Organic food vs. non-organic food

When you go to the supermarket, what type of food do you buy? Organic food or non-organic food? Maybe you buy some of both? However, when it comes to price, health and environmental protection, there are significant differences between these two types of food. Then you can decide which is best for you. First, price is usually the very essential factor considered by a consumer. We all know that most organic food is more expensive than conventional food.

Take milk for example, usually milk certified as hormone and antibiotic-free in a supermarket costs twice than grocery milk.

“Higher prices of organic food are due to more expensive farming practices, tighter government regulations and lower crop yields” (“Organic vs Non-organic Foods”, n.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Topic
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

d.). In contrast, although non-organic food is cheaper, it “contains many hidden cost like taxes and the cost of the treatment for the harm caused to the environment by conventional farming” (Pragya, 2011).

Second, while buying food some consumers consider price first, but other consumers care more about health.

Get quality help now
Writer Lyla
Writer Lyla
checked Verified writer

Proficient in: Food

star star star star 5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

avatar avatar avatar
+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

“As animals are given antibiotics in conventional farming, human body, when sick does not accept the same antibiotics, thus reducing the body’s immunity in the long run” (Pragya, 2011). Besides, conventional growers use pesticides to protect their crops from molds, insects, and diseases, which is harmful to humans and especially harmful to women and children’s health. Compared to it, in organic farming animals are given organic feed and can get access to the outdoors in order to help minimize disease (“Organic vs Non-organic Foods”, n.d.). Moreover, pesticides are not allowed in organic farming. Thus, organic food is obviously safer and healthier. Third, as above-mentioned, using pesticides in conventional farming is harmful to our health, but it is also harmful to our environment. Use of these chemicals containing toxic substances has resulted less number of wild animals and plants on the farmland. At the same time the quality of soil becomes worse because of the use of too much chemical fertilizer. On the contrary, “organic farming uses crop rotation to prevent pests, by creating a more diverse ecological system to naturally grow the pest’s predators, for increasing the quality of soil, natural manure and composting is done.

Thus, the benefits of organic farming and more long term and benefit in fighting problems like degradation of the environment (Pragya, 2011). In short, both organic and non-organic food consumers have many different points of views. All in all, non-organic food is cheaper, but leads to an uncertainty in health and does harm to the environment. Even though the relation is not quite proven, organic food is definitely be safer and healthier. Whether or not to buy organic or non-organic food fully depends on your lifestyle and what you are concerned about.

Conventional Farming V.S. Organic Farming

Organic farming had not played a role in the market in the previous years, yet today it is common in grocery stores around the country. Organic farming refers to the way farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming is also constantly referred to as healthy, smart, beneficial, and ecofriendly but these are words used in advertisement ploys ran by large organic corporations. For centuries organic farming had been practiced, however, conventional technology has allowed us to further our reaches.

Conventional Synthetic fertilizers along with pesticides, herbicides and fungicides are all in the lime light today for the job they’ve been performing for years, they’ve allowed us to grow more and faster for our ever growing population. In studying conventional versus organic farming we find out which method is the most efficient, by analyzing modern marketing ploys, yield rates and agricultural sprays. Advertisements have become a way of life for the average person. We are exposed to advertising in in every way imaginable.

Corporations want to get their point across that their product is superior to everyone else’s. Organic produce and meats are no different. Christie Wilcox, is a science writer and PhD student at the University of Hawaii, as well as an award-winning blogger and publisher of traditional and peer-reviewed writings and scientific research, says in one of her blogs “In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped to about $52 billion worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. (Wilcox). People are paying more for what they believe is a better and healthier product. Organic is marketed at a price increase for paper work and stamps on the product that reads certified organic. Of course there are many requirements before these stamps are allowed to be placed on the product. What exactly constitutes a certified organic product, and is it difficult to meet those standards? There are several stages to reaching Organic level.

One of the many criteria is to avoid synthetic fertilizers along with conventional pesticides; in livestock it is to avoid hormone injections and avoid cross breading from conventional and organic cows. In produce the trick is to use certified organic pesticides and fertilizers. This is where many consumers are confused. Organic farms are allowed to use fertilizers and pesticides as long as they’re on the U. S. D. A Standard list. This list continues to grow having a dramatic effect on organic credibility.

Read about positive effects of the green revolution

What does it take to make a certified Organic fertilizer that makes it so special? According to the U. S. D. A. (United States Department of Agriculture) all liquid fertilizers with a nitrogen analysis greater than 3 percent must be approved by a material evaluation program to be used in organic production. When approving organic systems plans (OSP), certifying agents must verify and document that all liquid fertilizers with a nitrogen analysis greater than 3 percent have been approved by a material evaluation program.

