The Origins of Agriculture-A fascinating Perspective

A Biological Perspective and a New Hypothesis

by Greg Wadley and Angus Martin

Published in Australian Biologist 6: 96-105, June 1993

Introduction

What might head a list of the defining characteristics of the human species? While our view of ourselves could hardly avoid highlighting our accomplishments in engineering, art, medicine, space travel and the like, in a more dispassionate assessment agriculture would probably displace all other contenders for top billing. Most of the other achievements of humankind have followed from this one. Almost without exception, all people on earth today are sustained by agriculture. With a minute number of exceptions, no other species is a farmer. Essentially all of the arable land in the world is under cultivation. Yet agriculture began just a few thousand years ago, long after the appearance of anatomically modern humans.


Given the rate and the scope of this revolution in human biology, it is quite extraordinary that there is no generally accepted model accounting for the origin of agriculture. Indeed, an increasing array of arguments over recent years has suggested that agriculture, far from being a natural and upward step, in fact led commonly to a lower quality of life. Hunter-gatherers typically do less work for the same amount of food, are healthier, and are less prone to famine than primitive farmers (Lee & DeVore 1968, Cohen 1977, 1989). A biological assessment of what has been called the puzzle of agriculture might phrase it in simple ethological terms: why was this behaviour (agriculture) reinforced (and hence selected for) if it was not offering adaptive rewards surpassing those accruing to hunter-gathering or foraging economies?


This paradox is responsible for a profusion of models of the origin of agriculture. 'Few topics in prehistory', noted Hayden (1990) 'have engendered as much discussion and resulted in so few satisfying answers as the attempt to explain why hunter/gatherers began to cultivate plants and raise animals. Climatic change, population pressure, sedentism, resource concentration from desertification, girls' hormones, land ownership, geniuses, rituals, scheduling conflicts, random genetic kicks, natural selection, broad spectrum adaptation and multicausal retreats from explanation have all been proffered to explain domestication. All have major flaws ... the data do not accord well with any one of these models.

Recent discoveries of potentially psychoactive substances in certain agricultural products -- cereals and milk -- suggest an additional perspective on the adoption of agriculture and the behavioural changes ('civilisation') that followed it. In this paper we review the evidence for the drug-like properties of these foods, and then show how they can help to solve the biological puzzle just described.


The emergence of agriculture and civilisation in the Neolithic


The transition to agriculture

From about 10,000 years ago, groups of people in several areas around the world began to abandon the foraging lifestyle that had been successful, universal and largely unchanged for millennia (Lee & DeVore 1968). They began to gather, then cultivate and settle around, patches of cereal grasses and to domesticate animals for meat, labour, skins and other materials, and milk.

Farming, based predominantly on wheat and barley, first appeared in the Middle East, and spread quickly to western Asia, Egypt and Europe. The earliest civilisations all relied primarily on cereal agriculture. Cultivation of fruit trees began three thousand years later, again in the MiddleEast, and vegetables and other crops followed (Zohari 1986). Cultivation of rice began in Asia about 7000 years ago (Stark 1986)

To this day, for most people, two-thirds of protein and calorie intake is cereal-derived. (In the west, in the twentieth century, cereal consumption has decreased slightly in favour of meat, sugar, fats and so on.) The respective contributions of each cereal to current total world production are: wheat (28 per cent), corn/maize (27 per cent), rice (25 per cent), barley (10 per cent), others (10 per cent) (Pedersen et al. 1989).


The change in the diet due to agriculture
The modern human diet is very different from that of closely related primates and, almost certainly, early hominids (Gordon 1987). Though there is controversy over what humans ate before the development of agriculture, the diet certainly did not include cereals and milk in appreciable quantities. The storage pits and processing tools necessary for significant consumption of cereals did not appear until the Neolithic (Washburn & Lancaster 1968). Dairy products were not available in quantity before the domestication of animals.


The early hominid diet (from about four million years ago), evolving as it did from that of primate ancestors, consisted primarily of fruits, nuts and other vegetable matter, and some meat -- items that could be foraged for and eaten with little or no processing. Comparisons of primate and fossil-hominid anatomy, and of the types and distribution of plants eaten raw by modern chimpanzees, baboons and humans (Peters & O'Brien 1981, Kay 1985), as well as microscope analysis of wear patterns on fossil teeth (Walker 1981, Peuch et al.1983) suggest that australopithecines were 'mainly frugivorous omnivores with a dietary pattern similar to that of modern chimpanzees' (Susman 1987:171).


The diet of pre-agricultural but anatomically modern humans (from 30,000 years ago) diversified somewhat, but still consisted of meat, fruits, nuts, legumes, edible roots and tubers, with consumption of cereal seeds only increasing towards the end of the Pleistocene (e.g. Constantini 1989 and subsequent chapters in Harris and Hillman 1989).


The rise of civilisation
Within a few thousand years of the adoption of cereal agriculture, the old hunter-gatherer style of social organisation began to decline. Large, hierarchically organised societies appeared, centred around villages and then cities. With the rise of civilisation and the state came socioeconomic classes, job specialisation, governments and armies.


The size of populations living as coordinated units rose dramatically above pre-agricultural norms. While hunter-gatherers lived in egalitarian, autonomous bands of about 20 closely related persons, with at most a tribal level of organisation above that, early agricultural villages had 50 to 200 inhabitants, and early cities 10,000 or more. People 'had to learn to curb deep-rooted forces which worked for increasing conflict and violence in large groups' (Pfeiffer 1977:438).


Agriculture and civilisation meant the end of foraging -- a subsistence method with shortterm goals and rewards -- and the beginning (for most) of regular arduous work, oriented to future payoffs and the demands of superiors. 'With the coming of large communities, families no longer cultivated the land for themselves and their immediate needs alone, but for strangers and for the future. They worked all day instead of a few hours a day, as hunter-gatherers had done. There were schedules, quotas, overseers, and punishments for slacking off' (Pfeiffer 1977:21).


Explaining the origins of agriculture and civilisation
The phenomena of human agriculture and civilisation are ethologically interesting, because (1) virtually no other species lives this way, and (2) humans did not live this way until relatively recently. Why was this way of life adopted, and why has it become dominant in the human species?


Problems explaining agriculture
Until recent decades, the transition to farming was seen as an inherently progressive one: people learnt that planting seeds caused crops to grow, and this new improved food source led to larger populations, sedentary farm and town life, more leisure time and so to specialisation, writing, technological advances and civilisation. It is now clear that agriculture was adopted despite certain disadvantages of that lifestyle (e.g. Flannery 1973, Henry 1989). There is a substantial literature (e.g. Reed 1977), not only on how agriculture began, but why. Palaeopathological and comparative studies show that health deteriorated in populations that adopted cereal agriculture, returning to pre-agricultural levels only in modem times. This is in part attributable to the spread of infection in crowded cities, but is largely due to a decline in dietary quality that accompanied intensive cereal farming (Cohen 1989). People in many parts of the world remained hunter-gatherers until quite recently; though they were quite aware of the existence and methods of agriculture, they declined to undertake it (Lee & DeVore 1968, Harris 1977). Cohen (1977:141) summarised the problem by asking: 'If agriculture provides neither better diet, nor greater dietary reliability, nor greater ease, but conversely appears to provide a poorer diet, less reliably, with greater labor costs, why does anyone become a farmer?'


Many explanations have been offered, usually centred around a particular factor that forced the adoption of agriculture, such as environmental or population pressure (for reviews see Rindos 1984, Pryor 1986, Redding 1988, Blumler & Byrne 1991). Each of these models has been criticised extensively, and there is at this time no generally accepted explanation of the origin of agriculture.


