NOTE: This report has such a good summary that we've extracted it here - full report follows.

In Organic agriculture – Synthetic fertilisers and pesticides are not allowed in organic growing. Only in exceptional circumstances are any pesticides permitted. Organic certification in the UK permits the use of only 4 pesticides of natural origin or made from simple chemicals which can be applied only in emergencies. Only 10 tons of the 4 permitted pesticides were used on UK organic farms in 2003, as opposed to 31,000 tons of pesticides used on conventional farmland.

Organic growing methods use crop rotation and natural organic matter to fertilise to produce healthy soil

In Conventional Agriculture – The intensive use of land in conventional agriculture depletes the soil and the nutrients in food grown it. A study carried out by MAFF in the UK over a period of 50 years, from 1940-1991 showed a 12-76% decline in the trace mineral content of UK fruits and vegetables. Crops grown conventionally are planted on the same fields every year, and often mono-cropping (growing the same crop on the same field every year) is practised. To restore soil content, chemical fertilizers are applied. The high nitrogen levels in synthetic fertilisers make vegetables and fruits grow bigger more quickly and increases water uptake. High water content and rapid growth rates reduce taste and dilutes nutrient density. Diets full of these foods tend to promote over eating which can lead to obesity. ‘Satisfaction’ levels that used to be obtained from tasteful food can often be replaced with a feeling of ‘satisfaction’ gained from over eating. What is more, the reduced nutritional density in conventional food requires more of it to be eaten to obtain the necessary vitamin and mineral levels, and increased food consumption causes higher calorie intake and subsequent weight gain.

In Organic Agriculture – In organic food production the land is 'rested' and renewed. Food crops are 'rotated' every growing season so that the same crop is not grown on the same land every year. The soil is enriched with the use of natural fertilizers like manure and 'cover crops' (clover and legumes) which fix nitrogen naturally. Manure is used in accordance with strict guidelines, and clover and legumes crops are planted alternatively with food crops (in between growing seasons) and ploughed into the soil to improve nitrogen levels and the growth of soil microbes. These natural fertilisers promote normal growth rates (and normal water intake) which produce vegetables and fruits with compact cellular structures which concentrate taste and nutrient density. Tasteful food gives ‘satisfaction’ and reduces compulsive eating and weight gain. Higher nutrient density in organic food gives more vitamins and minerals per ounce than conventional foods, which reduces the need to consume a lot of food to obtain necessary nutrients levels.

Organic animal production forbids use of growth hormones and limits use of medicines.

In Conventional Agriculture - Animal production on conventional farms uses antibiotics as ‘growth promoters’. This widespread practice has greatly increased levels of antibiotic resistance in humans. Over use of antibiotics causes bacteria to become resistant to them making antibiotics administered as medicines ineffective. Hospitals now struggle to control simple infections that standard antibiotics used to cure. What is more, animals conventionally bred are feed chemically produced feed crops which cause health defects which in turn require medicines to treat - adding to the health risks from meat, milk and eggs.

In Organic Agriculture - Organic standards do not allow the use of antibiotics as growth hormones. Medicine use of all kinds is highly regulated by organic standards to reduce health risks to animals and the food supply.

Organic production standards forbid the use of genetically modified organisms for both environmental and health reasons

In Conventional Agriculture - The biotech industry has waged a massive propaganda campaign to promote GM food as 'substantially equivalent' to conventional food and therefore ‘the same’ as conventional food. However, the differences between GM food and conventional food are not tested for. GM technology is imprecise and can cause unpredictable changes in GM food which might result in new allergies or toxic reactions. In the simple 'substantial equivalence' tests do not even look for problems that the process of genetic modification can cause.

In Organic Agriculture – Organic standards world-wide outlaw the use of GMO’s. The use of GM seeds and plants are forbidden in organic growing because the effects on human health are unknown. No tests have ever been conducted to assess the health risks to humans from eating GM food even though GM food contains genes that have never been part of the human diet. It is of concern that the few independent scientific studies done on animals showed serious damage to the virtually every system and organ of laboratory test animals fed GM feed. Organic standards reject GMO’s for environmental reasons. GM crops, wherever they have been grown in the world, have contaminated conventional and organic crops with GM DNA. Genetic damage cannot be reversed once released into the environment and contamination incidents cannot be rectified. No containment methods employed to date have prevented GM crops from escaping into the environment and contaminating other crops and the wider environment.

ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS

It has long been known that organic farming methods benefit the environment more than conventional farming practices, but the contribution organic agriculture can make to solving the problems of global warming and feeding the world have only recently been evaluated.