It is a violation of the NOP (National Organic Program) regulations to apply unapproved liquid fertilizers to certified organic or transitional land; along with full documentation of the written procedures fully describing the manufacturing process. Those are a few of the critical criteria that must be met to be granted certified organic status. For some reason however, it seems like whenever you walk into a grocery store more and more items have passed, or been granted certified organic level, sometimes it makes you wonder; is it that easy?

One of the most interesting things is that “shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. ”(Wilcox). This means organic farms are allowed to spray their organic fertilizers and pesticides with the quantity they’d like without ever having to prove it. Pesticides, they’ve been around for years, why does everyone make such a big deal about them? According to the EPA (Environmental protection Agency) it “ensures that each registered pesticide continues to meet the highest standards of safety to protect human health and the environment.

The Agency has several programs to ensure the review of registered pesticides, including reregistration, tolerance reassessment, registration review, and special review. ” (EPA). With such strict regulations and standards in place what is to fret? There are many organizations and agencies to protect its citizens. If there were substances which damaged your health in pesticides they would have been banned by now. These pesticide products pass constant scrutiny and are expected to meet the highest of standards.

We trust conventionally grown produce for our children in our schools, why not eat it ourselves at home? When you buy conventional you are paying for what you get, there is no need for over dramatization or blurring of the facts. These days for conventional produce, every carton, bag, or individual commodity comes with a label sticker where you can scan and track the product to the farm it was harvested from and know the exact detail of the field. This wouldn’t always apply to organic as they are not required by law to record the amount of organic pesticide they spray on their fields.

What does conventional farming offer that organic just can’t compete with? To put it short what doesn’t it offer? In all farming operations one of the main concentrations is yields. A yield in layman terms is the amount of produce your field will render at the end of its harvest. Yields define your field and crop from how profitable or how fertile it may be. According to Matthew Knight, writer of dozens of reach articles for CNN says “New research looks set to refuel the debate revealing yields from organic farming to be, on average, 25% lower than conventionally-farmed produce. (Knight). That is a substantial amount less of produce. To continue feeding such a massive population we need to farm in massive amounts. Even with organic farms on the rise it would take hundreds if not thousands or more acreage to compete, or keep stable with conventional farming. That just isn’t an option with today’s populations which is estimated to be at around 7 billion individuals, and is estimated to jump to approximately 8 billion within a lifetime. It seems like that 25% of more produce starts to show its value, the same principle applies to organic livestock.

According to Joanna Pearlstein, Senior editor of research at Wired Magazine says “Dairy cows raised on organic feed aren't pumped full of hormones. That means they produce less milk per Holstein — about 8 percent less than conventionally raised cattle. ”(Pearlstein). Why is going green not always what is best for the planet? Even though organic is praised for its sustainable practices, it in some cases it can be damaging to the environment rather than helping it. As Brendan I.

Koerner, contributing editor at Wired, columnist for Gizmodo and writer of Now the Hell Will Start states “methane has become far more prevalent in the Earth's atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. ”(Koerner). With an estimated 100 million cattle in the US a major contributor of the methane gases is cows, and with “organically raised cow[s] [putting] out 16 percent more greenhouse gases than its counterpart” it is easy to understand why. The more organically raised cows this nation begins to produce can have a dramatic effect on our already controversial green house and global warming crisis.

So organic must taste better for the price increase, right? You’d be surprised to find out that several studies have proven no absolute difference in taste of conventional or organic products, “In the same poll where 95% of UK organic consumers said they buy organic to avoid pesticides, over two-thirds of respondents said organic produce and meats taste better than non-organic ones. But when researchers had people put their mouths to the test, they found that people couldn’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests. (Wilcox). These statistics demonstrate the strength of marketing and promoting organic products to be superior to conventional ones. The nutrients also do not seem to differ and are relatively the same in many nutrients test such the ones which “contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, ?-carotene, and calcium. ”(Wilcox).

Both conventional and organic at this point are virtually identical to one another. The differences are minimal at the best. If the consumer believes that organic taste better or is healthier they have fallen for the trap laid to them by the organic corporations of the world. Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, emphasizes it more clearly when he says, “Any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money,” (Rosen) he writes in a comprehensive review of organic nutritional claims.

It is apparent then that these bold marketing ploys by organic corporations have effectively worked, but are not necessarily true. As a society we expect the advertising of products to be published in truth and as a result of this, we have learnt to trust big-time corporations. But from analyzing the tactics that these corporations have used in the case of organic farming i. e. modern marketing ploys, agricultural sprays, taste of products and yield rates it has become apparent that what we have been told is not entirely true.