Problems explaining civilisation
A similar problem is posed by the post-agricultural appearance, all over the world, of cities and states, and again there is a large literature devoted to explaining it (e.g. Claessen & Skalnik 1978). The major behavioural changes made in adopting the civilised lifestyle beg explanation. Bledsoe (1987:136) summarised the situation thus:


'There has never been and there is not now agreement on the nature and significance of the rise of civilisation. The questions posed by the problem are simple, yet fundamental. How did civilisation come about? What animus impelled man to forego the independence, intimacies, and invariability of tribal existence for the much larger and more impersonal political complexity we call the state? What forces fused to initiate the mutation that slowly transformed nomadic societies into populous cities with ethnic mixtures, stratified societies, diversified economies and unique cultural forms? Was the advent of civilisation the inevitable result of social evolution and natural laws of progress or was man the designer of his own destiny? Have technological innovations been the motivating force or was it some intangible factor such as religion or intellectual advancement?'


To a very good approximation, every civilisation that came into being had cereal agriculture as its subsistence base, and wherever cereals were cultivated, civilisation appeared. Some hypotheses have linked the two. For example, Wittfogel's (1957) 'hydraulic theory' postulated that irrigation was needed for agriculture, and the state was in turn needed to organise irrigation. But not all civilisations used irrigation, and other possible factors (e.g. river valley placement, warfare, trade, technology, religion, and ecological and population pressure) have not led to a universally accepted model.


Pharmacological properties of cereals and milk


Recent research into the pharmacology of food presents a new perspective on these problems.


Exorphins: opioid substances in food
Prompted by a possible link between diet and mental illness, several researchers in the late 1970s began investigating the occurrence of drug-like substances in some common foodstuffs.


Dohan (1966, 1984) and Dohan et al. (1973, 1983) found that symptoms of schizophrenia were relieved somewhat when patients were fed a diet free of cereals and milk. He also found that people with coeliac disease -- those who are unable to eat wheat gluten because of higher than normal permeability of the gut -- were statistically likely to suffer also from schizophrenia. Research in some Pacific communities showed that schizophrenia became prevalent in these populations only after they became 'partially westernised and consumed wheat, barley beer, and rice' (Dohan 1984).


Groups led by Zioudrou (1979) and Brantl (1979) found opioid activity in wheat, maize and barley (exorphins), and bovine and human milk (casomorphin), as well as stimulatory activity in these proteins, and in oats, rye and soy. Cereal exorphin is much stronger than bovine casomorphin, which in turn is stronger than human casomorphin. Mycroft et al. (1982, 1987) found an analogue of MIF-1, a naturally occurring dopaminergic peptide, in wheat and milk. It occurs in no other exogenous protein. (In subsequent sections we use the term exorphin to cover exorphins, casomorphin, and the MIF-1 analogue. Though opioid and dopaminergic substances work in different ways, they are both 'rewarding', and thus more or less equivalent for our purposes.)


Since then, researchers have measured the potency of exorphins, showing them to be comparable to morphine and enkephalin (Heubner et al. 1984), determined their amino acid sequences (Fukudome &Yoshikawa 1992), and shown that they are absorbed from the intestine (Svedburg et al.1985) and can produce effects such as analgesia and reduction of anxiety which are usually associated with poppy-derived opioids (Greksch et al.1981, Panksepp et al.1984). Mycroft et al. estimated that 150 mg of the MIF-1 analogue could be produced by normal daily intake of cereals and milk, noting that such quantities are orally active, and half this amount 'has induced mood alterations in clinically depressed subjects' (Mycroft et al. 1982:895). (For detailed reviews see Gardner 1985 and Paroli 1988.)


Most common drugs of addiction are either opioid (e.g heroin and morphine) or dopaminergic (e.g. cocaine and amphetamine), and work by activating reward centres in the brain. Hence we may ask, do these findings mean that cereals and milk are chemically rewarding? Are humans somehow 'addicted' to these foods?


Problems in interpreting these findings
Discussion of the possible behavioural effects of exorphins, in normal dietary amounts, has been cautious. Interpretations of their significance have been of two types:
where a pathological effect is proposed (usually by cereal researchers, and related to Dohan's findings, though see also Ramabadran & Bansinath 1988), and where a natural function is proposed (by milk researchers, who suggest that casomorphin may help in mother-infant bonding or otherwise regulate infant development).


We believe that there can be no natural function for ingestion of exorphins by adult humans. It may be that a desire to find a natural function has impeded interpretation (as well as causing attention to focus on milk, where a natural function is more plausible) . It is unlikely that humans are adapted to a large intake of cereal exorphin, because the modern dominance of cereals in the diet is simply too new. If exorphin is found in cow's milk, then it may have a natural function for cows; similarly, exorphins in human milk may have a function for infants. But whether this is so or not, adult humans do not naturally drink milk of any kind, so any natural function could not apply to them.


Our sympathies therefore lie with the pathological interpretation of exorphins, whereby substances found in cereals and milk are seen as modern dietary abnormalities which may cause schizophrenia, coeliac disease or whatever. But these are serious diseases found in a minority. Can exorphins be having an effect on humankind at large?


Other evidence for 'drug-like' effects of these foods
Research into food allergy has shown that normal quantities of some foods can have pharmacological, including behavioural, effects. Many people develop intolerances to particular foods. Various foods are implicated, and a variety of symptoms is produced. (The term 'intolerance' rather than allergy is often used, as in many cases the immune system may not be involved (Egger 1988:159). Some intolerance symptoms, such as anxiety, depression, epilepsy, hyperactivity, and schizophrenic episodes involve brain function (Egger 1988, Scadding & Brostoff 1988).


Radcliffe (1982, quoted in 1987:808) listed the foods at fault, in descending order of frequency, in a trial involving 50 people: wheat (more than 70 per cent of subjects reacted in some way to it), milk (60 per cent), egg (35 per cent), corn, cheese, potato, coffee, rice, yeast, chocolate, tea, citrus, oats, pork, plaice, cane, and beef (10 per cent). This is virtually a list of foods that have become common in the diet following the adoption of agriculture, in order of prevalence. The symptoms most commonly alleviated by treatment were mood change (>50 per cent) followed by headache, musculoskeletal and respiratory ailments.


One of the most striking phenomena in these studies is that patients often exhibit cravings, addiction and withdrawal symptoms with regard to these foods (Egger 1988:170, citing Randolph 1978; see also Radcliffe 1987:808-10, 814, Kroker 1987:856, 864, Sprague & Milam 1987:949, 953, Wraith 1987:489, 491). Brostoff and Gamlin (1989:103) estimated that 50 per cent of intolerance patients crave the foods that cause them problems, and experience withdrawal symptoms when excluding those foods from their diet. Withdrawal symptoms are similar to those associated with drug addictions (Radcliffe 1987:808). The possibility that exorphins are involved has been noted (Bell 1987:715), and Brostoff and Gamlin conclude (1989:230):'... the results so far suggest that they might influence our mood. There is certainly no question of anyone getting 'high' on a glass of milk or a slice of bread - the amounts involved are too small for that - but these foods might induce a sense of comfort and wellbeing, as food-intolerant patients often say they do. There are also other hormone-like peptides in partial digests of food, which might have other effects on the body.'


There is no possibility that craving these foods has anything to do with the popular notion of the body telling the brain what it needs for nutritional purposes. These foods were not significant in the human diet before agriculture, and large quantities of them cannot be necessary for nutrition. In fact, the standard way to treat food intolerance is to remove the offending items from the patient's diet.


A suggested interpretation of exorphin research
But what are the effects of these foods on normal people? Though exorphins cannot have a naturally selected physiological function in humans, this does not mean that they have no effect. Food intolerance research suggests that cereals and milk, in normal dietary quantities, are capable of affecting behaviour in many people. And if severe behavioural effects in schizophrenics and coeliacs can be caused by higher than normal absorption of peptides, then more subtle effects, which may not even be regarded as abnormal, could be produced in people generally.


