antioxidants and some other ‘health-related food components have generally been reported to be higher in organic foods. This may be because these natural chemicals are produced to protect the plant against insect pests, and organic crops have less pesticide protection. Another theory is that the faster growth in artificially fertilised crops causes the plant to concentrate resources for growth rather than production of these antioxidants.

In any case, more sophisticated analyses of the nutritional quality of conventional versus organic foods is required – in animal foods as well as plant foods – before a more definitive answer is available.

While the emerging information so far does suggest higher levels of some nutritional components in organic food, the other question is: ‘does this have advantages for human health?’ Many nutritionists say that a well-formulated diet, organic or not, is all that is required for sufficient intake of health-giving nutrients. Supporters of organic food argue that with consistent consumption, even small advantages could be significant over time. This can only be answered by appropriately controlled scientific studies in human populations. This would be difficult to accomplish.

How about the idea that organic foods taste better than their conventional equivalents; what evidence is there for or against this?

A report by the highly respected Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) concludes that organically grown (golden delicious) apples were found to be firmer and received higher taste scores than conventionally grown apples. Another study showed that organic tomatoes were sweeter and organic carrots had more "carrot taste".

It would appear that, at least for some foods, the organic form can taste better than the conventional equivalent. However, this may not be true for all foods. Higher levels of antioxidants could cause a more ‘bitter’ taste, particularly in leafy green vegetables. Whether this is offset by other taste factors in organic plant foods is not known.

Are organic foods safer than conventional foods? That is, are people less likely to experience contaminant-related health problems by buying only organic foods; and is production of organic foods safer?

Human food consumption: Organic foods clearly have much lower levels of synthetic agricultural chemical residues such as artificial pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and veterinary drugs (eg, antibiotics and growth hormones). Yet it is important to realise that organic foods may still have some residues from incidental soil and environmental contamination, even if the concentrations of these residues are very low.

Microbiological contamination of food is recognised as the main contributor to acute food-borne illness in humans. Organic food production probably makes little difference to this, although the grass- and hay-fed cattle, required in many organic systems, seem less likely to produce the very toxic Escherichia coli O157:H7 strain than grain-fed cattle according to a United States Department of Agriculture review.

According to a survey described in the FAO report, less than one per cent of food-related illness is caused by chemical contamination of food. So even if chemical contamination of organic food is less than for conventional food, this will have only minor effects on the overall rate of acute food-borne illness. Organic proponents argue, however, that some cases of mild pesticide poisoning from pesticide contamination can mimic microbiological food poisoning.

Whether higher, but currently allowed, levels of residues of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics in conventionally produced food have any adverse effects on human health over the longer term is generally unknown. However, some scientists are concerned that antibiotic use in food animals contributes to resistance of pathogenic organisms to antibiotics important in human medicine, with potential for significant adverse effects on human health. The European Union has legislated that from 2006 on, growth-promoting antibiotics (GPA) may not be used in farms in member nations of the EU.

Occupational and environmental health and safety.

Eating organic food implies that the most toxic pesticides are not used in production of that food and consequently are not available for occupational, incidental or deliberate poisonings. This makes organic food production safer for farmers, home gardeners and their families. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that “there may be one million serious unintentional poisonings each year and in addition two million people hospitalized for suicide attempts with pesticides”; and, “on the basis of a survey of self-reported minor poisoning carried out in the Asian region, it is estimated that there could be as many as 25 million agricultural workers in the developing world suffering an episode of poisoning each year”.

While research is ongoing, delayed or chronic toxic effects such as cancer, reproductive and neurological disease from environmental and occupational exposures in conventional food production are probable. Even so, critics of organic food production point to a possible increase in ‘mechanical’ accidents and adverse health outcomes because of a requirement for manual cultivation methods in organic agriculture.

In summary, it could be said that considering the life-cycle of organic food production, known safety advantages are significant compared to conventional food production, with most of these advantages being unrelated to organic food consumption.

What about protecting the environment, and sustainability; how does organic compare with conventional for these aspects?

For some time agricultural ecologists have been warning that much of agriculture is unsustainable. For example, there is a worldwide debate over the effects of conventional farming practices on soil fertility, which may be declining at the same time as the world's human population is increasing by an estimated ~80 million per annum.

Maintenance of soil fertility is critical to sustainability of the food supply – crop rotation, fallowing and organic amendment, strict pollution management, and integration of the farming system into the local environment are all components of any well-managed agricultural system. Organic farming is not unique in practising these, but organic farmers have strict standards under which they are required to practice, which usually means a more reliable outcome for these quality values.

Further, one of the side-effects of the use of toxic pesticides is the inadvertent killing of non-target animals, plants and insects, which not only reduces biodiversity, but may also exacerbate pest management problems by promoting pest resistance.

Assessing the health and environmental benefits of any system requires a full life-cycle analysis with evaluation of benefits and impediments at each stage. For example, although organic agriculture clearly has benefits in preservation of wildlife and habitat, results in less environmental pollution and preserves soil fertility, critics argue that there are also disadvantages compared to conventional food production. As two examples, mechanical energy inputs are greater in organic production and ‘zero-till’ agriculture, which uses herbicides, may be more environmentally friendly than the mechanical weed control used in organic cultivation.

Even so, according to a study reported in 2004 by New Scientist: “Organic farming increases biodiversity at every level of the food chain – all the way from lowly bacteria to mammals. This is the conclusion of the largest review ever done of studies from around the world comparing organic and conventional agriculture.”

The FAO report previously mentioned concludes that organic agriculture is contributing to “energy efficiency, non-pollution, animal welfare ... sustainability and (less) social impact”. Furthermore, the “greater insect and bird diversity or general environmental quality are positive values that are appreciated by consumers.”

It is clear that many scientists see organic farming as having a legitimate role to play in the struggle to feed the world's human population in a sustainable manner.

What is the future for organic farming; for example, will it ever completely take over from conventional food production?

It is unlikely that organic farming will completely replace conventional farming. It has been estimated that without the production of artificial nitrogen fertiliser, the carrying capacity of the world's fertile land is enough for only about 60 per cent of the current population of six billion people. As the world's population approaches an estimated nine billion by the year 2050, our dependence on artificial fertiliser will almost certainly become even greater.

Organic supporters point to the huge food wastage and excessive consumption in the developed countries which could, if more equitably distributed, make up for at least some of the current and predicted shortages. Yet this is a political problem, and one that is very unlikely to be solved in the near future.

Some scientists believe there will be a gradual amalgamation of organic and conventional farming to produce a system – or rather systems, appropriate to different situations – that employ the best aspects of each form of farming to allow adequate and sustainable food production with minimum disruption to the environment.

Even though organic production is not a perfect solution in science or practice, it will probably always be around, because it adds to the choices available to those consumers who are uncertain about the health and safety of food production systems. The organic ‘logo’ enables instant choice and some reassurance for the dedicated, even if their expectations may occasionally be too great. Worldwide, organic food production has been increasing steadily (and in some countries rapidly) for several decades, and it is clearly not a fad or ‘flavour of the month’ phenomenon.