\nAfSD\u2122(ADVOCATE FOR SAVING DOGS\u2122)<\/a>
\nFrom: Nelson<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n
Is organic food worth the cost?<\/span><\/strong><\/h1>\nU.S. organic farming has grown wildly for the
\nlast two decades, but with food demand rising and cash-strapped
\nshoppers pinching pennies, are greener acres still the place to be?<\/strong><\/p>\nBy Russell McLendon<\/strong><\/p>\nThe phrase “organic farming<\/a>”
\nwas coined in 1940 by Lord Northbourne, a British author and Olympic
\nathlete who helped launch the organic movement. Joined by fellow organic
\npioneers like J.I. Rodale<\/a>, Lady Eve Balfour<\/a> and Albert Howard<\/a>,
\nhe championed farms as natural ecosystems, and railed against chemical
\nfertilizers and pesticides. “The farm itself must have a biological
\ncompleteness,” he wrote. “It must be a living entity … which has
\nwithin itself a balanced organic life.”<\/strong><\/p>\nWhile those words still resonate with many farmers and shoppers
\ntoday, however, they were drowned out for decades by famine. Earth’s
\nhuman population grew 293 percent in the 20th century \u2014 compared with an
\naverage of 22 percent each of the previous nine centuries \u2014 and farmers
\ncouldn’t keep up. As hunger spread, an Iowa agronomist named Norman Borlaug<\/a> came to the rescue in the early ’40s, using manmade pesticides, fertilizers and crossbred crops to start the Green Revolution<\/a>, which saved countless lives and won him the 1970 Nobel Prize.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/div>\n\nIt also highlighted a common critique of organic farming: It’s
\nalready hard to feed billions of people, even without rules against
\nspraying chemicals or swapping genes. Borlaug’s methods often raised
\nyields while reducing acreage, and it seemed for years he’d proven the
\norganic movement wrong.<\/strong><\/p>\nBut “chemical farming,” as Lord Northbourne called it, lost some
\nluster when synthetic pesticides and fertilizers were linked to
\nenvironmental ills like cancer<\/a>, blue baby syndrome<\/a>, dying eagles<\/a> and dead zones<\/a>. Ecologists warned of gene pollution<\/a> from genetically modified organisms, and overuse of livestock antibiotics<\/a>
\nwas widely blamed for drug-resistant “superbugs.” This created an
\nopening for organic farming in the late 20th century, and today there
\nare an estimated 1.4 million<\/a> organic farms worldwide, including some 13,000<\/a>
\ncertified in the U.S. Yet despite these gains, organic farms still
\nstruggle to match the output of conventional ones \u2014 no small detail
\nsince there are now about 6.9 billion people on Earth, three times the
\n1940 population. And with that number forecast to hit 9 billion by 2050,
\nthe future of organic farming remains unclear.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/div>\nIt often seems especially murky during economic dips like the
\nrecent recession, when higher-priced products of all kinds tend to
\nsuffer. But does organic food’s premium price translate into any real
\nhealth or environmental benefits? Critics like Alex Avery don’t think so
\n\u2014 the conservative author and researcher has compared “organic-food fanatics<\/a>” to the terrorist group Hezbollah, and wrote a book in 2006 called “The Truth About Organic Foods<\/a>”
\nthat, according to his website, “strips bare organic myths.” While
\nsupporters say organic farming merely reveals the true cost of food,
\nAvery and other critics say it makes food unaffordable. Aside from
\nsupporting synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, they’ve focused their
\nire lately on critics of genetically modified organisms. “For nearly a
\ndecade these agri-extremists have attempted to totally block
\nagricultural biotechnology,” Avery wrote in 2003, calling GMOs “the most
\nimportant and critically needed agricultural advance in human history.”<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/strong><\/div>\nFor more on the backstory, upsides and downsides of organic
\nfarming, below is a look at how the field has evolved over the last 70
\nyears, and what might happen next.<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/strong>A brief history of organic farming<\/strong><\/div>\n\nEarly farmers<\/a>
\nhad no choice but organic farming, and they still achieved some major
\nmilestones over the years, like taming the first grains in Mesopotamia
\nor turning a thin grass called teosinte<\/a> into plump, protein-packed corn.<\/strong><\/p>\nAgriculture has stayed largely organic for most of its 10,000-year
\nhistory, from the first Fertile Crescent plots to the plantations of
\ncolonial America. Some plants would control pests and soil quality
\nnaturally, and humans helped by rotating their crops; if extra
\nfertilizer was needed, manure usually filled in. But some farmers used
\ntoxic additives as early as 4,500 years ago, when Sumerians dusted crops