The evidence presented so far suggests the following interpretation.
The ingestion of cereals and milk, in normal modern dietary amounts by normal humans, activates reward centres in the brain. Foods that were common in the diet before agriculture (fruits and so on) do not have this pharmacological property. The effects of exorphins are qualitatively the same as those produced by other opioid and / or dopaminergic drugs, that is, reward, motivation, reduction of anxiety, a sense of wellbeing, and perhaps even addiction. Though the effects of a typical meal are quantitatively less than those of doses of those drugs, most modern humans experience them several times a day, every day of their adult lives.




Hypothesis: exorphins and the origin of agriculture and civilisation
When this scenario of human dietary practices is viewed in the light of the problem of the origin of agriculture described earlier, it suggests an hypothesis that combines the results of these lines of enquiry.


Exorphin researchers, perhaps lacking a long-term historical perspective, have generally not investigated the possibility that these foods really are drug-like, and have instead searched without success for exorphin's natural function. The adoption of cereal agriculture and the subsequent rise of civilisation have not been satisfactorily explained, because the behavioural changes underlying them have no obvious adaptive basis.


These unsolved and until-now unrelated problems may in fact solve each other. The answer, we suggest, is this: cereals and dairy foods are not natural human foods, but rather are preferred because they contain exorphins. This chemical reward was the incentive for the adoption of cereal agriculture in the Neolithic. Regular self-administration of these substances facilitated the behavioural changes that led to the subsequent appearance of civilisation.


This is the sequence of events that we envisage.
Climatic change at the end of the last glacial period led to an increase in the size and concentration of patches of wild cereals in certain areas (Wright 1977). The large quantities of cereals newly available provided an incentive to try to make a meal of them. People who succeeded in eating sizeable amounts of cereal seeds discovered the rewarding properties of the exorphins contained in them. Processing methods such as grinding and cooking were developed to make cereals more edible. The more palatable they could be made, the more they were consumed, and the more important the exorphin reward became for more people.


At first, patches of wild cereals were protected and harvested. Later, land was cleared and seeds were planted and tended, to increase quantity and reliability of supply. Exorphins attracted people to settle around cereal patches, abandoning their nomadic lifestyle, and allowed them to display tolerance instead of aggression as population densities rose in these new conditions.


Though it was, we suggest, the presence of exorphins that caused cereals (and not an alternative already prevalent in the diet) to be the major early cultigens, this does not mean that cereals are 'just drugs'. They have been staples for thousands of years, and clearly have nutritional value. However, treating cereals as 'just food' leads to difficulties in explaining why anyone bothered to cultivate them. The fact that overall health declined when they were incorporated into the diet suggests that their rapid, almost total replacement of other foods was due more to chemical reward than to nutritional reasons.


It is noteworthy that the extent to which early groups became civilised correlates with the type of agriculture they practised. That is, major civilisations (in south-west Asia, Europe, India, and east and parts of South-East Asia; central and parts of north and south America; Egypt, Ethiopia and parts of tropical and west Africa) stemmed from groups which practised cereal, particularly wheat, agriculture (Bender 1975:12, Adams 1987:201, Thatcher 1987:212). (The rarer nomadic civilisations were based on dairy farming.)


Groups which practised vegeculture (of fruits, tubers etc.), or no agriculture (in tropical and south Africa, north and central Asia, Australia, New Guinea and the Pacific, and much of north and south America) did not become civilised to the same extent.


Thus major civilisations have in common that their populations were frequent ingesters of exorphins. We propose that large, hierarchical states were a natural consequence among such populations. Civilisation arose because reliable, on-demand availability of dietary opioids to individuals changed their behaviour, reducing aggression, and allowed them to become tolerant of sedentary life in crowded groups, to perform regular work, and to be more easily subjugated by rulers. Two socioeconomic classes emerged where before there had been only one (Johnson & Earle 1987:270), thus establishing a pattern which has been prevalent since that time.


Discussion


The natural diet and genetic change
Some nutritionists deny the notion of a pre-agricultural natural human diet on the basis that humans are omnivorous, or have adapted to agricultural foods (e.g. Garn & Leonard 1989; for the contrary view see for example Eaton & Konner 1985). An omnivore, however, is simply an animal that eats both meat and plants: it can still be quite specialised in its preferences (chimpanzees are an appropriate example). A degree of omnivory in early humans might have preadapted them to some of the nutrients contained in cereals, but not to exorphins, which are unique to cereals.


The differential rates of lactase deficiency, coeliac disease and favism (the inability to metabolise fava beans) among modern racial groups are usually explained as the result of varying genetic adaptation to post-agricultural diets (Simopoulos 1990:27-9), and this could be thought of as implying some adaptation to exorphins as well. We argue that little or no such adaptation has occurred, for two reasons: first, allergy research indicates that these foods still cause abnormal reactions in many people, and that susceptibility is variable within as well as between populations, indicating that differential adaptation is not the only factor involved. Second, the function of the adaptations mentioned is to enable humans to digest those foods, and if they are adaptations, they arose because they conferred a survival advantage. But would susceptibility to the rewarding effects of exorphins lead to lower, or higher, reproductive success? One would expect in general that an animal with a supply of drugs would behave less adaptively and so lower its chances of survival. But our model shows how the widespread exorphin ingestion in humans has led to increased population. And once civilisation was the norm, non-susceptibility to exorphins would have meant not fitting in with society. Thus, though there may be adaptation to the nutritional content of cereals, there will be little or none to exorphins. In any case, while contemporary humans may enjoy the benefits of some adaptation to agricultural diets, those who actually made the change ten thousand years ago did not.


Other 'non-nutritional' origins of agriculture models
We are not the first to suggest a non-nutritional motive for early agriculture. Hayden (1990) argued that early cultigens and trade items had more prestige value than utility, and suggested that agriculture began because the powerful used its products for competitive feasting and accrual of wealth. Braidwood et al. (1953) and later Katz and Voigt (1986) suggested that the incentive for cereal cultivation was the production of alcoholic beer:


'Under what conditions would the consumption of a wild plant resource be sufficiently important to lead to a change in behaviour (experiments with cultivation) in order to ensure an adequate supply of this resource? If wild cereals were in fact a minor part of the diet, any argument based on caloric need is weakened. It is our contention that the desire for alcohol would constitute a perceived psychological and social need that might easily prompt changes in subsistence behaviour' (Katz & Voigt 1986:33).


This view is clearly compatible with ours. However there may be problems with an alcohol hypothesis: beer may have appeared after bread and other cereal products, and been consumed less widely or less frequently (Braidwood et al. 1953). Unlike alcohol, exorphins are present in all these products. This makes the case for chemical reward as the motive for agriculture much stronger. Opium poppies, too, were an early cultigen (Zohari 1986). Exorphin, alcohol, and opium are primarily rewarding (as opposed to the typically hallucinogenic drugs used by some hunter-gatherers) and it is the artificial reward which is necessary, we claim, for civilisation. Perhaps all three were instrumental in causing civilised behaviour to emerge.


Cereals have important qualities that differentiate them from most other drugs. They are a food source as well as a drug, and can be stored and transported easily. They are ingested in frequent small doses (not occasional large ones), and do not impede work performance in most people. A desire for the drug, even cravings or withdrawal, can be confused with hunger. These features make cereals the ideal facilitator of civilisation (and may also have contributed to the long delay in recognising their pharmacological properties).


Compatibility, limitations, more data needed
Our hypothesis is not a refutation of existing accounts of the origins of agriculture, but rather fits alongside them, explaining why cereal agriculture was adopted despite its apparent disadvantages and how it led to civilisation.


Gaps in our knowledge of exorphins limit the generality and strength of our claims. We do not know whether rice, millet and sorghum, nor grass species which were harvested by African and Australian hunter-gatherers, contain exorphins. We need to be sure that preagricultural staples do not contain exorphins in amounts similar to those in cereals. We do not know whether domestication has affected exorphin content or-potency. A test of our hypothesis by correlation of diet and degree of civilisation in different populations will require quantitative knowledge of the behavioural effects of all these foods.


