Allen 1

Carrie Allen
Instructor: Malcolm Campbell
English 1102
November 10, 2011

Both Sides of the Plate. The Organic Food Movement and Conventionally Grown
Food in the United States: A Comparison of the Effects on Our Environment and Our
Health.
Food is big business. Food sales globally are a multi-billion dollar a year industry that
constantly vies for the attention of consumers through commercials, print advertising, and an
ever increasing variety of products to whet the appetites of the hungry. Agriculture and industry
must constantly work to keep the worlds food supply abundant. Food used to be simple. Food
was grown locally and required minimal processing. The knowledge passed down through the
generations, farmers learned what worked and what failed for growing products naturally and
utilizing the resources provided to them by nature. Small family farms have been a way of life
for people for many years however, as society has evolved so have our farms. After World War
II, developments in machinery and chemical products made farming work easier and crops much
more abundant (Liebhardt 32). The ability to mass produce food became crucial to sustain the
constantly growing population, and the solution seemed clear. What effects have these advances
had on the quality of food that is produced using these methods? Now growers of agriculture had
options. Conventional methods increased yield and made farming work easier, while organic
methods required more work while producing less overall. Despite the odds, sales of organic

Allen 2
products have gone from a 1 billion dollar business in 1990 to a $26.7 billion dollar business in
2010 according to the Organic Trade Commission. The increased public awareness of the effects
of conventional farming on our environment, along with the innate desire to believe that food
grown organically offers better nutrition has consumers getting on board to support organic
foods.
Background of Organic Food Regulation
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was established to provide
regulatory oversight and guidelines for the agriculture produced in the United States. The
regulatory differences in conventional farming and organic farming are astounding. Organically
farmed foods differ from conventionally farmed foods in the way that they are grown, handled
and processed. Organic agriculture is strictly regulated and defined in detail by the USDA as:
The food produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and
conservation of the soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future
generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products must come from
animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is
produced without the use of conventional pesticides; petroleum- based fertilizers
or sewage sludge based fertilizers; bio-engineering; or ionizing radiation.
(usda.gov)
In order for any product to be labeled as a certified organic, the producer must become a
participant of the National Organic Program. In 1990, the USDA established the Organic Foods
Production Act and spent the next twelve years determining the standards that the farms must
meet in order to label their products as USDA Certified Organic. These guidelines were

Allen 3
established to assure consumers that products labeled as organic were of uniform standard for all
food labeled and sold under the organic label. Thus, the National Organic Program (NOP) was
born.
All operations that sell more than $5000 per year in agricultural products produced and
processed with the label USDA Certified Organic must apply for that certification. The
application requires facilities to provide documents detailing the use of the land three years prior
to application, what products will be produced, grown or raised; and the facilitys personal
Organic System Plan that details the practices and substances that will be used in production of
their product. Certifying agents that are accredited by the USDA are responsible for thoroughly
inspecting all aspects of the operation of the applicants operation. Annual inspections of the
approved facilities are required and they are also subject to unannounced inspections to further
ensure their compliance with USDA regulations. Intentional violation of the organic standards set
forth can carry a civil penalty of $11,000 per incident (usda.gov/nop). According to Fred Ehlert
of Quality Assurance International, one of the largest companies responsible for USDA
accredited organic certifications, can recall only a handful of minor infractions but no serious
violations in any of the certifications he had done at the time of the interview. He acknowledges
that cheating in the industry could certainly occur but if so it is rare because the only thing we
are selling is credibility (qtd. in Rich 43).What keeps these farmers honest? His belief is that
organic food producers care about what they are doing and prove so by going to substantial
trouble to grow foods without chemical fertilizers and pesticides, keep mandatory records and
pay for their inspections and certifications.

