Annex 1
RESEARCH ON ORGANIC FARMING
In the United Kingdom, demand for organic food is
growing at over 40 per cent a year.3
1. CONSUMER ATTITUDES
TOWARDS ORGANIC
FOOD
1.1 A MORI survey for the Soil Association
(June 1999) showed that consumers buy organic food because they
believe it to be healthier, free of chemicals, better tasting,
GM free, better for the environment and better for animal welfare.13
1.2 The MORI survey showed that over half
of those who brought organic food, did so "because they believed
it to be safe and healthy. This attitude is, presumably, based
on the perception that hazards in foods derive from agrochemical
additives, whereas microbes, not chemicals, are the major source
of foodborne illnesses".16
1.3 These attitudes have been based on the
information available to consumers, some of which is very misleading.
Examples include:
1.4 "Organic food is produced from
safe, sustainable farming systems, producing healthy crops and
livestock without damage to the environment."24
1.5 "The best reason for buying organic
food is simply that it tastes extremely good, but undoubtedly
there are also sound health reasons for doing so."24
1.6 "Organic food is produced without
artificial fertilisers, chemicals, pesticides or genetic modification.
This natural method of farming helps enrich the soil, minimises
pollution and supports the environment."24
1.7 "Food produced by organic methods
is nutritious, healthy and safe. Organic farming relies principally
on the application of animal manures, the rotation of crops, and
in our case the growing of clover to provide the nitrogen for
its accompanying grasses. No artificial fertilisers, insecticides
or herbicides are ever used. This encourages the establishment
and well being of both flora and fauna. We rely on homeopathic
medicines for ourselves and our stock, no antibiotics or other
drugs are used routinely."14
1.8 However there is no conclusive evidence
to support many of these claims. There are a range of positive
and negative factors to organic farming, as there are with conventional
farming. In organic farming positive factors have been heavily
promoted, but the negative factors have been ignored.
2. IS ORGANIC
FOOD HEALTHIER
THAN CONVENTIONALLY
PRODUCED FOOD?
2.1 The MORI survey13 showed that over half
of those who bought organic food, did so because they thought
it was safe and healthy.
2.2 As far as nutrition is concerned, the
evidence suggests there is little difference between the two types
of food:
2.3 "Although there is some evidence
of differences between organic and conventionally produced foods,
there is not a great deal of evidence that these differences represent
differences in food quality....The significance of any such differences
for health depends upon the proportion of the diet derived from
the particular product, and indeed, the other constituents of
the diet."11
2.4 "There is not evidence whatever
to indicate that chemically fertilized plants are less nutritious
than non-fertilized."25
2.5 "Organic foods are certainly not
more nutritious. Experiments conducted for many years have found
no difference in the nutrient content of organically grown crops
and those grown under standard agricultural conditions.!2
2.6 "There is no scientific evidence
at this time to suggest that organically produced foods are more
nutritious."21
2.7 "Jeanne Goldberg PhD, RD, an associate
professor and director of the Center on Nutrition Communication
at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts says "Nutritionally
speaking, there is absolutely no evidence that organic is better,
you're not going to get any more vitamins and minerals in a peach
or strawberry grown with manure than you will in one grown with
commercial fertilizers.""10
2.8 "We have not found consistent and
valid reports on differences in the mineral contents of organic
and conventional foods. An early report4 of differences in mineral
content between vegetables grown on widely differing soil types
has commonly been misquoted as evidence for the benefits of organic
production. There are many factors, environmental and cultural,
that influence the nutritional composition of produce and that
are not unique to either cultural system."16
2.9 "Investigations both in Europe
and in the US have failed to find any difference between organic
food and other food in terms of all the major constituents, minerals
and vitamins."27
2.10 However, one study has actually shown
processed organic products to be less healthy than their conventionally
produced equivalents:
2.11 A Sunday Times study has revealed that
compared with ordinary products, many processed organic foods
contain higher levels of fat, sugar and salt—all of which
can cause heart problems.5
3. HOW SAFE
IS ORGANIC
FOOD?
3.1 "There is not conclusive evidence
that organically produced food is safer or less safe than that
produced conventionally."11
3.2 However, there have been particular
aspects of organic farming and food that have raised concerns
over safety:
3.3 Prof Tony Trewevas of Edinburgh University's
Department of Cell and Molecular Biology was quoted as saying
"Organic food is considerably less safe than we are led to
believe because it depends on animal waste for its production
which means a higher risk of infection of organisms such as E-coli
0157". He said that fresh lettuce, cabbage and parsley from
"organic" sources posed a potentially serious public
health risk and went on to say: "It is just a matter of time
before we see the appearance of mycotoxins in our food chain from
so-called organic farming." He also said microbial spoilage
of organic food was a recognised problem and that there were no
current plans to monitor the long-term effects of present day
organic food.15
3.4 Prof Alan Gray, Acting Chairman of ACRE
(Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment) said "It
was a myth that organic food was safer. You are 30 times more
likely to poison yourself with organic produce because it allows
Bt (the bacterium Bacillus thruringiensis) to spread directly.