We do not comment on the origin of noncereal agriculture, nor why some groups used a combination of foraging and farming, reverted from farming to foraging, or did not farm at all. Cereal agriculture and civilisation have, during the past ten thousand years, become virtually universal. The question, then, is not why they happened here and not there, but why they took longer to become established in some places than in others. At all times and places, chemical reward and the influence of civilisations already using cereals weighed in favour of adopting this lifestyle, the disadvantages of agriculture weighed against it, and factors such as climate, geography, soil quality, and availability of cultigens influenced the outcome. There is a recent trend to multi-causal models of the origins of agriculture (e.g. Redding 1988, Henry 1989), and exorphins can be thought of as simply another factor in the list. Analysis of the relative importance of all the factors involved, at all times and places, is beyond the scope of this paper.


Conclusion


'An animal is a survival machine for the genes that built it. We too are animals, and we too are survival machines for our genes. That is the theory. In practice it makes a lot of sense when we look at wild animals.... It is very different when we look at ourselves. We appear to be a serious exception to the Darwinian law.... It obviously just isn't true that most of us spend our time working energetically for the preservation of our genes' (Dawkins 1989:138).


Many ethologists have acknowledged difficulties in explaining civilised human behaviour on evolutionary grounds, in some cases suggesting that modern humans do not always behave adaptively. Yet since agriculture began, the human population has risen by a factor of 1000: Irons (1990) notes that 'population growth is not the expected effect of maladaptive behaviour'.


We have reviewed evidence from several areas of research which shows that cereals and dairy foods have drug-like properties, and shown how these properties may have been the incentive for the initial adoption of agriculture. We suggested further that constant exorphin intake facilitated the behavioural changes and subsequent population growth of civilisation, by increasing people's tolerance of (a) living in crowded sedentary conditions, (b) devoting effort to the benefit of non-kin, and (c) playing a subservient role in a vast hierarchical social structure.


Cereals are still staples, and methods of artificial reward have diversified since that time, including today a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological cultural artifacts whose function, ethologically speaking, is to provide reward without adaptive benefit. It seems reasonable then to suggest that civilisation not only arose out of self-administration of artificial reward, but is maintained in this way among contemporary humans. Hence a step towards resolution of the problem of explaining civilised human behaviour may be to incorporate into ethological models this widespread distortion of behaviour by artificial reward.
References


Adams, W .M., 1987, Cereals before cities except after Jacobs, in M. Melko & L.R. Scott eds, The boundaries of civilizations in space and time, University Press of America, Lanham.
Bell, I. R., 1987, Effects of food allergy on the central nervous system, in J. Brostoff and S. J. Challacombe, eds, Food allergy and intolerance, Bailliere Tindall, London.
Bender, B., 1975, Farming in prehistory: from hunter-gatherer to food producer, John Baker, London.
Bledsoe, W., 1987, Theories of the origins of civilization, in M. Melko and L. R. Scott, eds, The boundaries of civilizations in space and time, University Press of America, Lanham.
Blumler, M., & Byrne, R., 1991, The ecological genetics of domestication and the origins of agriculture, Current Anthropology 32: 2-35.
Braidwood, R. J., Sauer, J.D., Helbaek, H., Mangelsdorf, P.C., Cutler, H.C., Coon, C.S., Linton, R., Steward J. & Oppenheim, A.L., 1953, Symposium: did man once live by beer alone? American Anthropologist 55: 515-26.
Brantl, V., Teschemacher, H., Henschen, A. & Lottspeich, F., 1979, Novel opioid peptides derived from casein (beta-casomorphins), Hoppe-Seyler's Zeitschrift fur Physiologische Chemie 360:1211-6.
Brostoff, J., & Gamlin, L., 1989, The complete guide to food allergy and intolerance, Bloomsbury, London.
Chang, T. T., 1989, Domestication and the spread of the cultivated rices, in D.R. Harris and G.C. Hillman, eds, Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation, Unwin Hyman, London.
Claessen, H. J. M. & Skalnik P., eds, 1978, The early state, Mouton, The Hague.
Cohen, M. N., 1977, Population pressure and the origins of agriculture: an archaeological example from the coast of Peru, in Reed, C.A., ed., The origins of agriculture, Mouton, The Hague.
Cohen, M. N., 1989, Health and the rise of civilization, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Constantini, L., 1989, Plant exploitation at Grotta dell'Uzzo, Sicily: new evidence for the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic subsistence in southern Europe, in Harris, D. R. & Hillman, G. C., eds, Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation, Unwin Hyman, London.
Dawkins, R., 1989, Darwinism and human purpose, in Durant, J. R., ed., Human origins, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Dohan, F., 1966, Cereals and schizophrenia: data and hypothesis, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 42:125-52.
Dohan, F., 1983, More on coeliac disease as a model of schizophrenia, Biological Psychiatry 18:561-4.
Dohan, F. & Grasberger, J., 1973, Relapsed schizophrenics: earlier discharge from the hospital after cereal-free, milk-free diet, American Journal of Psychiatry 130:685-8.
Dohan, F., Harper, E., Clark, M., Ratigue, R., & Zigos, V., 1984, Is schizophrenia rare if grain is rare? Biological Psychiatry 19: 385-99.
Eaton, S. B. & Konner, M., 1985, Paleolithic nutrition - a consideration of its nature and current implications, New England Journal of Medicine 312: 283-90.
Egger, J., 1988, Food allergy and the central nervous system, in Reinhardt, D. & Schmidt E., eds, Food allergy, Raven, New York.
Flannery, K. V., 1973, The origins of agriculture, Annual Review of Anthropology 2:271-310.
Fukudome, S., & Yoshikawa, M., 1992, Opioid peptides derived from wheat gluten: their isolation and characterization, FEBS Letters 296:107-11.
Gardner, M. L. G., 1985, Production of pharmacologically active peptides from foods in the gut. in Hunter, J. & Alun-Jones, V., eds, Food and the gut, Bailliere Tindall, London.
Gam, S. M. & Leonard, W. R., 1989, What did our ancestors eat? Nutritional Reviews 47:337 45.
Gordon, K. D., 1987, Evolutionary perspectives on human diet, in Johnston, F., ed, Nutritional Anthropology, Alan R. Liss, New York.
Greksch, G., Schweiger C., Matthies, H., 1981, Evidence for analgesic activity of beta-casomorphin in rats, Neuroscience Letters 27:325~8.
Harlan, J. R., 1986, Plant domestication: diffuse origins and diffusion, in Barigozzi, G., ed., The origin and domestication of cultivated plants, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Harris, D. R., 1977, Alternative pathways towards agriculture, in Reed, C. A., ed., The origins of agriculture, Mouton, The Hague.
Harris, D. R. & Hillman, G. C., eds, 1989, Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation, Unwin Hyman, London.
Hayden, B., 1990, Nimrods, piscators, pluckers, and planters: the emergence of food production, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:31-69.
Henry, D. O., 1989, From foraging to agriculture: the Levant at the end of the ice age, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Heubner, F., Liebeman, K., Rubino, R. & Wall, J., 1984, Demonstration of high opioid-like activity in isolated peptides from wheat gluten hydrolysates, Peptides 5:1139-47.
Irons, W., 1990, Let's make our perspective broader rather than narrower, Ethology and Sociobiology 11: 361-74
Johnson, A. W. & Earle, T., 1987, The evolution of human societies: from foraging group to agrarian state, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Katz, S. H. & Voigt, M. M., 1986, Bread and beer: the early use of cereals in the human diet, Expedition 28:23-34.
Kay, R. F., 1985, Dental evidence for the diet of Australopithecus, Annual Review of Anthropology 14:315 41.
Kroker, G. F., 1987, Chronic candiosis and allergy, in Brostoff, J. & Challacombe, S.J., eds, Food allergy and intolerance, Bailliere Tindall, London.
Lee, R. B. & DeVore, I., 1968, Problems in the study of hunters and gatherers, in Lee, R.B. & DeVore, I., eds, Man the hunter, Aldine, Chicago.
Mycroft, F. J., Wei, E. T., Bernardin, J. E. & Kasarda, D. D., 1982, MlF-like sequences in milk and wheat proteins, New England Journal of Medicine 301:895.
Mycroft, F. J., Bhargava, H. N. & Wei, E. T., 1987, Pharmacalogical activities of the MIF-1 analogues Pro-Leu-Gly, Tyr-Pro-Leu-Gly and pareptide, Peptides 8:1051-5.
Panksepp, J., Normansell, L., Siviy, S., Rossi, J. & Zolovick, A., 1984, Casomorphins reduce separation distress in chicks, Peptides 5:829-83.
Paroli, E., 1988, Opioid peptides from food (the exorphins), World review of nutrition and dietetics 55:58-97.
Pedersen, B., Knudsen, K. E. B. & Eggum, B. 0., 1989, Nutritive value of cereal products with emphasis on the effect of milling, World review of nutrition and dietetics 60:1-91.
Peters, C. R. & O'Brien, E. M., 1981, The early hominid plant-food niche: insights from an analysis of plant exploitation by Homo, Pan, and Papio in eastern and southern Africa, Current Anthropology 22:127-40.
Peuch, P., Albertini, H. & Serratrice, C., 1983, Tooth microwear and dietary patterns in early hominids from Laetoli, Hadar, and Olduvai, Journal of Human Evolution 12:721-9.
Pfeiffer, J. E., 1977, The emergence of society: a prehistory of the establishment, McGraw Hill, New York.
Pryor, F. L., 1986, The adoption of agriculture: some theoretical and empirical evidence, American Anthropologist 88:879-97.
Radcliffe, M. J., 1987, Diagnostic use of dietary regimes, in Brostoff, J. & Challacombe, S. J., eds, Food allergy and intolerance, Bailliere Tindall, London.
Ramabadran, K. & Bansinath, M., 1988, Opioid peptides from milk as a possible cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Medical Hypotheses 27:181-7.
Randolph, T. G., 1978, Specific adaptation, in Annals of Allergy 40:333-45
Redding, R., 1988, A general explanation of subsistence change from hunting and gathering to food production, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:56-97.
Reed, C. A., ed., 1977, The origins of agriculture, Mouton, The Hague.
Rindos, D., 1984, The origins of agriculture: an evolutionary perspective, Academic Press, Orlando.
Scadding, G. K. & Brostoff, J., 1988, The dietic treatment of food allergy, in Reinhardt, D. & Schmidt, E., eds, Food allergy, Raven, New York.
Simopoulos, A. P., 1990, Genetics and nutrition: or what your genes can tell you about nutrition, World review of nutrition and dietetics 63:25-34.
Sprague, D. E. & Milam, M. J., 1987, Concept of an environmental unit, in Brostoff, J. & .Challacombe, S. J., eds, Food allergy and intolerance, Bailliere Tindall, London.
Stark, B. L., 1986, Origins of food production in the New World, in Meltzer, D. J., Fowler, D. D. & Sabloff, J. A., eds, American archaeology past and future, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington.
Susman, R. L., 1987, Pygmy chimpanzees and common chimpanzees: models for the behavioural ecology of the earliest hominids, in Kinzey, W. G., ed., The evolution of human behaviour: primate models, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Svedburg, J., De Haas, J., Leimenstoll, G., Paul, F. & Teschemacher, H., 1985, Demonstration of betacasomorphin immunoreactive materials in in-vitro digests of bovine milk and in small intestine contents after bovine milk ingestion in adult humans, Peptides 6:825-30.
Thatcher, J. P., 1987, The economic base for civilization in the New World, in Melko, M. & Scott, L. R., eds, The boundaries of civilizations in space and time, University Press of America, Lanham.
Walker, A., 1981, Dietary hypotheses and human evolution, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B292:57-64.
Washburn, L. & Lancaster, C. S., 1968, The evolution of hunting, in Lee, R. B. & DeVore, I., eds, Man the hunter, Aldine, Chicago.
Wittfogel, K., 1957, Oriental Despotism, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Wraith, D. G., 1987, Asthma, in Brostoff, J. & Challacombe, S. J., eds, Food allergy and intolerance, Bailliere Tindall, London.
Wright, H. E., 1977, Environmental changes and the origin of agriculture in the Near East, in Reed, C. A., ed, The origins of agriculture, Mouton, The Hague.
Zioudrou, C., Streaty, R. & Klee, W., 1979, Opioid peptides derived from food proteins: the exorphins Journal of Biological Chemistry 254:244S9.
Zohari, D., 1986, The origin and early spread of agriculture in the Old World, in Barigozzi, G., ed., The origin and domestication of cultivated plants, Elsevier, Amsterdam