Conventional Food Production/Regulation

Allen 4
Now lets look at the guidelines for producing conventional agriculture. According to the
USDA, There is no real definition of conventional agriculture. Conventionally produced foods
come from a broad range of farming and food practices, challenging any science-based
comparison between systems. (nal.usda.gov).Thats it? I dont even understand what that
means, and its a far cry from the stringent requirements that organic farmers must follow. Can a
conventional farmer operate their facilities based on their own in interpretation of this broad
range of farming and food practices? This vague definition of conventional agriculture
immediately causes me to question the amount of regulation in their industry. I contend that
consumers have a right to quality food that has been produced under the strictest of regulation,
whether produced organically or not. Regulation on any industry is meant to protect consumers
and maintain adequate checks and balances within the system. The only information that I could
find on regulation in conventional agriculture has to do with the use of chemical substances, such
as pesticides and synthetic additives that are allowed to be used on the land and food products.
These chemical substances are known as agrichemicals and consist of synthetic nitrogen
fertilizers, chemical pesticides and herbicides which replaced organic matter such as manure,
compost and crop rotation traditionally used for maintaining soil integrity and healthy growth. A
defining characteristic of what is known as conventional farming is the use of agrichemicals
(Rich 27).
According to the USDAs National Agricultural Library (NAL), in addition to the use of
pesticides, farming practices such as irradiation which is the use of radiation to kill bacteria and
insects, genetic modification or altering the cellular make up of foods, and the use of sewage
sludge on fields are all acceptable methods in conventional food production.

Allen 5
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates and approves the use of the chemical
substances commonly used on conventional agriculture (fda.gov). There are over 21,000 types of
chemical pesticides and herbicides in the United States used in the production of agriculture.
Many of these compounds have been proven to have health implications. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) concedes that laboratory studies do indeed show that pesticides can
cause health problems such as birth defects, nerve damage and cancer; yet they continue to state
that the use of pesticides does not pose unreasonable risks to the health of humans or the
environment. The Federal Pesticide Program indicates that they are reasonably certain that
pesticides pose no harm to human health (epa.gov). In other words, although pesticides are
poisonous and have been linked to health problems, as long as they are used according to the
guidelines set by the government then the risk is probably minimal. Health risk has been
established, and yet they try to deny it. This dismissal of risk to consumer is, in my opinion,
inappropriate and irresponsible for a governing agency that is charged with protecting
consumers. Providing accurate information is the only way that consumers can be informed on
the issues that affect the choices they need to make regarding the foods they choose to eat.
Pesticides are generally undetectable to the palate so how is a person supposed to know exactly
how much of a chemical they are eating. Given the fact that regulation on the use of pesticides
appears to be minimal, how can the individual producer or facility guarantee exactly how much
of a chemical they are using? Although conventional farms are also required to keep some
records, what records the USDA requires are not specified. There are also no routine on-site
regulatory inspections required (nal.usda.gov). If there is such little regulatory oversight, how
does anyone, including the agencies that approve pesticide use, know what the level of exposure

Allen 6
is on any given product? It is more than a little disheartening to think that something as
important as the food being mass produced for human consumption has this level of regulation.
There is indeed more regulation on the meat and poultry industry. The information
regarding these industries would cover another paper entirely. What can be stated here in order to
show comparison is that conventionally raised animals can be grown with the use of such
substances as growth hormones given to animals in order to speed maturity, or the use of
antibiotics in animals, not to treat infections but to prevent outbreak of disease. The United States
Department of Agriculture regulates the use of pesticides, growth hormones and antibiotics in
meat, poultry, and certain egg products. To reiterate, organic meat, poultry, egg and dairy
products must come from animals that are given no growth hormones or antibiotics (usda.gov).
Environmental Impact
When compared side by side organic farming methods and conventional farming and
food production methods are in direct opposition to each other. In addition to what these
methods are doing to the food products, they are also having negative impacts on the
environment. The desire to successfully maintain a healthy environment for the future is the heart
of organic farming. Organic farmers insist that sustainability practices such as crop rotation,
allowing fields to lay fallow for a season and composting natural ingredients and organic
fertilizers back into the soil are all vital for the future of the agricultural industry.
Critics of organic farming, such as Dennis Avery, of the Hudson Institute in Washington,
DC, argue that Organic farming is an environmental disaster, an imminent danger to wildlife
and a hazard to the health of its own consumers (qtd. in Nestle 44). What Mr. Avery fails to do
is substantiate this statement with any evidence as to those claims. If that statement sounds like a