When ingested the bacterium produces endotoxins which attack the
wall of insects' guts. In mammals they can cause death from toxic
shock.15
3.5 The use of farmyard manure as a fertiliser
gives rise to concerns about the possible contamination of agricultural
produce with pathogens (especially E. coli 1057) and the possible
contamination of ground and surface water. The UK Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution in its 19th report on the Sustainable
Use of Soil (1996) reviewed the use of organic materials in agriculture,
including their safety. It concluded that there is a potential
risk to human and animal health from pathogens in animal wastes.15
3.6 "In October of 1992, public health
officials investigated several cases of bloody diarrhoea in a
small town in Maine; one of the patients . . . died of kidney
failure. The cause? Escherichia coli 0157:H7, better known as
plain E. Coli . . . the source of the E. Coli was a fresh vegetable
from an organic garden. Three other separate cases were traced
to organic lettuces, probably contaminated by E. Coli infected
cow manure. In the US over 100 million tons of manure are produced
per year and less than 7 per cent is composted."19
3.7 "Two outbreaks of E. coli 0157
in the US were traced to organic strawberries and lettuce. In
Aberdeen, home-made organic goats' cheese initiated an E. coli
outbreak among children; in Germany an outbreak of Citrobacter
that killed one child and damaged nine others was traced to organic
parsley treated with pig manure."27
3.8 "A study at the University of Illinois
has shown that consumers eating organic produce are eight times
more likely to contract E. coli" than those who eat conventional
produce.26, 1
3.9 "Organic farmers preferably apply
cow or pig manure when this is available. It can be infected with
the dangerous bacterium E. coli 1057 disease organism that lives
happily in the guts of cattle. Infection in human beings kills,
or leaves victims without functioning kidneys."27
3.10 "Organic farming often uses manure
to grow fruit and vegetables. Manure is a natural habitat for
bacteria like Escherichia coli 0157 and salmonella. Even if this
food is cleaned properly, the bacteria can infect the tissue of
the plant, making the risk of contracting these diseases far higher."3
3.11 "Citrobacter freundii lives in
pigs' guts and is also potentially lethal. If manure is pasteurised,
or if you properly cook contaminated food, then the organism is
killed. The problem is to guarantee that this is done."27
3.12 "Consumers of organic food are
also more likely to be attacked by a relatively new, more virulent
strain of the infamous salmonella bacteria."1
3.13 "Without fungicides to prevent
infection, plants respond by producing toxins of their own."26
3.14 "Organic and `natural' food consumers
also face increased risk of illness from toxins produced by fungi—and
some of these toxins are carcinogenic. The US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regularly tests samples of various foods for such dangers,
and it routinely finds high levels of these natural toxins in
organically grown produce. It found, for instance, that organic
crops have higher rates of infestation by aflatoxin, one of the
most virulent carcinogens known to man."1
3.15 "The use of effective fungicides
has reduced the risk from mycotoxins in normal food, but not necessarily
in organic food. Constant exposure to mycotoxin carcinogens can
be expected to have long-term effects, detectable only by continual
monitoring. However, there are no current plans to carry out this
monitoring."27
3.16 "Organic farmers are allowed to
spray crops with bacterial spores to act as a general-purpose
insecticide. But earlier this year [1999] these spores were found
to cause serious, often fatal, lung infections in mice, and to
infect wounds and damage human cells in culture."27
3.17 "Plants react vigorously when
attacked by disease organisms and synthesise many chemicals that
are carcinogenic. Thus organic cider from apples has much higher
patulins levels, and celery has higher levels of psoralen which,
without careful harvesting, can cause serious skin burns."27
3.18 "The most enduring myth about
food is probably that organic food is devoid of carcinogenic compounds
because it is grown without synthetic chemicals. Plants have natural
toxins to protect themselves. These natural pesticides, like those
produced synthetically, can cause tumours in experimental rats
at very high doses."3
3.19 "Toxicologists such as Ames and
Gold (1999) attest that everyday foodstuffs like orange juice,
nutmeg and coffee have far higher levels of natural toxins then
synthetic pesticides. The combination in both is insignificant
in health terms. Our bodies are adept at dealing with all toxins,
regardless of origin. Nearly all pesticides we ingest are natural.