Good Calories Bad Calories-The Truth

During my weight loss journey I was fairly confident with the way I was eating even though I had so many different folks who questioned my food choices sometimes daily. My own daughter was one of them. Why then did I feel better? Why was I losing weight? Why did I have more energy than ever before? Focus? Wow! I felt like I had hit the jackpot!! For more information, check out "My Journey" as I go into more detail there about my brain and what I figured out is that there is the direction relationship between my cognitive function and nutrition. I practiced my particular lifestyle for more than 7 years being about 75% confident with what I was doing. The nagging 25% was on my mind frequently. Until Gary Taubes hit the scene with his compelling book Good Calories Bad Calories. It was this book along with Mary Enig's work as the foremost lipid researcher (where you will see Gary reference frequently) Now, this isn't an easy read but the following excerpt from one of my Mother Jones Subscriptions will give you a taste of what this more than 500 page book has to offer you. I remember in 2003 when Time magazine came out with the cover story "What if it's all been a big fat lie" (also written by Taubes). A colleauge of mine handed me the magazine knowing I was a low carber and just snickered. "Here's a good story for you Misty" all while enjoying his sandwich, chips and cola. You know who you are Jim S.



Good Calories, Bad Calories: What Really Makes Us Fat?
By Gary Taubes
If you had asked your mother or grandmother for diet tips, you might have heard, “Every woman knows that carbohydrates are fattening.” In fact, that’s from a 1963 article in the British Journal of Nutrition, co-authored by one of the leading nutritionists of the era. And for the previous 100 years or so, this was the conventional wisdom: carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread, potatoes, pasta, rice, sweets and beer make us fat, and, by implication, foods rich in fat and protein do not.


But since then, the nutritional dogma has changed completely, and we’ve come to accept the idea that there is nothing uniquely fattening about carbohydrates. Rather, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, as nutritionists hasten to tell us. This means that the only way to lose weight is to diligently eat less of everything, to exercise more and hope for the best — a prescription that even the experts will admit rarely seems to work.


As an investigative journalist working in science and health, I’ve spent the last decade assessing the conventional wisdom on diet, weight control and disease. My conclusion is that much of what we’ve been taught since the early 1970s — most of which we’ve all come to accept — is simply wrong. This might explain why those same years have seen unprecedented increases in obesity and diabetes worldwide. When I started my research, I had no idea that I would come to such contrarian views. But now I think that certain conclusions are virtually inescapable:
Obesity and being overweight are not caused by eating too much and certainly not by eating food with “too much” fat.


Carbohydrates, not fat, are the cause of excess weight, just as our grandparents’ generation always knew. Eating carbohydrates triggers a hormonal response — insulin secretion — that signals our bodies to accumulate fat. This is why the fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be. Sugar, flour and other refined carbohydrates produce an exaggerated version of this response, and so are particularly fattening.