\nwith sulphur to kill insects. Within a few centuries, the Chinese were
\nkilling lice with heavy metals like arsenic and mercury, a strategy
\nlater applied to crop pests.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/div>\nArsenic remained king of bug killers from medieval times up to the
\nmid-1900s, when science found something more effective. DDT had been
\ncreated in 1874, but it was overlooked as an insecticide until 1939,
\nwhen Swiss chemist Paul M\u00fcller made a world-changing discovery that won
\nhim a Nobel Prize. German chemists had already invented a process<\/a>
\nby then for synthesizing ammonia to make nitrogen fertilizers, for
\nwhich they also won Nobel Prizes. Borlaug then mixed these and other
\nmodern tactics to fight famines in Mexico, India and the Philippines,
\nsecuring his own place in history.<\/strong><\/div>\n <\/strong><\/div>\n\nMeanwhile, a rival revolution still simmered below the surface,
\nadvocating ancient tools like compost and cover crops. It was led in the
\nU.S. by magazine magnate and Rodale Institute founder J.I. Rodale, who
\npopularized organic farming in the 1960s and ’70s as environmental
\nattitudes were already in flux. When Congress officially defined
\n“organic” in 1990 and set up national certification rules, it quickly
\ntriggered an organic bonanza. USDA<\/a>-certified
\nacreage grew by an average 16 percent a year from 2000 to 2008, and
\nstill grew 5 percent in 2009 even amid the recession, points out U.S.
\nNational Organic Program spokeswoman Soo Kim. “I’m no forecaster,” she
\nsays, “but I’d have to say there’s a strong demand for it, and I would
\nexpect that to continue.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong>What does ‘organic’ mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n“Organic farming” suffered an identity crisis until the late 20th
\ncentury, but today the term is regulated by governments and independent
\ncertifiers around the world. The National Organic Program<\/a> handles organic issues in the U.S., a duty it was given by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990<\/a>.
\nIt defines organic farming as any qualified system that’s designed “to
\nrespond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological
\nand mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote
\necological balance and conserve biodiversity.” The NOP website has
\ndetails, including a list of allowed and prohibited substances<\/a>, an archive of organic regulations<\/a>, and a guide to accredited certifying agents<\/a>. For casual grocery shopping, though, keep these four tips in mind when checking food labels:<\/strong><\/div>\nProducts labeled “100 percent organic” must contain only organically
\nproduced ingredients and processing aids (aside from water and salt).<\/strong><\/div>\nProducts labeled “organic” must contain at least 95 percent
\norganically produced ingredients (again, not including water and salt).<\/strong><\/div>\nProducts labeled “made with organic ingredients” must contain at
\nleast 70 percent organic ingredients, and may list up to three on the
\nmain label.<\/strong><\/div>\nNothing with less than 70 percent organic ingredients can say
\n“organic” on its main label, but it can identify organic ingredients on
\nits info panel.<\/strong><\/div>\nWhen the USDA catches someone pitching unqualified products as
\norganic, it can issue a fine \u2014 the agency may levy a civil penalty up to
\n$11,000 against anyone who knowingly sells or labels an “organic”
\nproduct that doesn’t meet NOP rules. But many similar marketing phrases
\nlike “free range,” “sustainably harvested,” or “no drugs or growth
\nhormones used” are often defined less specifically. For example, to call
\nchickens “free range<\/a>,”
\na company “must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been
\nallowed access to the outside,” according to USDA regulations.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/strong>Benefits of organic farming<\/strong><\/div>\n\nThe organic movement began as a reaction against synthetic
\nfertilizers, but it soon evolved into a big-tent alternative to many
\naspects of modern agriculture, including chemical pesticides, preemptive
\nantibiotics, monocultures, factory farms and genetically engineered
\ncrops. Below are some of the main environmental and human health arenas
\nin which supporters say organic farms beat conventional ones:<\/strong><\/p>\n\u2022 <\/strong>Fertilizers:<\/strong> Depleted soil is a major cause of crop
\nfailures, a problem that ancient farmers often solved with organic
\nfertilizers like animal dung, which can restore soil over time by
\nreleasing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, as well as various
\nmicronutrients. Other organic tactics for boosting soil quality include cover crops<\/a> (aka “green manure”), crop rotation<\/a> and composting<\/a>.