Hence, it is considered folly by many toxicologists to worry about
synthetic pesticides as a cause of cancer."3
Concerns over the use of synthetic pesticides
appear to be unfounded:
3.20 "Death caused by either natural
or synthetic pesticide residues in food has never been proven.
Deaths from pesticides are tragically almost all suicides, or
are caused by high-dose occupational exposures. Even natural and
essential substances like Vitamin A can kill at high doses."3
3.21 Director W M Fifield of the Florida
Experiment Station has said: "Not a single instance has been
called to our attention where the use of chemicals in production
or protection of our state's crops or livestock has resulted in
harmful effects on humans who have consumed them."25
4. ARE ORGANIC
FOODS FREE
OF CHEMICALS?
4.1 While in general fewer agrochemicals
are used in organic farming some forms of pesticide are used and
although these tend to be based on "natural" products
this does not mean they are safer than the highly regulated and
tested synthetic pesticides.
4.2 Over 30 additives are allowed in organic
production, and the washing of fruit and vegetables in sodium
hyperchloride is permitted.15
4.3 People who believe that chemicals used
in farming are detrimental to health may be interested to know
that "every day, each of us eats a quarter of a teaspoonful
of carcinogens; 99.99 per cent of these are made naturally by
all plants—whether organic, GM or intensively farmed—to
inhibit disease organisms and deter consumption by animals and
insects."27
4.4 "Pesticide residues are lower in
organic food—but not absent. Organic farmers are allowed
to use pesticides, but apply them more sparingly and tend not
to use the broad-spectrum pesticides—although pyrethrum
(a common fly-filler spray) is permitted, because it is found
naturally in some plants. Regulations vary from country to country,
but antibiotics such as streptomycin are acceptable if they are
derived from fermentation."27
4.5 "Organic farmers use sulphur as
a weak pesticide. But sulphur contains lead, a known danger. What
is not known is how much of the lead is transferred to the food
we eat."27
5. DOES ORGANIC
FOOD TASTE
BETTER?
5.1 Organic produce is often quoted as
being tastier than conventionally produced food. This can often
by as a result of organic produce being fresher as it has a much
shorter shelf life and is therefore not stored for as long as
some conventionally produced food.
Direct comparisons between organic and conventionally
produced foods show neither type of produce as being better tasting.
5.2 "The results in the scientific
literature show no consistent pattern for sensory quality between
organically and conventionally grown produce."9
5.3 "In the early 1990's Israeli researchers
made 460 assessments of nine different fruits and vegetables and
found no significant difference in quality between `organic' and
conventionally grown samples."2
5.4 As part of a survey by the University
of California on the differences between organic and conventionally
grown tomatoes, "researchers picked 40 people to do a taste
test. Ten people said that the organic tomatoes had better flavour
and texture, 10 people said that the conventionally grown tomatoes
were better and 20 people could not tell the difference."
cited in17
5.5 In the US the USDA has labelling requirements
which prevent producers making claims that organic foods are better
or even different to conventional foods.2
5.6 "Some reports on qualitative differences,
such as flavour in potatoes, can be attributed to differences
in dry matter concentration and can be associated with the growing
conditions, principally the supplies of water and nitrogen. There,
the preferred conditions are as easily provided in conventional
culture as in any other."16
6. THE USE
OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
AND GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISMS
(GMOS)
6.1 There is much variation between standards
in each country, some such as the Soil Association in the UK will
not allow GM products in their certified produce while other such
as the EU permit GM products.15 As the MORI survey in 1999 suggests,
many people buy organic produce because they believe it to be
GM free, however this is only the case in some organic
produce. Consumers need to be aware of these variations.
6.2 For those concerned about the use of
GM products, the findings of a recent US report has concluded
that there is no distinction between plants bred using biotechnology
and those produced through traditional crossbreeding.12
6.3 It must also be remembered that modern
crop varieties have been adapted by the use of biotechnology.
"Organic farmers can and do use modern crop varieties, since
they have disease resistance and good yields. However these varieties
acquired their genes from different species by difficult laboratory
procedures; for example, rice obtained genes from sorghum wheat.
These are not natural plants and they don't survive in fields
unless continually cultivated."27
6.4 "For over 70 years, plant breeding
and selection for resistance to diseases has been seen as an important
means for agricultural progress. This strategy has had some successes
but in many cases, for example rice blast in rice and late blight
of potato, disease resistance in the crop has been relatively
short-lived and the disease organism has mutated or been selected
to overcome that resistance. If durable forms of resistance to
any of the major diseases could be introduced into otherwise acceptable
varieties by genetic modification, the saving in use of agrochemicals
would be immense."16
7. IS ORGANIC
FARMING BETTER
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT?