Exercise doesn’t make us lose weight, it just makes us hungry.
Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of heart disease. Rather the same foods that make us fat — easily-digestible carbohydrates and sugars — will eventually cause the diseases that are likely to kill us: heart disease, diabetes and even most cancers. As the late Tim Russert’s physician explained in The New York Times shortly after Russert’s death, “if there’s one number that’s a predictor of mortality, it’s waist circumference.” Because carbohydrate-rich foods increase our waist circumference, then it must be these same foods that shorten our lives.
These conclusions about diet and weight loss aren’t exactly new. A carbohydrate-restricted diet is not a “fad diet” as the American Heart Association has insisted on calling it. Rather it had been the standard medical practice for treating obesity until the 1960s, when the American Heart Association began insisting that we all eat low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diets to prevent heart disease. But then, in one decade, the fattening carbohydrate was miraculously transformed — without benefit of scientific data — into heart-healthy diet food.


So What Happened?
Beginning in the late 1950s, a small but influential group of nutritionists and cardiologists decided that dietary fat caused heart disease. First the American Heart Association adopted this position, then Congress, the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health. Beginning in the late 1980s with the publication of the Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health, an entire research industry arose to create palatable non-fat substitutes for fat, while the food industry spent billions to market the less-fat-is-good message. The USDA’s booklet on dietary guidelines and its Food Guide Pyramid recommended that fats and oils be eaten “sparingly,” while we were now to eat six to 11 servings per day of the pasta, potatoes, rice and bread once considered uniquely fattening.
Three facts were neglected during this national push for a low-fat diet. One was the upturn in obesity and diabetes rates that emerged as this new nutritional advice displaced the knowledge that carbs were fattening.


The second was that when researchers actually did clinical trials to test the hypothesis that eating less fat or less saturated fat prevented heart disease, the evidence failed to support the hypothesis. This was the conclusion of a 2001 review of “reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease.” The review was published by the Cochrane Collaboration, an international organization dedicated to producing unbiased assessments of the science underlying medical interventions. The authors had combed the literature for all possible studies that addressed the question of dietary fat and heart disease. They identified 27 that were performed with sufficient scientific rigor to be considered meaningful. These trials encompassed some 10,000 subjects, followed for an average of three years each. The review concluded that our supposedly heart-healthy diets, whether low in all fat or just saturated fat, had no effect on longevity and no significant effect on the likelihood of actually having a heart attack.
The third fact that was regrettably neglected during the years that we came to believe in the evils of saturated fat was that back in the 1950s and early 1960s, biochemists and physiologists had already figured out what it is that regulates the accumulation of fat in our fat tissue. In other words, scientists have known what makes us fat for almost half a century.


The Skinny on Fat
As it turns out, every hormone in our body works to release fat from our fat tissue, with the singular exception of insulin, which works to put it there. And insulin levels in our blood are determined primarily by the carbohydrate content of our diet. The more carbohydrates we consume, and the easier they are to digest, the higher our insulin. Insulin tells our fat tissue to accumulate fat. So long as insulin levels remain elevated, fat is locked in the fat tissue and can’t escape.


What’s even more remarkable — and completely ignored in all discussions of obesity and weight since the 1970s — is that we must eat carbohydrates to accumulate excess fat in our fat tissue. It’s only by eating carbohydrates that we can obtain alpha glycerol phosphate, an enzyme that is an absolute requirement for storing fat. This enzyme fixes the fat in the fat tissue in a way that it can’t slip back out through the fat cell membranes and escape into the blood stream. This is why the more carbohydrates we consume, the more fat we will store. The less carbohydrates, the less fat.


After a meal is digested, insulin levels should decline. When this happens, fat is released from the fat tissue in the form of fatty acids and these are then burned in cells for fuel. For this reason, another necessary requirement for remaining lean is to have lengthy periods during which insulin levels are low and we burn our fat for fuel. When insulin levels remain elevated, fat can’t escape from the fat tissue. It goes in, but it doesn’t come out, and we can’t use it for energy. A meal without carbohydrates is a meal that doesn’t stimulate any significant insulin secretion. You store very few, if any, calories as fat, and you get plenty of opportunity to burn the fat you had stored.


The reason this science was left behind was a simple one. Diet doctors in the 1960s read the same medical literature that I did decades later, and they then began prescribing carbohydrate-restricted, mostly meat diets to their patients. But a low-carbohydrate diet is high in fat, and fat was thought to be a killer. Indeed, in 1965, the same year that the American Physiology Society published an 800-page Handbook of Physiology describing the recent research in the regulation of fat tissue, the research that implicated carbohydrates and insulin in fat storage, the Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer was quoted in The New York Times saying it would be the equivalent of “mass murder” to prescribe low-carbohydrate diets to treat obesity. Mayer’s reasoning was that these diets were high in fat and the fat would cause heart disease. That’s how the medical establishment has treated it ever since, even after researchers revealed that high fat diets actually improve cholesterol profiles, rather than worsen them.


Meanwhile, the last decade has witnessed a renewed interest in carbohydrate-restricted diets as obesity levels have risen and a new generation of clinicians have come to question the prevailing wisdom on weight loss. These studies have all confirmed what the underlying science of fat regulation tells us: cut out carbohydrates and you lose fat. Seven independent teams of investigators set out to test low-fat, low-calorie diets of the kind recommended by the American Heart Association in randomized control trials against “eat as much as you like” Atkins-like diets. Together these trials included well over 900 obese subjects. In each case, the weight loss after three to six months was two to three times greater on the low-carbohydrate diet — unrestricted in calories — than on the calorie-restricted, low-fat diet.


In 2003, the prestigious medical journal JAMA published an article that its seven authors from the Yale and Stanford medical schools considered to be the “first published synthesis of the evidence” in the English-language medical literature on the efficacy and safety of carbohydrate-restricted diets. They concluded that the evidence was “insufficient to recommend or condemn the use of these diets,” because it lacked long-term randomized trials that could allow the safety of the diets to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, they did report the average weight loss from 40 years of trials and research. “Of the 34 of 38 lower-carbohydrate diets for which weight change after diet was calculated, these lower-carbohydrate diets were found to produce greater weight loss than higher-carbohydrate diets” — an average of 37 pounds when carbohydrates were restricted to less than 60 grams (240 calories) a day, compared to 4 pounds when they were not.


What Is for Dinner?
The ultimate question is whether a protein- and fat-rich diet lacking virtually all starches and sugars can be a healthy diet, since one conclusion of my research is that to remain lean we would have to follow such a regimen for life. If we give up carbohydrates and lose our excess weight, but then go back to carbohydrates, the weight will come back as well.


Is it possible to eat red meat in any quantity without it being bad for our hearts? This is one question of many where the experts have simply failed us. If you actually look at the fat content of a piece of red meat (or eggs and bacon), you’ll find that the principal fat is not saturated fat — which is supposedly bad for the heart — but the same monounsaturated fat as in olive oil, which is supposedly good for the heart. And much of the remaining fat is still what nutritionists would consider heart-healthy. Consider a porterhouse steak, for example, with a quarter-inch layer of fat. After broiling, this reduces to almost equal parts fat and protein. Of the fat, slightly more than half (51 percent) is monounsaturated, which lowers the (bad) LDL cholesterol and raises the (good) HDL. Slightly less than half (45 percent) is saturated fat, some of which raises LDL, but all of it raises HDL. A third of that saturated fat is stearic acid, which raises (the good) HDL, and has no effect on the bad LDL. The remaining fat (4 percent) is polyunsaturated, which lowers LDL but has no meaningful effect on HDL. (You can look up the numbers yourself in the USDA National Nutrient Database.)


Although nutritionists don’t like to talk about this in an era that considers fruits and vegetables to be the sine qua non of a healthful diet, animal products happen to contain all the amino acids, minerals and vitamins essential for health, with the only point of controversy being vitamin C. And the evidence suggests that the vitamin C content of meat products is more than sufficient for health, so long as the diet is indeed carbohydrate-restricted, absent the refined and easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars that would raise blood sugar and insulin levels and so increase our need to obtain vitamin C from the diet.


Moreover, carbohydrate-restricted diets, as they have been prescribed since the 1920s, do not restrict green leafy vegetables, but only starchy vegetables such as potatoes and refined grains and sugars — only those foods that are virtually absent any essential nutrients unless they’re added back in the processing, as is the case with white bread. A calorie-restricted diet that cuts calories by a third, as the British nutritionist John Yudkin pointed out in the early 1970s, will also cut essential nutrients by a third. A diet that prohibits sugar, flour, potatoes and beer, but allows eating to satiety of meat, cheese, eggs and green vegetables, will leave the essential nutrients, whether or not it leads to a decrease in calories consumed.
If you’ve been trying and failing time and time again to lose weight by dutifully eating less and exercising more, perhaps its time to try your grandmother’s diet instead. Stay away from the fattening carbohydrates, stop worrying about how much fat you eat and see what happens. Let your weight and your waist circumference tell you whether the diet you’re now eating is a healthy one.


Grandma Knew Best
As far back as the 1820s, the French gastronome Jean Brillat Savarin in The Physiology of Taste, insisted that the roots of obesity were obvious. He had spent 30 years, he said, listening to one “stout party” after another proclaim their love for bread, rice and potatoes. His conclusion: obesity was caused by a natural predisposition to put on weight, conjoined with the “floury and feculent substances, which man makes the primary ingredient of his daily nourishment.” And the effects of this fecula — i.e., “potatoes, grain or any kind of flour” — he added, were exacerbated by eating sugar.
For the next 140 years, when physicians discussed weight loss in the medical literature, the two constants were the ideas that starches and sugars — i.e., carbohydrates — must be minimized to reduce weight, and that meat, fish or fowl must constitute the bulk of the diet. “The great progress in dietary control of obesity,” wrote Hilde Bruch, considered the foremost authority on childhood obesity, in 1957, “was the recognition that meat … was not fat producing; but that it was the innocent foodstuffs, such as bread and sweets, which lead to obesity.”
This was also what Dr. Spock taught our parents and our grandparents in five decades, eight editions and more than 50 million copies of Baby and Child Care, the bible of child-rearing in the latter half of the 20th century. “Rich desserts,” Spock wrote, and “the amount of plain, starchy foods (cereals, breads, potatoes) taken is what determines, in the case of most people, how much [weight] they gain or lose.”
Gary Taubes is a investigative science journalist and author of Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Everything You Need To Know About Organic Foods

What is organic food?

Organic refers to an "earth friendly" and health-supportive method of farming and processing foods. Weeds and pests are controlled using environmentally sound practices that sustain our personal health and the health of our planet. The term "organic" applies to both animal and plant foods.

Organic farmers do not use chemicals (pesticides, fungicides or fertilizers) in an environmentally harmful manner. They utilize a blend of old and new technologies and scientific research to balance the earth's natural ecosystem. Examples of organic farming methods include:

• Rotating crops between fields. This helps keep pests from building up and improves soil fertility.
• Planting select bushes and flowers to attract beneficial insects which ward off unwanted pests.

Organic farming produces nutrient-rich, fertile soil which nourishes the plants, and it keeps chemicals off the land to protect water quality and wild life. Organic farming also gives us food that is safer to eat and much more likely to keep us healthy.

How to Fully Understand the Labels on Organic Foods

What Does the "Organic" Label Mean?

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets, defines and regulates the use and meaning of "Organic" on food labels. It is the term used to describe raw or processed agricultural products and ingredients that have been (a) organically grown (farmed) and (b) handled in compliance with the standards of April 2001, which have been fully enforced since October 2002. These standards prohibit the used of:

• Most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
• Sewer sludge fertilizers
• Genetic engineering
• Growth hormones
• Irradiation
• Antibiotics
• Artificial ingredients

So, when you see foods that have the word "organic" on the label you can be assured that they meet these strict standards that were established for organic foods.

How to understand the different use of the term "Organic" on food labels.

Many people are not completely sure about the precise meaning of the word "organic" or "organically grown" on food labels. One of their concerns is whether or not they can trust that the words ensure that the foods were grown or produced without the use of potentially hazardous chemicals.

The first thing to keep in mind is that the term "organic" can be applied to a variety of different kinds of foods. The term can be used on agricultural products, and on meat, poultry, eggs and dairy products. And it also applies to the methods used to process organically grown foods in preparing them for market or to retard spoilage.

Organically Grown Crops:

• The crop must be produced on land without the use of synthetic substances (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers) except those provided by the standards.
• No prohibited substances can have been applied to the land for 3 years prior to harvest.
• The land must have defined boundaries and buffer zones preventing the crop to have contact with prohibited substances from adjoining land.
• Soil fertility and crop nutrient management must be done in a manner to improve soil conditions, minimize soil erosion, and to prevent contamination of crops, soil or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms or heavy metals:
  • Use of crop rotation
  • Use of composed animal manure with specified carbon to nitrogen ratios and temperature readings.
  • Use of uncomposted plant materials
• Use of sewage sludge is prohibited
• Seeds, seedlings and planting stock are organically grown except as provided in the law.
• Genetic engineering is prohibited
• Pest problems controlled by mechanical and physical methods including:
  • Introduction of predators or parasites of the pest species
  • Development of habitat for natural enemies of the pests
  • Use of lures, traps and repellants
• Weed problems controlled by:
  • Mulching
  • Hand weeding and mechanical cultivation
  • Mowing
  • Flame, heat, or electrical
  • Grazing livestock
  • Plastic or synthetic mulches that are removed at the end of the harvest
• Disease problems controlled by:
  • Management practices to suppress the spread of disease
  • Application of non-synthetic biological, botanical or mineral inputs

The National List provides a list of allowed and prohibited substances for organically grown crops.

Organically Grown Meat, Poultry, Eggs and Dairy:

• Livestock must be fed rations composed of agricultural products, pasture and forage that are organically produced and, if applicable, handled.
• Prohibitions regarding animal feed include:
  • Administering of animal drugs in the absence of illness
  • Use of hormones to promote growth
  • Use of supplements in amounts above those for adequate nutrition
  • Use of mammal or poultry slaughter by-products for feed
  • Excessive use of feed additives
  • Routinely administering synthetic parasiticides
• Producer must provide conditions to maintain and promote the health and welfare of livestock including:
  • Sufficient nutritional feed rations
  • Appropriate housing, pasture, sanitation conditions
  • Conditions allowing for exercise, freedom of movement and minimizing stress of the animals
  • Administration of veterinary care
• Origin of livestock:
  • Organic livestock must be from livestock under continuous organic management from the last third of gestation or hatching
  • Organic poultry must be under continuous organic management beginning no later than the second day of life
  • Milk or milk products must be from animals that have been under continuous organic management beginning no later than 1 year prior to milk production.

Organic production is managed with the intent to integrate cultural, biological and mechanical practices to promote the cycling of resources, promote ecological balance and biodiversity. Practices help to protect the soil, groundwater, provide health promoting conditions for animals and ultimately help promote the health of the consumer.

The National List provides a list of allowed and prohibited substances for organically grown meat, poultry, eggs and dairy.

Organically Handled:

Mechanical or biological methods used to process an organically produced agricultural product for the purpose of retarding spoilage or otherwise preparing the agricultural product for market. This includes acceptable processing aids and ingredients, appropriate packaging materials and labeling, cleaning methods, waste disposal and pest management at processing facilities.

Why did we need the April 2001 regulations of organic foods?

In 1990 the Congress mandated that the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) create a national legal definition of "organic" that would provide reliable, uniform, enforceable standards for any food bearing the term "organic." This regulation is intended to prevent fraud and support our right to know what's in our food and how it's grown and processed.

In accordance with this mandate, the USDA adopted the first national standards regarding organic foods, which took effect in April, 2001, and farms and others had until October 2002 to fully comply to the new law for their products to be labeled as "Organic." State and private certifiers are accredited by the USDA to ensure that food processors and growers comply to the April 2001 standards.