The facts lie in the basic truth that is conventional farming. In all instances, organic farming is shown to be a figment of a corporal money-making design that, unfortunately, society has fallen to. While there are small truths to what these companies tell us, like the certified organic fertilizers example, they are always hesitant to tell us the bigger story. This analysis is why I believe that conventional farming is the more trustworthy and efficient way to farm, and that if society would adhere to this, organic farming would not be such a staple in our supermarkets today.

Organic Farming

Organic Farming is a sustainable form of agriculture. As such, it can be designated by various names such as agro-ecology, organic agriculture, biological agriculture or ecological agriculture. The simplest definition of Organic Farming is farming without chemicals, but, this is a very simplistic way of describing a complex, synergistic use of farmland to achieve increased yields without the use of harmful chemicals. "Organic farmers, and ecological farmers in general, farm holistically - they design production systems that capitalize on the positive synergies among enterprises that exist in time and space".

7 Additionally, Organic farming is based on an agricultural system that maintains and replenishes soil fertility without the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers. According to the National Organic Standards Board, "Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain, and enhance ecological harmony". 8.

Due to its non-reliance on readily available chemicals, herbicides, pesticides and its labor intensive nature, Organic Farming currently has a higher cost of goods. However, with the introduction of Organic Certification standards, an acceleration of consumer acceptance has helped materialize growth. Over the past two years, Organic Farming products have gone from sales at a specialty health food stores to mainstream stores. In fact, the global market for Certified Organic Foods increased by 10. 1% and reached $23 billion in 2002.

9 Most of the growth has occurred in North America, which overtook Europe as the largest market for organic food and drinks. Worldwide, there are almost 23 million hectares of organic farmland. Finally, as consumer acceptance of organic foods increase and more farms convert to organic farming methods, costs are expected to drop and lead to lower consumer prices. This will inevitably fuel better, more efficient and standardized organic farming methods further lowering costs and consumer prices. The Problem

While the majority of the developed world enjoys a fair abundance of foods and relatively no hunger, the larger under-developed part of the world is suffering from famine and starvation. This condition will get worse as we approach the mid-century mark because according to the United Nations Population Division Report, the world population reached 6. 1 billion in mid-2000 and is currently growing at an annual rate of 1. 2%. In 2050, the total world population is expected to be around 13 billion people, of which 11 billion will be in less developed regions.

However, the agricultural trade of developing countries during this period represents only 50% of total world exports and it is concentrated in a minority of developing countries, particularly those that trade in fresh fruit and vegetables. "This situation creates an uneven trade balance in food from developed to developing countries. "10 Who will feed the 13 billion inhabitants of our planet in 2050? Where will the food needed be grown? How will we be able to produce such quantities of food? We cannot feed all of the current population of the earth and it is less than 50% of what it will be in 2050.

DeGreef (The head of regulatory and government affairs for Syngenta, formerly Novartis) says "the only ways to increase food availability is to (i) increase productivity, (ii) increase the area cultivated, and (iii) decrease post-harvest losses"11. Obviously, we must rethink our approach to food production. We must analyze current available methods, modify them if possible, or develop totally new and unique food production techniques. Whatever approach is adopted we must balance the costs to society, both in real monetary form and in the more intangible and maybe more costly potential damage to our planet.

We have to look at a cost-benefit analysis and a potential willingness to pay for those who are conscientious about the types of foods that are out in the market. Currently the world is looking at two competing approaches to solve the problem; GMFs or Organic Farming. Proponents on either side have been rigorously arguing that their approach is right. We will present pros and cons for both sides and finally try to analyze which approach will make more sense to follow. GMOs and GMFs Pros Genetically Modified Foods have been publicize as the answer to our food production problem.

Given GMOs quick improvement of crop characteristics, the effect are immediately evident when the modified cell becomes a full plant, farmers can reap the rewards of higher yields, pest resistance and herbicide tolerance at once. Furthermore, as we become more skillful with the technology, we will be able to produce plants that deliver more than just the above benefits. For example, plants that will produce plastics, industrial chemicals, and even vaccines to counteract many diseases throughout the world.

Rice has already been genetically enhanced to produce increased levels of vitamin A (Golden Rice), thus alleviating vitamin deficiency in underdeveloped countries where rice is a staple. Virus-resistant sweet potatoes, insect-resistant potatoes, virus resistant squash, melons and cucumbers are also being developed for Africa. Also, rice with a higher level of bio-available iron is in process of development. Thus, proponents of agro-biotechnology essentially see the benefits occurring in waves or phases with benefits initially to producers and then to consumers. As Dr.