\nBut those all involve a lot of manual labor, and by the mid-1800s
\nchemists began finding shortcuts, like a way to make “superphosphate”
\nfrom sulfuric acid and phosphate rocks, or to make ammonia from trace
\ngases in the air and turn it into nitrogen fertilizers. Despite their
\nshort-term benefits, though, these synthetic fertilizers have also been
\nlinked to several long-term drawbacks. They’re costly to make, for one,
\nsince the production of ammonia now accounts for roughly 2 percent<\/a> of global energy use, and mining for phosphorus<\/a>
\nis depleting the planet’s finite reserves. Overfertilization can also
\nharm crops \u2014 as well as human babies if nitrogen seeps into their
\ndrinking water \u2014 and often triggers algae blooms and “dead zones<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\u2022 <\/strong>Pesticides:<\/strong> Plenty of pest-killing chemicals are
\navailable, but organic farms focus more on prevention than treatment.
\nCover crops can suppress weeds before they sprout, while crop rotation
\nkeeps plants one step ahead of diseases. Organic farmers may also grow
\nmultiple crops in one place, known as “polyculture,” to capitalize on
\npest-repelling species. Some “trap crops” even lure and kill bugs \u2014
\nJapanese beetles are drawn to geraniums, for example, and a toxin in the
\npetals paralyzes the beetles<\/a>
\nfor 24 hours, usually enough time for something to kill them. But a
\ngrowing demand for food drove a global shift to synthetic pesticides
\nlast century, especially once DDT and similar insecticides hit the
\nmarket. Several were later banned in the U.S., though, for a problem
\nthat plagues many pesticides: persistence<\/a>.
\nThe longer a chemical sits outside without breaking down, the more
\nlikely it is to accumulate, drift around and even move up the food
\nchain. Safe levels of human exposure vary widely, but on top of things
\nlike brain damage<\/a> and birth defects<\/a>, some have also been linked to cancer. According to one review<\/a>
\nof cancer studies from 1992 to 2003, “Most studies on non-Hodgkin
\nlymphoma and leukemia showed positive associations with pesticide
\nexposure,” and the reviewers add that “a few were able to identify
\nspecific pesticides.” People living near farms may be directly exposed
\nto pesticides, although anyone else can be, too, just by eating a stick
\nof celery. It tops the USDA’s list of pesticide residues<\/a> on food, followed by peaches, kale, strawberries and blueberries (see the interactive graphic<\/a> above for more, or check out a list of the “Dirty Dozen<\/a>” most pesticide-laced produce.)<\/p>\n\u2022 <\/strong>Crop diversity: <\/strong>Growing individual, isolated crops in
\nbulk has become common for large-scale farms, but since it’s an
\nunnatural way for most plants to grow, many require extra help. Known as
\na monoculture, a vast field of one species is risky because all the
\ncrops are vulnerable to the same diseases and conditions, setting up
\ndisasters like the 1840s Irish Potato Famine<\/a>.
\nFarms that use polyculture, however, not only enlist crops to protect
\neach other from pests, but can also still rely on the surviving crops if
\none is killed by disease. And since they have those safeguards built
\ninto their farming system, they have less need for fertilizers and
\npesticides. They also have less need to plant genetically modified
\norganisms, a more recent breakthrough that has amplified the fight over
\nmodern farming. GMOs are often bred to be tolerant of specific pests or
\npesticides, but organic advocates say this creates an unnecessary
\ndependence on pesticides. The agribusiness giant Monsanto, for example,
\nsells Roundup herbicide as well as “Roundup-ready” crops genetically
\nengineered to tolerate Roundup. Critics also warn of “genetic drift”
\nfrom GMO pollen to wild species, and scientists in North Dakota even
\nrecently found two herbicide-resistant varieties of GM canola plants
\nthat had escaped from farms<\/a> into the wild. But GMOs can sometimes help their natural neighbors, too \u2014 another recent study<\/a> found that a certain kind of GM corn both protects itself from corn borer moths as well as non-GM corn planted nearby.<\/p>\n\u2022 <\/strong>Livestock:<\/strong> People have raised animals to eat for
\nmillennia, starting with sheep and goats that nomadic tribes herded some
\n11,000 years ago. Cattle and pigs came next as nomads settled down on
\nfarms, and modern chickens followed a few thousand years later; turkeys
\ntook much longer to tame, finally giving in to the Aztecs around the
\n1300s. Farm animals were long raised outdoors in relatively low
\nconcentrations, but that changed dramatically in the 20th century.