Allen 7
carefully worded political manifesto, its because it probably is. Funding for the Hudson Institute
comes from agribusiness corporations, such as The National Agrichemicals Association,
Monsanto and ConAgra Foods. These power players would stand to lose money if the public was
made aware of the true danger of their products. Perhaps, casting doubt on organic practices
make more sense. If crop rotation, composting, mechanical weed removal and resting the land
are dangerous practices, then what might they suggest as viable alternatives?
The effects of farming on the environment have always included the clearing of forests
and plowing of grasslands. Farm land has always been necessary for our food production and
must be maintained in ways that ensure the quality of what is being grown both today and in
years to come. Plants need nutrients from the soil in order to become mature and produce.
Nutrients must be added back to the soil in order to support the growing cycle for the next crop.
Conventional farmers do this with the use of synthetic petroleum based nitrogen fertilizers. The
compounds they produce are called nitrates and often times do not stay in the ground. (Langley
39-43). Adding synthetic substances to the land to increase crop yield is short sighted for the
following reasons. According to experts at the Second International Nitrogen Conference in
2002, 90% of the nitrogen used in synthetic fertilizers is wasted. It remains in the soil until rain
causes run off into streams and ponds causing a rapid increase in algae growth. These algal
blooms are overgrowing on the surface of the water and taking up all the available oxygen and
making aquatic life below the surface impossible. Nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for the growth
of healthy plants, but by itself it does little to enhance soil health or the plants ability to use the
nutrient. Nitrogen is considered a major global pollutant, polluting the air, the soil and the water
(Liebhardt 39). Studies have shown that approximately 275 million tons of carbon dioxide gas is
released into the atmosphere every year, due to the use of nitrates in agricultural fertilizers

Allen 8
(Langley 40). So while nitrogen fertilizers may help produce large crops, they are effectively
polluting the water, soil and air. Chemical pesticides in our soil accumulate for ages and have an
untold effect on the future of our environment. Scientists have not been able to quantify the
degree of potential harm long term, but it is safe to assume that these compounds do nothing to
enhance the quality of the soil or the environment (Nestle 45).
If organic farming is better for the environment by using the resources that nature
provides to grow food, then the food produced organically may indeed be more nutritious than its
conventional counterpart. The food that is being sold in supermarkets all over the United States
is being purchased by consumers that can only make nutritional decisions based on the
information that they have been given. Ask anyone and they will tell you that fruits and
vegetables are healthy food choices, but is the available produce full of the vitamins and minerals
that make them healthier choices? The USDA encourages eating more fruits and vegetables, and
even states that some evidence of higher nutrient content does exist in organically grown produce
(nal.usda.gov). Studies have been done that consistently show that fruits and vegetables grown in
organic soil without the use of pesticides have higher vitamin and mineral content. A study done
by researcher Anne-Marie Mayer in the late 1990s gathered data from the British government on
the nutritional value of foods from the 1930s to the 1980s and measured the mineral content of
raw fruits and vegetables. She found that the levels of key minerals, such as calcium, potassium
and iron had dropped significantly over the fifty year period (Rich 27). The time period that the
study covered, coincides with the Post World-War II escalation of synthetic nitrogen and
pesticide use on agriculture. Other studies research the differences in the nutrient values of
organic versus conventionally grown products. Paul Hepperly, a researcher at the Rodale
Institute in Pennsylvania, has done numerous tests on produce and grains to determine the

Allen 9
correlation between nutrient content and the farming practices used. His work has proven that the
soil which has been farmed with organic practices consistently improves the mineral content of
the food. Of all the elements tested the mineral contents averaged twenty to twenty-five percent
higher on the foods that were grown in organic soil. This research confirms once again that the
composition of the soil is crucial to producing healthy plants (Rich 27). Chemical pesticides used
on plants have been proven to reduce the amount of micronutrients such as antioxidants and
phytochemicals that are of vital importance from a nutrition standpoint. Antioxidants are crucial
vitamins proven to be helpful in the prevention of cancer and other diseases. Phytochemicals
contribute to flavor and the level of satisfaction derived from eating a particular food. Research
done by Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Center, showed that the antioxidant
level in organic produce is thirty percent higher than the antioxidant level in their conventionally
grown counterparts. He states that This makes enough of a difference that the consumption of
organic produce will increase the average daily antioxidant intake by about as much as an
additional serving of most fruits and vegetables (qtd. in Rich 27). Pesticide use on fruits and
vegetables also has been proven to lower the levels of many vitamins, most specifically vitamin
C, beta-carotene, and the B vitamins. The effect of pesticides on the human body is a topic for
debate because the EPA contends that in small doses these pesticides should be safe for human
consumption; yet the EPA lists some as probable carcinogens that can harm the reproductive and
nervous systems of human beings. It is true that our bodies have the ability to filter toxins and
work over time to keep us healthy; but as I see it common sense dictates that the less exposure
we have to chemicals the fewer toxins our bodies need to filter. It is impossible to know how
each individual body tolerates pesticides, but it is thought that the greatest effect is on the elderly
and the very young. The elderly have a diminished capacity to filter toxins as effectively as