Global Warming and Carbon Sequestration

Organic agriculture helps combat global warming by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide, CO2, and incorporating (sequestering) it into the soil - whereas conventional farming exacerbates the greenhouse effect by producing a net release of carbon into the atmosphere. Scientists are not clear on the precise mechanisms which make organic farming methods more successful than conventional ones for ‘fixing’ carbon into soil, but they believe that organic methods which build organic matter in soil, with carefully controlled applications of composted animal manure and with ploughing in cover-crops like legumes and clover, are part of the answer. They believe these natural inputs contain the right carbon-to-nitrogen ratio which promotes gradual decomposition which holds onto carbon. They also suspect that crop rotation practices employed in organic farming may help keep the carbon-nitrogen ratio balanced and contribute to carbon sequestration. One study headed by Dr. David Douds at the Rodale Institute, USA, believes that healthy mycorrhizal fungi populations in organic systems slow down decomposition which enables organic soils to hold carbon. Scientist believe conventional farming fails to sequester CO2 because it’s systems (which use chemical inputs and mono-cropping) deplete the organic content of soil which encourages rapid decomposition, releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

A 23 year study carried out by The Rodale Institute, USA, called The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, launched in 1981, was designed to compare organic farming systems with conventional farming systems. The study made unexpected and radical discoveries.

1. Over the 23 year trial period there was a 15% to 28% increase in soil carbon in organic systems, with virtually no increase in non-organic systems.

2. The study found that farmlands (soils) are better 'carbon sinks' than forests (foliage), and that organic farmlands sequester more carbon than conventional farmlands. It estimated that soil holds more than twice as much carbon as does terrestrial vegetation (forests) – and that organic farm soils which are rich in natural organic matter are better able to capture carbon than conventional farm soils which are typically depleted of organic matter.

3. It concluded that farmland is a more secure 'sink' for carbon than forests because forests are subject to logging and wildfires.

4. The study produced some dramatic statistics which demonstrate how important organic farming may be to redressing the problems of climate change. The amount of carbon that soil can sequester depends on the climate and soil type, but the study found that America could meet ¾’s of its Koto Treaty reductions in carbon emissions if it converted the 160 million acres of corn and soya grown there to organic production. (Multiplying 3,670 pounds of captured CO2 per acre times the 160 million acres mentioned, yields a potential CO2 capture on the order of 293 million tons per year – or ¾’s of the reductions Koto demands). www.newfarm.org./depts/NFfields_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

The Assumption that Conventional No-Till farming Systems capture more Carbon has been proved untrue.

Conventional farming systems utilize a no-till regime where weeds are removed by pesticides rather than ploughing. Organic systems do not use pesticides but remove weeds by tilling the soil. It is known that disturbing soil allows carbon to escape into the atmosphere, and it has therefore been assumed that conventional no-till systems sequester more carbon than organic systems. However, a study carried out by the Agricultural Research Service at the US Dept. of Agriculture in 2007 found that organic farming systems beat no-till conventional systems for sequestering carbon. The study showed that addition of manure and cover crops (which hold carbon) in organic farming more than offset the losses from tillage. Over the nine year study, organic plots contained more carbon and nitrogen and yielded 18% more corn than conventional plots. An FAO report estimates that organic agriculture could double soil carbon sequestration in livestock based systems and decrease green house gases (CO2, nitrous oxide, methane) by 48-60%.

www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070710.html

Organic Farming Can Feed the World

The chemical companies that produce pesticides and synthetic fertilisers and the biotech industry which has developed high-tech GM seeds contend that organic agriculture is ‘old fashioned’ and cannot be relied on to produce enough food to feed the world’s growing populations. These multi-national seed and chemical companies have vast commercial investments in global agriculture and have sustained a long campaign to convince the public and politicians that the future of agriculture is only secure with the use of high-tech, high-put, high-cost agricultural systems. Recent studies show them wrong.

Researchers at Michigan University, USA, developed models to compare yield ratios between organic and conventional crops in developed and in undeveloped countries. It was discovered that in developed countries properly managed organic farms produced yields almost equal to conventional yields. However, in developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic farming methods. The study produced models which showed 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.

www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936 . For further information about how organic crops can increase yields in developing countries, see www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=7370

Furthermore an FAO report called Organic Agriculture and Food Security, concludes that in developing countries, food quality, quantity and availability in urban areas are enriched by organic market gardens where local produce is sold to international markets and domestic supermarkets. This reduces dependence on cheap subsidized food imports, which are projected to rise to more than 160 million tonnes by the year 2010. Farming organically would also reduce dependency on multinational chemical and seed companies whose expensive chemical inputs and seeds often bankrupt poor farmers. Organic practices would help farmers to retain control of their food security by allowing them to save seeds from one season to be used the following season and by encouraging them to develop indigenous seed types suitable to regional climates and soils.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Organic farming may attract lucrative 'carbon credits'

Policy mechanisms by which farmers and landowners can quantify the carbon sequestered on their properties are being investigated internationally. These schemes will enable farmers to apply for payments from regional or federal governments for ecosystem services, or allow them to participate in 'carbon-trading' markets which are fast emerging in the European Union and elsewhere. Carbon trading could become big business world- wide and could provide substantial income for farmers who can demonstrate that their land squesters carbon. Organically farmed land, which research proves captures more CO2 than conventionally farmed land, (and more than forests), stand to gain financially.

www.newfarm.org./depts/NFfields_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

Organic Systems Conserve energy

A study conducted by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems use just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely due to the massive amounts of energy required to synthesize nitrogen fertiliser (used extensively in conventional farming). He calculates that organic farming sequesters more carbon than it emits, but that conventional agriculture emits more carbon than it sequesters. In conventional farming the minimal carbon gains have to be subtracted from the excessive carbon losses – while in organic agriculture there is a net gain. An FAO report calculates that organic management systems have decreased the use of fossil fuels by between 10-70% in Europe and 29-37% in the USA.