Claims that organic farming is better for the
environment as it is more "natural" are not necessarily
true.
7.1 CWS Farms Group has been experimenting
with organic farming since 1989, with much success. However, their
Project Manager made the point "The perception that organic
farming is per se better for the environment because it relies
on natural processes does not always hold true. Natural processes
are variable and outside the grower's control. This can cause
problems. The natural breakdown of mineral nitrogen, for example,
can occur at the wrong time for the plants, increasing the chances
of nitrate leaching. Wildlife likes the `unkempt' bits and organic
farms are not necessarily likely to have more untidy areas than
conventional farms."15
7.2 There is some concern that the use of
farmyard manure may be getting into ground and surface water15
7.3 "The use of farmyard manure adds
humus to the soil, which aids structure, and encourages earthworms
and other minor invertebrates. It may also add an excess of phosphates
which, although essential plant nutrients, can also cause pollution
of water courses. By contrast, some concern was expressed that
phosphorus might be being removed at a greater rate than it is
replaced in organic systems."11
7.4 (In Korea and Japan) "The overuse
of organic fertiliser by some organic farmers has caused some
severe problems since they apply too much organic fertilizer compared
to the need of crops." This could lead to a "potential
risk for NO3 leaching".23
7.5 "Water leached from organic farms
has been reported to contain less nitrate than the EC nitrate
limit of 50mg/litre although, in MAFF projects NT1313 and OF01410,
the limit was sometimes exceeded. Nitrate leaching in the two
systems [organic and conventional] was said to be highly variable."16
7.6 The BTO (British Trust for Ornithology)
amongst their evidence given to the House of Lords, noted that
"some aspects of organic farming may not be beneficial to
bird populations, for example disturbance caused by mechanical
weeding, and the early cutting of clover-based leys."11
7.7 "Organic farming is claimed to
be better for the countryside. For example, birds and other wildlife
are a valued part of organic farming. It is a matter of record
that less intensive application of conventional methods achieves
the same results. Conventional farms can be, and often are, managed
in ways that provide the benefits to wildlife claimed by the organic
movement."16
7.8 "If very large organic farms were
to become common, it would remain to be seen whether they brought
the same benefits for biodiversity as smaller organic units."11
7.9 The Institute of Arable Crops Research
(IACR) at Rothamsted said that "any farming system, whether
it be conventional, integrated or organic, can achieve the environmental
benefits that organic farming aims to achieve."11
7.10 "To institute organic farming
countrywide would mean ploughing up wilderness, hedges and woodland
to make up the shortfall compared to intensive farming."27
8. MEDICINES
AND ANIMAL
WELFARE
8.1 "Evidence for increased disease
resistance, productivity, or fertility of animals feeding on organically
grown fodder is largely anecdotal."9
Veterinary treatment in organic systems raises
some serious animal welfare concerns:
8.2 EU regulations state "when animals
become sick or injured, they should be treated immediately by
giving preference to phytotherapeutic (herbal) or homeopathic
medicinal products and by limiting to a strict minimum the use
of chemically-synthesised allopathic medicinal products in order
to guarantee the integrity of organic production for consumers
it should be possible to take restrictive measures such as doubling
the withdrawal period after use of chemically synthesised allopathic
medicinal products."8
8.3 SSPCA has raised concerns over—New
guidelines advising farmers to use homeopathic remedies rather
than conventional.18
8.4 "Some of the standards set down
for the management of animal health, while the motives may be
well-intended, could in fact jeopardise the health and welfare
of animals or put human health at risk."20
8.5 Firstly the use of unregulated homeopathic
remedies as opposed to strictly regulated conventional animal
medicines, raises questions over the safety and efficacy of the
product and its likely effects on the animal and the consumer
of the animal treated. Unlike regulated animal medicines, homeopathic
remedies do not have withdrawal periods.
8.6 The requirement to automatically double
withdrawal periods is illogical, unscientific and a potential
threat to animal welfare. MRLs and withdrawal periods for licensed
medicines are based on rigorous, independent, international scientific
standards incorporating massive safety factors. There is no logic
to a "blanket" doubling which takes no account of the
properties of the individual product. Such additional delay could
prompt a farmer to withhold treatment of an animal near to market
(or to cheat).
8.7 The organic method of using medicines
therapeutically as opposed to preventative treatments, means that
the animal has to get sick and suffer before it is treated, whereas
preventative medicines would have prevented the suffering from
happening at all. While symptoms develop there is also an increased
risk of the sick animal passing infection to its fellows, further
increasing suffering and increasing the total volume of medicine
used.
8.8 There has been some criticism of the
organic restrictions on medicine usage by farmers. A Scottish
farmer recently was denied organic certification for his sheep
because he was using an 8:1 anti-clostridial vaccine instead of
a 4:1. The 8:1 vaccine was recommended by his vet as being the
best for his sheep to protect unborn lambs against lamb dysentery.
Had he followed the organic rules and changed to the 4:1 vaccine
his animals might have been subjected to suffering and death.6
9. IMPORTED ORGANIC
FOOD
9.1 It is important to remember that whilst
organic farming in the UK is increasing with the help of government
funding, it is not increasing at a rate high enough to meet consumer
demand for organic produce.
9.2 This means that about 70 per cent of
organic food is imported from continental Europe and US sources.16
9.3 With such a variety of sources regulating
standards becomes difficult. MAFF's role in regulating the quality
of imports depends on trust and imports are not Soil Association
Accredited. Therefore, there could be great variations in standards.15
9.4 The importing of such a large percentage
of organic food also present environmental concerns. As Rosemary
Stanton, an Australian Nutritionist speaking about organic food
in Australia says, "It's ridiculous to buy organic food that
is flown out here in planes using massive amounts of fossil fuels."7
The imports into the UK must also have environmental costs in
their methods of transport into the country.
REFERENCES
1. Avery, D T (1998) The Hidden Dangers
in Organic Food [Online].
2. Barrett, M D (Date unknown) Organic
Foods: Will Certification Protect Consumers? [Online].
3. Bate, R (2000) Organic Myths: The Retreat
From Science, Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 1 March [Online].
4. Bear, F E (1948) Variations in mineral
compositions of vegetables, Soil Science Society of America Proceedings
13, 380-384.
5. Bevan, S (1999) Warning: organic food
can seriously damage your health, 12 September, Sunday Times.
6. Christie, J (2000) Letter to Farming
News—Red tape makes mockery of hard-fought "organic"
status, Farming News, May 11.
7. Dixon, A (1999) Wealth Warning on Health
Foods, The Sun Herald, 5 September [Online].
8. EC (1999) Council Regulation (EC) No
1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91
on organic production of agricultural products and indications
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include
livestock production.
9. Finesilver, T, Johns, T and Hill, SB
(data unknown) Comparison of Food Quality of Organically Versus
Conventionally Grown Plant Foods, Ecological Agriculture Projects
[Online].
10. Holman, J R (date unknown) Phys. Trick
or Treat? What Organic Really Means, [Online].
11. House of Lords European Communities
Sixteenth Report 20 July 1999.
12. House Subcommittee on Basic Research
(2000) Seeds of Opportunity: An Assessment of the Benefits, Safety,
and Oversight of Plant Genomics and Agricultural Biotechnology.
13. IGD Organic Food Conference, 2 November
1999.
14. J Sainsbury web site http://www.sainsburys.co.uk.
15. Kidd M, & Lweis E (1999) Organic
Foods—Consumer Concerns, The Consumer Panel Secretariat,
JFSSG.
16. MacKerron, D K L, Duncan, J M, Hillman,
J R, Mackay, G R, Robinson, D J, Trudgill, D L, Wheatley, R J
(2000) Organic Farming: Science and Belief, Excerpted from the
1998-99 Annual Report, Scottish Crop Research Institute, 1 February
[Online].
17. Mael, S (1997) Agroecology Group Project,
Organic Farming [Online].
18. McLaren, C (2000) Organic Guidelines
Raise Welfare Worry, Farming News, 4 May.
19. Nelson, H (date unknown) The contamination
of Organic Produce by Human Pathogens in Animal Manures, Ecological
Agriculture Projects [Online].
20. NOAH (1990) Position Paper on Organic
Farming.
21. Organic Trade Association (date unknown)
Frequently Asked Questions: Is Organic Food Better for You? [Online].
22. Penbryn Organic Farmhouse Cheese web
site http://www.webaware.co.uk/bestofwales/penbryn.
23. Sohn, S M (1996) Nitrate and Overuse
of Organic Fertiliser S1, IFOAM Book of Abstracts.
24. Soil Association web site http://soilassociation.org.
25. Throckmorton, R I (date unknown) The
Organic Farming Myth, Kansas State College [Online].
26. Trewavas, A (1999) Organic Safety Scare,
BAA Grapevine.
27. Trewavas, A (1999) Is Organic Food Really
Safe? Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Edinburgh,
30 July [Online].
| 