Allen 10
younger adults; and the neurological and immune development in children could be
compromised by exposure to pesticides. A study by Chensh-eng Lu, of the Rollins School of
Public Health at Emory University, monitored children who were given a five day diet
alternating between days a diet of conventionally grown foods and organically grown foods. The
results showed that the metabolites of two pesticides that are commonly used in agriculture
rapidly decreased to non-detectable levels on the days the children were consuming the organic
diet. Proponents of organic farming insist with more research and funding pest control can be
improved even beyond what works today, and that chemical pesticides are ultimately
unnecessary (Rich 29).
Based on the market trends, consumers are becoming more aware of the organic
movement. Their purchasing power has indicated that they are not only looking for foods grown
organically, they are willing to pay more for it. The health risks posed by conventionally grown
food at this time are statistically related to pesticide poisonings of farm workers exposed to large
doses of pesticides (Liebhardt 39). No conclusive health risks to the population at large have
been established; but with exposure to the agrichemicals in food comes that risk (nal.usda.gov).
The goal of the organic movement is to educate people that the choices they can make improve
the health of their bodies, as well as the environment. The promotion of organic foods as
healthier alternatives to conventional foods puts the USDA in an awkward position because the
USDAs principle mandate from Congress is: to promote conventional agriculture. It would
appear that the National Organic Program is a threat to that purpose. The USDA has gone on
record saying The USDA makes no claims that organically produced food is safer or more
nutritious than conventionally grown food (Nestle 42). I find it difficult to know what to believe
based on the information from these government agencies, because they intentionally promote

Allen 11
conventional agriculture as safe while admitting that agrichemicals are dangerous. It has been
proven that pesticides are harmful, and the nutritional components that we depend on from our
food are lower when food is produced using agrichemicals. The choice to purchase organic
products comes down to the individual consumer. Some people will choose not to purchase
organics based on the fact that they may cost a little more, or they may choose to believe that
there is no real difference in the foods they are consuming, still others are simply uninformed on
the issue. The organic movement has gotten the attention of major players in the food industry,
with many getting on board to provide more organic food choices to their consumers. What
makes these consumers especially enticing is the fact that they are willing to pay more for
organic products; and businesses that are producing and selling food are more than happy to reap
the benefits (Nestle 36). With the increasing number of consumers joining the organic movement
there is little doubt that the organic industry will continue to grow rapidly in direct relation to the
law of supply and demand.

Works Cited

Allen 12
Langley, Andrew. Is Organic Food Better? Ed. Andrew Farrow and Rebecca Vickers. Chicago,
IL: Pearson Inc. 2009. Print.
Liebhardt, Bill. What is Organic Agriculture? What I Learned From My Transition. Organic
Agriculture, Sustainability, Markets and Policies. Ed. Darryl Jones, Theresa Poincet,
Michele Patterson and Francoise Benicourt. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing Cab
International, 2003. 31-44. Print.
Nestle, Marion. .What to Eat. Ed Paul Elie. New York, New York: North Point Press, 2006. 2556 & 165-180. Print.
Rich, Deborah. Not All Apples are Created Equal. Earth Island Journal (2008): p. 26-30. Web.
20 Oct. 2011.
United States. Dept. of Agriculture. National Organic Program. Washington: GPO, 2008. Web.
20 Oct. 2011.
Unites States. Dept. of Agriculture. National Agricultural Library. Washington: GPO, 2010.
Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticides. Washington :GPO, 2011. Web. 4
Nov. 2011.
United States. Federal Food and Drug Administration. Washington: GPO, 2011. Web. 4 Nov.
2011.

Allen 13