Community supported agriculture

Related Terms

Agro-toxins, antibiotics, biodynamic, bioengineered, community supported agriculture, CSA, food additives, food coloring, food labeling, free-range, genetically modified food, genetically modified organism, GMO, grass-fed, green labels, growth hormones, herbicides, holistic medicine, hormone-free, ionizing radiation, irradiation, living and raw food diet, living food diet, macrobiotic diet, Max Gerson, National Organic Program, natural food, NOP, nutrition, OFPA, organic, organic farming, Organic Foods Production Act, organophosphates, pesticides, raw food diet, rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone, sewage sludge fertilizers, sustainable agriculture, sustainable farming, United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, USDA Organic, USDA organic label, USDA organic seal, vegan, vegan diet, veganism, vegetarian, vegetarian diet, vegetarianism, whole foods.

Background

One of the first proponents of eating organic food was Max Gerson, MD, who instructed his cancer patients to eat organic fruits and vegetables, starting in the 1920s. Interest in organic food dramatically increased in the 1960s, when several pesticides and fertilizers were found to be toxic to humans or animals. Third-party organic certification was first instituted in the 1970s by the some regional organic farming groups. Growers, consumers, and others in the agricultural industry began pushing for government-defined organic labeling in the 1980s.
In the 1990s, the U.S. Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that products marketed as organic meet certain standards. The National Organic Program (NOP), part of the USDA's marketing service division, was created to fulfill the Organic Foods Production Act's directives. Neither the OFPA nor the NOP regulations address food safety or nutrition.
In 2002, the USDA finalized its organic definition and inspection program, which was the most stringent in the world at that time. Since then, a few attempts to relax the guidelines have occurred, primarily in 2003 and 2005.
According to the Organic Trade Association's 2006 Manufacturer Survey, the U.S. organic industry grew 17% overall to $14.6 billion in consumer sales in 2005: organic foods increased by 16.2% and represented $13.8 billion in consumer sales and non-food organic products increased 32.5% to total $744 million.
Currently, in the United States, a product is considered "organic" if the food, the farm, handlers, and processors of that food all meet specific criteria from the USDA. Meat is organic if the animals do not receive any antibiotics or growth hormones and produce is considered organic if it was grown without most conventional pesticides or synthetic or sewage sludge-based fertilizers. Genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered animals and crops are not allowed to be labeled organic, nor are products that have been ionized with radiation.
Many people who choose to consume organic food vs. non-organic food do so because they believe that the food is more nutritious, contains fewer toxins from additives and pesticides, is more humane for livestock, and/or is more ecological.
The USDA does not claim that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food.
Currently, high quality studies supporting increased overall health for consumers of organic foods are lacking as are long-term safety studies. These studies are difficult to design and implement.

Theory

Many people choose to eat organically because they think that organic food is more nutritious or healthier. However, consumption of organic food is a controversial issue and high quality human research is lacking in this area. Specifically, claims of higher nutritional value and lower toxic contaminants in organic foods currently have little scientific evidence supporting pronounced benefits. Some studies have shown that organic food has a lower amount of pesticides, but research has not confirmed that lower amounts of pesticides are causally related to preventing certain diseases or conditions. In addition, some experts believe the importance of ingesting a well-balanced diet may overshadow the importance of organic vs. non-organic foods. Although the benefits or risks to the patient currently lack definitive scientific evidence, the positive impact of organic farming on sustainable agriculture is more promising.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), "Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides, fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge, bioengineering, or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled 'organic,' a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to the local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too."
Only products meeting all USDA requirements may use the "USDA Organic" seal on their label. Use of the USDA organic seal is voluntary; however, knowingly labeling a non-organic food with the USDA organic seal can incur a $10,000 fine for each violation.
According to the USDA, a product labeled as "100% organic" contains nothing nonorganic; a product labeled as "organic" must contain 95% or more organic ingredients; and a product labeled as "made with organic ingredients" contains 70-95% organic ingredients. If a product contains less than 70% organic ingredients, the word organic may only appear on the ingredient information panel.
Products labeled "natural," "pesticide-free," "naturally grown," "free-range," or "hormone-free" are not necessarily organic.

Evidence Table

These uses have been tested in humans or animals. Safety and effectiveness have not always been proven. Some of these conditions are potentially serious, and should be evaluated by a qualified healthcare provider. GRADE *
These uses have been tested in humans or animals. Safety and effectiveness have not always been proven. Some of these conditions are potentially serious, and should be evaluated by a qualified healthcare provider. GRADE *
* Key to grades

A: Strong scientific evidence for this use
B: Good scientific evidence for this use
C: Unclear scientific evidence for this use
D: Fair scientific evidence for this use (it may not work)
F: Strong scientific evidence against this use (it likley does not work)
* Key to grades

A: Strong scientific evidence for this use
B: Good scientific evidence for this use
C: Unclear scientific evidence for this use
D: Fair scientific evidence for this use (it may not work)
F: Strong scientific evidence against this use (it likley does not work)

Tradition / Theory

The below uses are based on tradition, scientific theories, or limited research. They often have not been thoroughly tested in humans, and safety and effectiveness have not always been proven. Some of these conditions are potentially serious, and should be evaluated by a qualified healthcare provider. There may be other proposed uses that are not listed below.

Safety

Many complementary techniques are practiced by healthcare professionals with formal training, in accordance with the standards of national organizations. However, this is not universally the case, and adverse effects are possible. Due to limited research, in some cases only limited safety information is available.

Attribution

This information is based on a systematic review of scientific literature edited and peer-reviewed by contributors to the Natural Standard Research Collaboration (www.naturalstandard.com).

Bibliography

Barrett, JR. OP pesticides in children's bodies. Environmental Health Perspectives 2006 Feb;114(2):112.
Bourn D, Prescott J. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2002;42(1):1-34.
Holmboe-Ottesen G. [Better health with ecologic food?]. Tidsskr.Nor Laegeforen. 6-3-2004;124(11):1529-1531.
Howard V. Organic food -- the view of a medical toxico-pathologist. British Journal of Midwifery 2003 May; 11(5):272, 274-275.
Kajiya T, Kuroda A, Hokonohara D, Tei C. Heart failure caused by hookworm infection possibly associated with organic food consumption. Intern Med 2006;45(13):827-9.
Kopke U. Organic foods: do they have a role? Forum Nutr 2005;(57):62-72.
Lu C, Toepel K, Irish R, et al. Organic diets significantly lower children's dietary exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 2006 Feb;114(2):260-263.
Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A. Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence. Int J Food Sci Nutr 2003;54(5):357-371.
Magkos F, Arvaniti F, Zampelas A. Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2006;46(1):23-56.
Newsome R. Organically grown foods: A scientific status summary by the Institute of Food Technologists' expert panel on food safety and nutrition. Food Technology 1990;44(12):123-130.
Petrariu FD, Gavat V, Cozma AG. [Current issues regarding organic food]. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2005;109(4):866-870.
Ryan, GL. Whole-Food Supplements: The Prenatal Vitamin Option. Birthkit 2005 Summer;46:3.
Thompson J. Vitamins, minerals and supplements: part two. Community Pract. 2005;78(10):366-368.
Williams CM. Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green? Proc Nutr Soc 2002;61(1):19-24.
Williams RM. Organic Food versus Conventional. Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients 2006 Jan; 270:26-28.