Liz Dennis points out, "the results of the first wave of research will deliver direct benefit to farmers and producers through improved production efficiency, such as plants requiring reduced fungicide and pesticide use, through increased inbuilt pest and disease resistance, and crops better able to cope with environmental stresses such as weeds. " 12 This research creates options for farmers who want to develop a system that will have a lower environmental effect on their land. Secondly, the gene technology wave will also provide benefits for the consumers through products that have special features of improvement.

For example, "consumers prefer citrus that has few or no seeds and that is easy to peel. Furthermore, oil seed crops like canola are being modified to produce oils of a particular composition to enhance nutritive value or for specialist uses in the food processing industry. " 13 Even cereals with modified starch or protein content are being created for those seeking more nutritive value to their balanced breakfasts. Thirdly, this wave delivers enhanced levels of pharmaceutical and industrial products from plants, leading our industries to an entirely new business spectrum.

Examples include "genetically modified plants with proteins that act as vaccines and plants with the ability to make industrial oils and plastics, thus offering an alternative to petrochemical oils. Plants potentially could provide components of detergents, nylon, glue, paints, and lubricants. They could provide a renewable, biodegradable source of these high value specialty products. "14 Many applications of Genetic Modification of plants are being developed. They bring a new approach to crop development by eliminating the imprecise and lengthy cross breeding to develop or enhance specific desirable traits.

The beneficiaries of these new enhancements will include: * Farmers - higher yields; less use of pesticides and herbicides; plants that can withstand adverse conditions ( salinity, drought, temperature variations); better shelf life; higher prices for crops that provide higher nutritive content. * Consumers - less damage to the environment by diminished use of polluting chemicals; foods with enhanced properties like better taste, better shelf life, enhanced nutritive values, enhanced features (seedless, thin skin); better availability of "out of season" foods.

Business - increased sales; higher revenues due to proprietary seeds; new markets for enhanced non-traditional products (production of chemicals, plastics, vaccines). * Society - less pollution due to lower use of polluting chemicals, herbicides and pesticides; more sustainable and efficient agriculture; lower foods costs, especially in the developing nations; value added foods that contain vaccines, higher nutritive values and enhanced medicinal features. Farmers that are using GMOs can already see some of these benefits. As Dr.

Liz Dennis points out, "the introduction of insect-tolerant varieties of cotton to Australian agriculture has resulted in an overall reduction in the transgenic crop of 50% of normal pesticide applications. This has the effect of decreasing the risks, for both human health and the environment". 15 Many farmers choose this method of production because it also leads to more cost-effectiveness ways of farming. If the promises of GMOs and GMFs are realized, they have the potential to truly change the world's food production and benefit humanity. Cons

The opponents of GMOs and GMFs argue that not only have the promises of this technology not materialized, but also that it can lead to an apocalyptic future; a future that has the soil of the earth irreparably contaminated, as well as ecological disruptions, leading to extinction of species of plants and animals. However, most frightening is the migration of the genetic modifications into man, leading to the possible extinction of our species. Opponents also point out that GMOs and GMFs have not fulfilled their promises and that instead of benefits they are turning into an ecological nightmare.

As Nathan Batalion puts it, "genetic pollution can alter the life in soil forever! Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future. "16 Genetically altered foods have not been around long enough to know if they are safe enough for human consumption. In January 27, 1999, the news agency Reuters reported in the New Scientist magazine about a computer model developed by Dutch researchers to mimic human food digestion.

The Dutch researchers found that the computer model predicted that antibiotic-resistance genes introduced into food could jump to bacteria in the gut. It showed that "DNA lingers in the intestine" and that "DNA from a bacteria had a half-life of six minutes in the large intestine. "17 A naturally occurring pesticide bacterium, Bacillus Thuringiensis or Bt, that has been engineered into plants posses another problem as it enters the food supply. Katherine DiMatteo points out that "Bt crops, such as corn, potatoes, and cotton, are genetically engineered to contain genes from this natural pesticide Bt.

When organic farmers spray Bt on their fields, the Bt bacteria is killed by sunlight, so it is not contained in the food or it can be washed off. " However, when Bt is directly injected in our corps, the gene stays and keeps producing the toxins inside the cells. Never the less, "no one knows what effect consuming Bt crops will have on human health. "18 Everyone who consumes Bt foods assumes that because it is on the market then it must be safe to eat.

Updated: Sep 29, 2022
Cite this page

Organic food vs. non-organic food. (2016, Apr 04). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay

Organic food vs. non-organic food essay
Live chat  with support 24/7

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment