Organic Food vs. Non Organic Food, Research Paper Example

The debate with organic and non-organic food has economical, scientific, and nutritional implications that must be considered by consumers. Promoting healthier standards and a way of life that has sustained people for generations, organic food has increased tremendously. It is with these standards that organic foods remain a more appropriate choice for consumers today.

Healthier Standards

Purchasing food should not involve a haziness regarding what is used in the process. Unfortunately, some consumers simply aren’t aware of the methods, and more appropriately, the pesticides and chemicals that are used in conventionally grown foods. As it will be demonstrated, this is a stark contrast to that of organic farming.

Organic farming takes advantages of nutrient-rich techniques that promote healthy crops. Kock sums it up nicely: “Organic farmers use crop rotation, cover crops, and beneficial insects to fight pests, and composting to fertilize. They focus on keeping the soil nutrient-rich because healthy plants develop resistance to pests more readily” (764). It is with these focuses that consumers may enjoy safer methods of growing valuable crops.

That is simply not the case with conventionally-grown foods. According to Glazer, who is connecting organic farming with the Slow Food Movement: “advocates argue that food is better for the environment if it doesn’t degrade soil and water with pesticides and fertilizer and avoids the overuse of antibiotics in animals” (78). Not only is food better for the environment in this manner, it is also better for consumers. While getting into the details of conventional farming isn’t possible, it is clearly seen that these aren’t high standards.

Prior to getting into the science behind the choice, it is important to pause and consider what has been covered thus far. The standards for organic and conventional farming are not close. With reference to pesticides and soil and water degradation, it is evident that organic farming promotes a healthier process for the environment. As it will be explored, it is also healthier for the individual, as it can be seen in this hard-hitting statement: “EPA’s new pamphlet advises parents to wash, peel, boil, and skin food to get rid of pesticide residues – or buy organic produce” (Glazer 765). This is certainly not a good sign for non-organic food.

The Science: Is Organic Food Really Healthier?

The scientific evidence for either side can vary. In reference to the many studies concerning each side, there have been conflicting reports. Thus, no extensive evidence can be given for the undeniable superiority of organic food (or non-organic food for that matter). However, there is more than enough cause and reason to drive customers away from food that isn’t up to the standard of organic food.

In a recent review of this very subject, researchers that looked over the subject could not find a basis upon which to assert that organic food was healthier. However, this was not so much of a conclusion as it was a lack of ability: “There is currently no evidence to support or refute claims that organic food is safer and thus, healthier, than conventional food, or vice versa” (Magkos, Arvanti, and Zampelas 47). Specifically, the conclusions that are made focus on the “extremely limited” differences with respect to knowledge (47).

In the same study, there was a great deal of stress placed on current evidence. The researchers noted that “comparative studies of organic and conventional produces are believed to be difficult to construct and evaluate, because of several extraneous variables that are difficult or even impossible to control” (24). Thus, studies that have been completed are questioned on their ability to analyze the subject and properly draw conclusions.

On the other side of the conversation, there is legitimate reason to question the safety of non-organic food, beyond that of healthier standards. Koch cites a report from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG), which followed promises from Clinton’s administration in 1993 that exposure to pesticides for children would be reduced, found that “’levels of carcinogenic pesticides fond in fruits and vegetables heavily consumed by children’ have increased significantly” (765). Koch goes on to recap the pamphlets sent to grocery stores regarding children’s possible increased vulnerability to pesticides, and that pesticides have been shown to cause birth defects in laboratory animals (765).

Koch’s report continues to recap the cited benefits of organic food, such as the lack of cases involving foodborne illnesses (765). Stricter rules are found in certified organic food producers. Also, Koch continues to cite the same thing as see in the study from Magkos, Arvanti, and Zampelas, where an expert in microbial food safety comments that no one really knows whether organic foods are safer (765).

Discussion

It may be normal to take the stance that non-organic food is just as safe as organic food. However, as sources have demonstrated, there are complexities surrounding the current state of science in this respect. As the Mayo Clinic states: “The answer isn’t yet clear… [research] is ongoing” (n.d.). Answers could certainly arise in upcoming years to drastically change the picture.

Organic food has not exactly been around for centuries, at least with the modern standards. And when you compare the differences between organic and non-organic farming, suspicions are growing as to the current equal playing field between the two. However, even the latter phrase may not be accurate, as science has placed doubt on the reliability and abilities of these studies.

These developments cast a large and looming shadow over the current defense of those that choose non-organic foods. In short, science is not sure whether non-organic foods are worse than organic foods, due to the abilities of studies to compare each to each other, yet, through research that involves other factors (such as cancer rates), it currently provides a level playing field. This is a dangerous status update, indeed.

However, there is one thing that is not even, and that is the standards of each type of farming. Conventional methods use chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides on plants (Mayo Clinic n.d.). As far as animals are concerned, antibiotics, hormones, and medications are used – in addition to the lack of free-roaming elements and others, such as balanced diets, rotational grazing, and clean housing to prevent disease (n.d.).

As far as the farming standards are concerned, there is a wide gap. Not only is organic farming better for the environment, but there are ethical and moral considerations in regards to animals. Consumers that want free-roaming animals and those that are not injected with antibiotics, hormones, and medications will opt for non-organic farms. Pesticides on plants may have vast implications for adults, and especially children, as a previous study noted, which serves as yet another possible danger area.

As a result, organic foods can be seen as superior in a number of ways. Organic farming is better for the environment, ethically-conscious for animals, and cuts out harsh chemicals that can have serious health implications. All of these factors add up to quite a convincing argument that should be considered by consumers and approached carefully.

At the very least, organic food is the safer option. While organic foods are not without risk, of course, there is no question that organic foods promote safer crops, food sources, environments, and ultimately, consumers. In the choice to wash, peel, boil, and skin food sources to eliminate pesticide residues, or purchase organic foods, the answer is simple.

Conclusion

It is not difficult to make a case for the superiority in regards to farming standards. With reference to chemicals, additives, and the treatment of animals, conventional farming is severely lacking in comparison to organic farming methods. The natural and preferred treatment of crops and animals is certainly seen with organic standards.

The debate gets a little bit more difficult with the question of difference in health value. While science does not give an advantage, it is also unsure of the reliability or possibilities of studies. Also, research is ongoing and seems to be capable of breakthroughs to confirm what may, almost degradingly, be called “suspicions” as to the superiority of organic foods.

However, it doesn’t take much to see that organic food is the superior choice. There is evidence to suggest that chemicals, pesticides, and other cost-efficient methods of conventional farming are not sound in regards to health. Organic farming represents the highest of standards in farming, and is the choice for health, environmental concerns, and the ethical treatment of animals. Organic farming may be the answer to figuring out how to remove the pesticides from the “freshly-picked,” non-organic apple.

Works Cited

Koch, Kathy. “Food Safety Battle: Organic Vs. Biotech.” CQ Researcher 8.33 (1998): 761-784. Print.

Glazer, Sarah. “Slow Food Movement.” CQ Researcher 17.4 (2007): 73-96. Print.

Magkos, Faidon, Arvanti, Fotini, Zampelas, Antonis. “Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 46.1 (2007): 23-56. Print.

“Organic Foods: Are they Safer? More Nutritious?” Mayo Clinic. n.d. Web. 25 April 2012.