\nChickens were raised in CAFOs<\/a>,
\naka “factory farms,” as early as the 1920s, and the rise of growth
\nhormones, vaccines and antibiotics paved the way for cattle and pork
\nCAFOs soon after. Low-dose antibiotics are still preemptively fed to
\nlivestock at many CAFOs, since the tight conditions raise the risk of
\nillness. But antibiotics have caused issues of their own, since
\noverexposure can breed drug-resistant bacteria. (The FDA issued a draft guidance for industry<\/a> earlier this year, urging companies to volunteer some reductions.) Manure is also a problem, since it gives off methane<\/a> and can be washed away by rain, potentially poisoning rivers, lakes or even groundwater<\/a>. Biotech has also become a big issue for livestock lately, and not just because of cloned cattle<\/a>: The FDA is mulling a proposal, for example, to allow sales of genetically modified salmon<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n<\/strong>Costs of organic farming<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\nCritics of organic farming often focus on how much the food costs, since it usually is more expensive<\/a>
\nthan conventionally grown food, due to a variety of factors such as
\nlower yields and more labor-intensive methods. But those lower yields
\ncan do more than just raise the price of produce \u2014 some experts argue
\nthey also threaten food security at a time when global warming<\/a>
\nis already starting to wreak climatic havoc in some of the world’s
\nbiggest farming regions. Below is a look at two of the main arguments
\nmade against organic farming:<\/strong><\/p>\n\u2022 <\/strong>Food prices:<\/strong> Organic products often cost a few cents
\nto several dollars more than their conventional counterparts, creating
\nan expensive stigma that may hinder the U.S. organic industry from
\ngrowing more quickly than it has. The USDA’s Economic Research Service
\ntracks wholesale and retail price differences between organic and
\nconventional food, and as seen in its most recent national head-to-head comparison<\/a>,
\nthe differences vary widely depending on the product: Organic carrots
\ncost only about 39 percent more than conventional varieties, for
\nexample, while organic eggs cost nearly 200 percent more. (Prices also
\nvary from city to city, which is why the ERS monitors price data in
\nseveral benchmark areas around the country.) Wholesale prices show a
\nsimilar discrepancy: Conventional, wholesale eggs cost an average of
\n$1.21 per dozen in 2008, while the organic option cost $2.61, a
\ndifference of about 115 percent. As stark as those kinds of
\ndiscrepancies can seem during an economic downturn, however, they’re
\nexpected to keep slowly shrinking over the years as organic farms become
\nmore widespread and streamlined, and as they receive more of the tax
\nbreaks and other benefits often given to conventional farms. “The goal
\nis to eventually minimize the price differentiation so it becomes more
\nnarrow between conventional and organic,” says National Organic Program
\nspokeswoman Soo Kim, adding that she’s seen no evidence that organic
\nfood sales are more vulnerable to a recession. “I can only base my
\nanswer on what they have demonstrated during this recession,” she says,
\n“and there was a 5 percent growth of organic food purchases in 2009,
\nwhich comprised about 4 percent of sales in the U.S.”<\/p>\n\u2022 <\/strong>Food availability:<\/strong> As Norman Borlaug led the
\nGreen Revolution in the mid-20th century, he was aware of the rising
\norganic tide back home. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring” had
\nspread distrust of pesticides among Americans, as did the later banning
\nof DDT, and the new U.S. environmental movement was attacking many of
\nthe tactics pioneered by Borlaug (pictured at right in 1996). He
\naddressed his critics several times before his death in 2009, such as in
\na 1997 interview<\/a>
\nwith the Atlantic: “Some of the environmental lobbyists of Western
\nnations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists,”
\nBorlaug said. “They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of
\nhunger. … If they lived just one month amid the misery of the
\ndeveloping world, as I have for 50 years, they’d be crying out for
\ntractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals.” Industrial farming
\nadvocates now carry this torch for Borlaug, arguing for things like the re-legalization of DDT<\/a>
\nand the wider use of GMOs, which they often tout as the only way for
\ncrops to keep up with population growth. It has been documented for
\nyears that organic farms generally produce less food per acre \u2014 in one
\nrecent comparison<\/a>
\nof organic and conventional strawberries, for example, researchers
\nfound the organic plants produced smaller and fewer fruits (although
\nthey were also denser and more nutritious). But several studies in
\nrecent years have also claimed to dispel this notion \u2014 a 2005 study<\/a>
\nfound that organic farms yield the same amount of corn and soybeans as
\nconventional ones, even while using 30 percent less energy, and another study<\/a>
\nin 2007 reported that that yields are “almost equal on organic and
\nconventional farms,” adding that organic farming could triple
\ntraditional farms’ output in developing countries. “My hope,” said one
\nof the study’s authors in a statement, “is that we can finally put a
\nnail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food
\nthrough organic agriculture.”<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/strong>More information<\/strong><\/div>\nTo learn more about organic foods and farming, see the following articles from MNN:<\/strong><\/div>\nStudy: Organic strawberries are healthier than conventional<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nWhy does beef from a local farm cost so much more?<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nMore meat eaters will require doubling of world livestock<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nFarmers were the rock stars 10,000 years ago<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nChefs name gardens as top restaurant trend of 2010<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nFor tips and ideas on your own organic garden<\/a> \u2014 which could provide natural, healthy produce and also save money<\/a>
\non grocery expenses \u2014 check out the MNN how-to guides and galleries
\nbelow. And make sure to watch the video of MNN’s Chuck Leavell touring
\nan organic farm, too:<\/strong><\/div>\nHow to build a greenhouse<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nPreparing your garden bed for winter<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nVegetables to grow during fall<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow broccoli<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow spinach<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow onions<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow peas<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow carrots<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow beets<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nHow to grow lettuce<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\nVideo Link: http:\/\/link.brightcove.com\/services\/player\/bcpid1659835044?bctid=4251234001<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nlast two decades, but with food demand rising and cash-strapped
\nshoppers pinching pennies, are greener acres still the place to be?<\/strong><\/p>\n
By Russell McLendon<\/strong><\/p>\n The phrase “organic farming<\/a>” While those words still resonate with many farmers and shoppers It also highlighted a common critique of organic farming: It’s But “chemical farming,” as Lord Northbourne called it, lost some Early farmers<\/a> Agriculture has stayed largely organic for most of its 10,000-year Meanwhile, a rival revolution still simmered below the surface, <\/strong>What does ‘organic’ mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n When the USDA catches someone pitching unqualified products as The organic movement began as a reaction against synthetic \u2022 <\/strong>Fertilizers:<\/strong> Depleted soil is a major cause of crop \u2022 <\/strong>Pesticides:<\/strong> Plenty of pest-killing chemicals are \u2022 <\/strong>Crop diversity: <\/strong>Growing individual, isolated crops in \u2022 <\/strong>Livestock:<\/strong> People have raised animals to eat for <\/strong>Costs of organic farming<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Critics of organic farming often focus on how much the food costs, since it usually is more expensive<\/a> \u2022 <\/strong>Food prices:<\/strong> Organic products often cost a few cents \u2022 <\/strong>Food availability:<\/strong> As Norman Borlaug led the Video Link: http:\/\/link.brightcove.com\/services\/player\/bcpid1659835044?bctid=4251234001<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nwas coined in 1940 by Lord Northbourne, a British author and Olympic
\nathlete who helped launch the organic movement. Joined by fellow organic
\npioneers like J.I. Rodale<\/a>, Lady Eve Balfour<\/a> and Albert Howard<\/a>,
\nhe championed farms as natural ecosystems, and railed against chemical
\nfertilizers and pesticides. “The farm itself must have a biological
\ncompleteness,” he wrote. “It must be a living entity … which has
\nwithin itself a balanced organic life.”<\/strong><\/p>\n
\ntoday, however, they were drowned out for decades by famine. Earth’s
\nhuman population grew 293 percent in the 20th century \u2014 compared with an
\naverage of 22 percent each of the previous nine centuries \u2014 and farmers
\ncouldn’t keep up. As hunger spread, an Iowa agronomist named Norman Borlaug<\/a> came to the rescue in the early ’40s, using manmade pesticides, fertilizers and crossbred crops to start the Green Revolution<\/a>, which saved countless lives and won him the 1970 Nobel Prize.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nalready hard to feed billions of people, even without rules against
\nspraying chemicals or swapping genes. Borlaug’s methods often raised
\nyields while reducing acreage, and it seemed for years he’d proven the
\norganic movement wrong.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nluster when synthetic pesticides and fertilizers were linked to
\nenvironmental ills like cancer<\/a>, blue baby syndrome<\/a>, dying eagles<\/a> and dead zones<\/a>. Ecologists warned of gene pollution<\/a> from genetically modified organisms, and overuse of livestock antibiotics<\/a>
\nwas widely blamed for drug-resistant “superbugs.” This created an
\nopening for organic farming in the late 20th century, and today there
\nare an estimated 1.4 million<\/a> organic farms worldwide, including some 13,000<\/a>
\ncertified in the U.S. Yet despite these gains, organic farms still
\nstruggle to match the output of conventional ones \u2014 no small detail
\nsince there are now about 6.9 billion people on Earth, three times the
\n1940 population. And with that number forecast to hit 9 billion by 2050,
\nthe future of organic farming remains unclear.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nrecent recession, when higher-priced products of all kinds tend to
\nsuffer. But does organic food’s premium price translate into any real
\nhealth or environmental benefits? Critics like Alex Avery don’t think so
\n\u2014 the conservative author and researcher has compared “organic-food fanatics<\/a>” to the terrorist group Hezbollah, and wrote a book in 2006 called “The Truth About Organic Foods<\/a>”
\nthat, according to his website, “strips bare organic myths.” While
\nsupporters say organic farming merely reveals the true cost of food,
\nAvery and other critics say it makes food unaffordable. Aside from
\nsupporting synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, they’ve focused their
\nire lately on critics of genetically modified organisms. “For nearly a
\ndecade these agri-extremists have attempted to totally block
\nagricultural biotechnology,” Avery wrote in 2003, calling GMOs “the most
\nimportant and critically needed agricultural advance in human history.”<\/strong><\/div>\n
\nfarming, below is a look at how the field has evolved over the last 70
\nyears, and what might happen next.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\nhad no choice but organic farming, and they still achieved some major
\nmilestones over the years, like taming the first grains in Mesopotamia
\nor turning a thin grass called teosinte<\/a> into plump, protein-packed corn.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nhistory, from the first Fertile Crescent plots to the plantations of
\ncolonial America. Some plants would control pests and soil quality
\nnaturally, and humans helped by rotating their crops; if extra
\nfertilizer was needed, manure usually filled in. But some farmers used
\ntoxic additives as early as 4,500 years ago, when Sumerians dusted crops
\nwith sulphur to kill insects. Within a few centuries, the Chinese were
\nkilling lice with heavy metals like arsenic and mercury, a strategy
\nlater applied to crop pests.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nmid-1900s, when science found something more effective. DDT had been
\ncreated in 1874, but it was overlooked as an insecticide until 1939,
\nwhen Swiss chemist Paul M\u00fcller made a world-changing discovery that won
\nhim a Nobel Prize. German chemists had already invented a process<\/a>
\nby then for synthesizing ammonia to make nitrogen fertilizers, for
\nwhich they also won Nobel Prizes. Borlaug then mixed these and other
\nmodern tactics to fight famines in Mexico, India and the Philippines,
\nsecuring his own place in history.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\nadvocating ancient tools like compost and cover crops. It was led in the
\nU.S. by magazine magnate and Rodale Institute founder J.I. Rodale, who
\npopularized organic farming in the 1960s and ’70s as environmental
\nattitudes were already in flux. When Congress officially defined
\n“organic” in 1990 and set up national certification rules, it quickly
\ntriggered an organic bonanza. USDA<\/a>-certified
\nacreage grew by an average 16 percent a year from 2000 to 2008, and
\nstill grew 5 percent in 2009 even amid the recession, points out U.S.
\nNational Organic Program spokeswoman Soo Kim. “I’m no forecaster,” she
\nsays, “but I’d have to say there’s a strong demand for it, and I would
\nexpect that to continue.”<\/strong><\/p>\n
\ncentury, but today the term is regulated by governments and independent
\ncertifiers around the world. The National Organic Program<\/a> handles organic issues in the U.S., a duty it was given by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990<\/a>.
\nIt defines organic farming as any qualified system that’s designed “to
\nrespond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological
\nand mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote
\necological balance and conserve biodiversity.” The NOP website has
\ndetails, including a list of allowed and prohibited substances<\/a>, an archive of organic regulations<\/a>, and a guide to accredited certifying agents<\/a>. For casual grocery shopping, though, keep these four tips in mind when checking food labels:<\/strong><\/div>\n
\nproduced ingredients and processing aids (aside from water and salt).<\/strong><\/div>\n
\norganically produced ingredients (again, not including water and salt).<\/strong><\/div>\n
\nleast 70 percent organic ingredients, and may list up to three on the
\nmain label.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\n“organic” on its main label, but it can identify organic ingredients on
\nits info panel.<\/strong><\/div>\n
\norganic, it can issue a fine \u2014 the agency may levy a civil penalty up to
\n$11,000 against anyone who knowingly sells or labels an “organic”
\nproduct that doesn’t meet NOP rules. But many similar marketing phrases
\nlike “free range,” “sustainably harvested,” or “no drugs or growth
\nhormones used” are often defined less specifically. For example, to call
\nchickens “free range<\/a>,”
\na company “must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been
\nallowed access to the outside,” according to USDA regulations.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nfertilizers, but it soon evolved into a big-tent alternative to many
\naspects of modern agriculture, including chemical pesticides, preemptive
\nantibiotics, monocultures, factory farms and genetically engineered
\ncrops. Below are some of the main environmental and human health arenas
\nin which supporters say organic farms beat conventional ones:<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nfailures, a problem that ancient farmers often solved with organic
\nfertilizers like animal dung, which can restore soil over time by
\nreleasing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, as well as various
\nmicronutrients. Other organic tactics for boosting soil quality include cover crops<\/a> (aka “green manure”), crop rotation<\/a> and composting<\/a>.
\nBut those all involve a lot of manual labor, and by the mid-1800s
\nchemists began finding shortcuts, like a way to make “superphosphate”
\nfrom sulfuric acid and phosphate rocks, or to make ammonia from trace
\ngases in the air and turn it into nitrogen fertilizers. Despite their
\nshort-term benefits, though, these synthetic fertilizers have also been
\nlinked to several long-term drawbacks. They’re costly to make, for one,
\nsince the production of ammonia now accounts for roughly 2 percent<\/a> of global energy use, and mining for phosphorus<\/a>
\nis depleting the planet’s finite reserves. Overfertilization can also
\nharm crops \u2014 as well as human babies if nitrogen seeps into their
\ndrinking water \u2014 and often triggers algae blooms and “dead zones<\/a>.”<\/p>\n
\navailable, but organic farms focus more on prevention than treatment.
\nCover crops can suppress weeds before they sprout, while crop rotation
\nkeeps plants one step ahead of diseases. Organic farmers may also grow
\nmultiple crops in one place, known as “polyculture,” to capitalize on
\npest-repelling species. Some “trap crops” even lure and kill bugs \u2014
\nJapanese beetles are drawn to geraniums, for example, and a toxin in the
\npetals paralyzes the beetles<\/a>
\nfor 24 hours, usually enough time for something to kill them. But a
\ngrowing demand for food drove a global shift to synthetic pesticides
\nlast century, especially once DDT and similar insecticides hit the
\nmarket. Several were later banned in the U.S., though, for a problem
\nthat plagues many pesticides: persistence<\/a>.
\nThe longer a chemical sits outside without breaking down, the more
\nlikely it is to accumulate, drift around and even move up the food
\nchain. Safe levels of human exposure vary widely, but on top of things
\nlike brain damage<\/a> and birth defects<\/a>, some have also been linked to cancer. According to one review<\/a>
\nof cancer studies from 1992 to 2003, “Most studies on non-Hodgkin
\nlymphoma and leukemia showed positive associations with pesticide
\nexposure,” and the reviewers add that “a few were able to identify
\nspecific pesticides.” People living near farms may be directly exposed
\nto pesticides, although anyone else can be, too, just by eating a stick
\nof celery. It tops the USDA’s list of pesticide residues<\/a> on food, followed by peaches, kale, strawberries and blueberries (see the interactive graphic<\/a> above for more, or check out a list of the “Dirty Dozen<\/a>” most pesticide-laced produce.)<\/p>\n
\nbulk has become common for large-scale farms, but since it’s an
\nunnatural way for most plants to grow, many require extra help. Known as
\na monoculture, a vast field of one species is risky because all the
\ncrops are vulnerable to the same diseases and conditions, setting up
\ndisasters like the 1840s Irish Potato Famine<\/a>.
\nFarms that use polyculture, however, not only enlist crops to protect
\neach other from pests, but can also still rely on the surviving crops if
\none is killed by disease. And since they have those safeguards built
\ninto their farming system, they have less need for fertilizers and
\npesticides. They also have less need to plant genetically modified
\norganisms, a more recent breakthrough that has amplified the fight over
\nmodern farming. GMOs are often bred to be tolerant of specific pests or
\npesticides, but organic advocates say this creates an unnecessary
\ndependence on pesticides. The agribusiness giant Monsanto, for example,
\nsells Roundup herbicide as well as “Roundup-ready” crops genetically
\nengineered to tolerate Roundup. Critics also warn of “genetic drift”
\nfrom GMO pollen to wild species, and scientists in North Dakota even
\nrecently found two herbicide-resistant varieties of GM canola plants
\nthat had escaped from farms<\/a> into the wild. But GMOs can sometimes help their natural neighbors, too \u2014 another recent study<\/a> found that a certain kind of GM corn both protects itself from corn borer moths as well as non-GM corn planted nearby.<\/p>\n
\nmillennia, starting with sheep and goats that nomadic tribes herded some
\n11,000 years ago. Cattle and pigs came next as nomads settled down on
\nfarms, and modern chickens followed a few thousand years later; turkeys
\ntook much longer to tame, finally giving in to the Aztecs around the
\n1300s. Farm animals were long raised outdoors in relatively low
\nconcentrations, but that changed dramatically in the 20th century.