www.newfarm.org./depts/NFfields_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml

Farmers Can Profit by Converting to Organic

A study conducted at the Swan Lake Research Farm in Minnesota, USA analysed both the economic risks and transition effects of switching to organic farming. Computer simulation projected costs, yields and risks over a 20-year period using yield and economic data from the 4 year study, as well as crop price records of recent years. Records showed that organic crops fetched much more than conventional crops: soybeans, up to $14 more per bushel; corn, up to $3 more; and wheat, up to $5 more. Another computer model projected that farmers would net an average $50 to $60 more per acre a year by going organic, even with the highest transition costs. The premium price advantage would outweigh the initial higher costs and possibly lower yields, even if organic prices were to drop by half. www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2006/060725.htm

Third World Countries Can Profit From Organic Crops The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has come out in favour of organic agriculture. Its recent report, Organic Agriculture and Food Security, explicitly states that organic agriculture can address local and global food security challenges. An FAO official declared that organic farming is 'a holistic production management system that avoids the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and genetically modified organisms, minimises pollution of air, soil and water, and optimises the health and productivity of plants, animals and people'.

The FAO report identified major problems that are connected to conventional agriculture.

1.The use of chemical inputs is increasing yet grain production is falling

2.The cost of chemical inputs is increasing, but the price of food has fallen over the last five decades

3.Nutritionally related diseases are increasing.

4.Pesticide poisoning incidents are rising

5.High input costs and use of new seed types is failing Third World farmers. They are increasingly going bankrupt, deserting the land and migrating to cities where they become unemployed and impoverished.

The FAO report concludes that organic agriculture offers an alternative food system that improves agricultural performance to better provide access to food, nutritional adequacy, environmental quality, economic efficiency and social equity. The researchers recommended a switch to organic agriculture especially for poor developing countries.

FAO statistics show that organic farming is profitable. It is no longer a niche market within developed countries, but a vibrant commercial system practiced in 120 countries, covering 31 million hectares of cultivated land plus 62 million hectares of certified wild harvested areas. The organic market was worth $40 billion in 2006 and expected to reach $70 billion by 2012.

Summary

Organic food is healthier than conventional food a. Organic food contains more nutrients and vitamins and minerals than conventional food b. Organic food does not contain pesticide residues found in conventional food.

Organic farming protects the environment:

a. Organic farming does not pollute air, water and land with chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

b. Organic farming helps reduce global warming because its methods use animal manure and cover crops like clover and legumes to enrich the soil which helps sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.

c. Organic farming helps reduce global warming because it uses less energy than conventional farming

Organic farming provides economic advantages a. Organic food attracts price premiums of up to 30% b. In developed countries, well managed organic farms produce crop yields which almost match those of conventional yields.

c. In under developed countries organic crop yields produce yields 2-3 times higher than conventional crops.

d. Organic farming is a cheaper method of food production because it does not use expensive chemical inputs (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and because it reduces the use of medicines in animal husbandry.

e. Organic farming may produce profits for farmers from ‘carbon credit’ trading systems being developed around the world f. Organic agriculture can help feed the hungry by reducing the need to import subsidised food, and could produce a diverse range of certified organic surpluses to be exported at premium profit. Because organic methods exclude the use chemical inputs, poor farmers have less capital outlay and dependency on multinational seed and chemical companies is reduced.

REFERENES:

1. Quality Low Input Food project, headed by Prof. Carlo Leifert is a four year study funded by 12 million GBP of EU money to assess the nutritional value of organic food. A 725 acre farm attached to Newcastle University, UK, (and other sites in the EU) were divided into organic and non-organic growing sites and the resulting milk, fruits and vegetables were analysed. It is the largest study of its kind to date and the first to investigate the physiology of produce from different farming techniques. It will be peer reviewed and published over the next 12 months. www.glif.org/about/index.html

2. Charles Benbrook produced a report called ‘Organic Food and Nutritional Value: Current Research on the Benefits of Organic Food, at the Organic Centre, USA, (published on the organic centre website).

3. The University of California, USA, has produced a 10 year study which compared organic and non-organic tomatoes and found that the organic tomatoes had twice the quantity of antioxidants (flavonoids) that help to protect high blood pressure, thus reducing heart disease and strokes. The study found that flavonoids quercetin and kaempferol were, on average, 79% to 97% higher respectively. www.newscientist.com/article/dn6844.html

4. Soil Association, UK, in 2001, commissioned an independent nutritionist to review over 400 scientific papers which found organic food contained higher levels of Vitamin C, minerals and trace elements. (See Soil Association, 2000 ISBN 0 905200 80 2)

5. Three Independent European research projects completed in March 2007 revealed that organic tomatoes, peaches and processed apples all had higher nutritional quality than their non-organic counterparts. http:/orgprints.org/view/projects/int_conf_2007qlif_2_food_quality_and_safety.html

Print

Back to the Archive