\nChickens were raised in CAFOs<\/a>,
\naka “factory farms,” as early as the 1920s, and the rise of growth
\nhormones, vaccines and antibiotics paved the way for cattle and pork
\nCAFOs soon after. Low-dose antibiotics are still preemptively fed to
\nlivestock at many CAFOs, since the tight conditions raise the risk of
\nillness. But antibiotics have caused issues of their own, since
\noverexposure can breed drug-resistant bacteria. (The FDA issued a draft guidance for industry<\/a> earlier this year, urging companies to volunteer some reductions.) Manure is also a problem, since it gives off methane<\/a> and can be washed away by rain, potentially poisoning rivers, lakes or even groundwater<\/a>. Biotech has also become a big issue for livestock lately, and not just because of cloned cattle<\/a>: The FDA is mulling a proposal, for example, to allow sales of genetically modified salmon<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nthan conventionally grown food, due to a variety of factors such as
\nlower yields and more labor-intensive methods. But those lower yields
\ncan do more than just raise the price of produce \u2014 some experts argue
\nthey also threaten food security at a time when global warming<\/a>
\nis already starting to wreak climatic havoc in some of the world’s
\nbiggest farming regions. Below is a look at two of the main arguments
\nmade against organic farming:<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nto several dollars more than their conventional counterparts, creating
\nan expensive stigma that may hinder the U.S. organic industry from
\ngrowing more quickly than it has. The USDA’s Economic Research Service
\ntracks wholesale and retail price differences between organic and
\nconventional food, and as seen in its most recent national head-to-head comparison<\/a>,
\nthe differences vary widely depending on the product: Organic carrots
\ncost only about 39 percent more than conventional varieties, for
\nexample, while organic eggs cost nearly 200 percent more. (Prices also
\nvary from city to city, which is why the ERS monitors price data in
\nseveral benchmark areas around the country.) Wholesale prices show a
\nsimilar discrepancy: Conventional, wholesale eggs cost an average of
\n$1.21 per dozen in 2008, while the organic option cost $2.61, a
\ndifference of about 115 percent. As stark as those kinds of
\ndiscrepancies can seem during an economic downturn, however, they’re
\nexpected to keep slowly shrinking over the years as organic farms become
\nmore widespread and streamlined, and as they receive more of the tax
\nbreaks and other benefits often given to conventional farms. “The goal
\nis to eventually minimize the price differentiation so it becomes more
\nnarrow between conventional and organic,” says National Organic Program
\nspokeswoman Soo Kim, adding that she’s seen no evidence that organic
\nfood sales are more vulnerable to a recession. “I can only base my
\nanswer on what they have demonstrated during this recession,” she says,
\n“and there was a 5 percent growth of organic food purchases in 2009,
\nwhich comprised about 4 percent of sales in the U.S.”<\/p>\n
\nGreen Revolution in the mid-20th century, he was aware of the rising
\norganic tide back home. Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring” had
\nspread distrust of pesticides among Americans, as did the later banning
\nof DDT, and the new U.S. environmental movement was attacking many of
\nthe tactics pioneered by Borlaug (pictured at right in 1996). He
\naddressed his critics several times before his death in 2009, such as in
\na 1997 interview<\/a>
\nwith the Atlantic: “Some of the environmental lobbyists of Western
\nnations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists,”
\nBorlaug said. “They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of
\nhunger. … If they lived just one month amid the misery of the
\ndeveloping world, as I have for 50 years, they’d be crying out for
\ntractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals.” Industrial farming
\nadvocates now carry this torch for Borlaug, arguing for things like the re-legalization of DDT<\/a>
\nand the wider use of GMOs, which they often tout as the only way for
\ncrops to keep up with population growth. It has been documented for
\nyears that organic farms generally produce less food per acre \u2014 in one
\nrecent comparison<\/a>
\nof organic and conventional strawberries, for example, researchers
\nfound the organic plants produced smaller and fewer fruits (although
\nthey were also denser and more nutritious). But several studies in
\nrecent years have also claimed to dispel this notion \u2014 a 2005 study<\/a>
\nfound that organic farms yield the same amount of corn and soybeans as
\nconventional ones, even while using 30 percent less energy, and another study<\/a>
\nin 2007 reported that that yields are “almost equal on organic and
\nconventional farms,” adding that organic farming could triple
\ntraditional farms’ output in developing countries. “My hope,” said one
\nof the study’s authors in a statement, “is that we can finally put a
\nnail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food
\nthrough organic agriculture.”<\/p>\n
\non grocery expenses \u2014 check out the MNN how-to guides and galleries
\nbelow. And make sure to watch the video of MNN’s Chuck Leavell touring
\nan organic farm, too:<\/strong><\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.mnn.com\/sites\/default\/files\/imagecache\/270x163\/gloss_orgfarming.jpg\")
<\/a> <\/strong><\/p>\n