Since October 2002, you can be certain that organically labeled products in all the states meet the federal standards. States can (and some do) have stricter standards than the federal government

What is USDA certification?

Certification is the process by which the consumer is assured that a product marketed as "organic" is in compliance with production and handling requirements set forth by the USDA April 2001 regulations.

• All producers of organic food, livestock, fiber crops and handlers or organic products must be certified. (except growers who gross less than $5000 and retailers)
• Growers and handlers submit an Organic Farm Plan or an Organic Handling Plan, to a USDA accredited certifying agent detailing their growing and handling methods.
• On-site inspections are conducted by certifying agents to verify submitted plans.
• Methods and materials used in production must meet standards set in the new regulations.
• Clear documentation of methods and materials must be kept
• There must be a paper trail tracing of a product back to its production site enabling verification of production methods and materials.

How will "organic" foods be identified?

A government seal identifies "organic foods."

• Label
• Logo - Products labeled "100% organic" or "organic" can display the USDA logo.

What are the federally mandated labels that identify "Organic" products?

100% organic: A raw or processed agricultural product that contains (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) 100% organically produced ingredients.

Organic: A raw or processed agricultural product that contains (by weight or fluid volume, excluding water and salt) not less than 95% organically produced or processed agricultural products.

Made with (specified) organic ingredients: The ingredients in a multi-ingredient agricultural product must contain at least 70% organically produced ingredients and handled according to law.

Organic ingredients listed individually: The ingredients in a multi-ingredient agricultural product containing less than 70% organically produced ingredients with each organically produced ingredient identified as such.

How is the term "Certified Organic" used under the April 2001 regulations?

The idea behind these different uses of the term "organic" on foods is to make it clear and easy for you to be able to know the specific information about the organic ingredients just by reading the label. With the Federal "organic" label standards in effect, it is no longer necessary to see the term "Certified Organic" on a product to feel secure about it. That term was important before there were national standards for organic foods because it indicated that the product's organic authenticity was being monitored by an agency or impartial source. Since the USDA now sets, defines and regulates the use and meaning of the term "Organic" on all food labels, you can feel confident whenever the word appears on a label, because now the Federal government ensures that organic foods set under the Organic Foods Production Act provide true fulfillment for goals of the original organic growers who devoted great dedication and sacrifice in order to assure the safety and nutritional value of the foods you eat.

What does it mean if you see the word "transitional" on a food label?

Crops grown on land which is in transition to organic (during the first three years after switching from conventional farming, for instance, cannot be certified as organic, and by federal law, cannot be labeled as "transitional"). However, under state law, products can already be certified as "transitional" and will continue to be labeled as "transitional" as long as the state laws remain in effect.

What Foods Are Covered by the April 2001 Standard?

• Fruits, Vegetables, Mushrooms, and Grains
• Dairy products and Eggs
• Livestock feed
• Meats and Poultry
• Fish and seafood
• Honey

Standards for culinary herbs, pet food and food for minor animal species such as rabbits are not yet defined.

Are there any foods that are not covered by the federal organic standards?

Yes. Although the Final Rule for federal organic standards, officially approved in April 2001, covers the vast majority of food types, standards for culinary herbs, pet food and food for minor animal species such as rabbits are not yet defined.

Can you give me some examples of organically labeled foods?

Yes. You might see the following types of labels on federally certified organic foods:

• A label which reads "Organic Vegetable Soup" would be stating that ninety-five percent of the total ingredients of that soup (by weight) are certified as organic.
• Alternately, a soup label might read "Vegetable Soup" and include the phrase "Made with Organic Vegetables" on the front panel, indicating that the primary ingredients are organic and make up more than seventy percent of the total ingredients by weight.
• Another label might read simply "Vegetable Soup" and include the word organic to identify specific items in the ingredient listing panel - as in potatoes, carrots and organic kidney beans.

Why Organic Foods are Better for Health

Can organic foods really improve my health?

Yes. Organically grown food is your best way of reducing exposure to toxins used in conventional agricultural practices. These toxins include not only pesticides, many of which have been federally classified as potential cancer-causing agents, but also heavy metals such as lead and mercury, and solvents like benzene and toluene. Minimizing exposure to these toxins is of major benefit to your health. Heavy metals damage nerve function, contributing to diseases such as multiple sclerosis and lowering IQ, and also block hemoglobin production, causing anemia. Solvents damage white cells, lowering the immune system's ability to resist infections. In addition to significantly lessening your exposure to these health-robbing substances, organically grown foods have been shown to contain substantially higher levels of nutrients such as protein, vitamin C and many minerals.

Research Suggests Organic Food is Better for Your Health

Rats fed organic food were significantly healthier than their peers given conventionally-grown produce, shows research reported by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, February 2005.

During the experiment, 36 rats were divided into three groups. All were given potatoes, carrots, peas, green kale, apples, rapeseed oil, and the same vitamin supplements. One group was fed organic food, another conventionally grown food with high levels of fertilizer and some pesticide, and the third group received minimally fertilized conventionally grown food.

Although pesticide residue was measured and found to be below detection levels in all groups, the scientists found that the rats fed organically-grown produce were measurably healthier, slept better, had stronger immune systems and were less obese.

Lead researcher, Dr Kirsten Brandt, of Newcastle University's School of Agriculture, was careful not to overstate the findings, but noted: "The difference was so big it is very unlikely to be random. We gave the food to the rats and then we measured what they were doing. We can say the reason why the rats have different health was clearly due to the fact that there was a different growing method, and this was enough for this result. If we want to understand how and why, we need another study."

How do organic foods benefit cellular health?

DNA: Eating organically grown foods may help to better sustain health since recent test tube animal research suggests that certain agricultural chemicals used in the conventional method of growing food may have the ability to cause genetic mutations that can lead to the development of cancer. One example is pentachlorophenol (PCP) that has been found to be able to cause DNA fragmentation in animals. Mitochondria: Eating organically grown foods may help to better promote cellular health since several agricultural chemicals used in the conventional growing of foods have been shown to have a negative effect upon mitochondrial function. These chemicals include paraquat, parathion, dinoseb and 2-4-D which have been found to affect the mitochondria and cellular energy production in a variety of ways including increasing membrane permeability, which exposes the mitochondria to damaging free radicals, inhibiting a process known as coupling that is integral to the efficient production of ATP. Cell Membrane: Since certain agricultural chemicals may damage the structure and function of the cellular membrane, eating organically grown foods can help to protect cellular health. The insecticide endosulfan and the herbicide paraquat have been shown to oxidize lipid molecules and therefore may damage the phospholipid component of the cellular membrane. In animal studies, pesticides such as chlopyrifos, endrin and fenthion have been shown to over stimulate enzymes involved in chemical signaling causing imbalance that has been linked to conditions such as atherosclerosis, psoriasis and inflammation.

How can organic foods contribute to children's health?

The negative health effects of conventionally grown foods, and therefore the benefits of consuming organic foods, are not just limited to adults. In fact, many experts feel that organic foods may be of paramount importance in safeguarding the health of our children.

In two separate reports, both the Natural Resources Defense Council (1989) and the Environmental Working Group (1998) found that millions of American children are exposed to levels of pesticides through their food that surpass limits considered to be safe. Some of these pesticides are known to be neurotoxic, able to cause harm to the developing brain and nervous system. Additionally, some researchers feel that children and adolescents may be especially vulnerable to the cancer-causing effects of certain pesticides since the body is more sensitive to the impact of these materials during periods of high growth rates and breast development.

The concern for the effects of agricultural chemicals on children's health seems so evident that even the U.S. government has taken steps to protect our nation's young. In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act requiring that all pesticides applied to foods be safe for infants and children.

Organic foods that are strictly controlled for substances harmful to health can play a major role in assuring the health of our children.

Eating Organic Dramatically Lowers Children's Exposure to Organophosphate Pesticides

Eating organic foods provides children with "dramatic and immediate" protection from exposure to two organophosphate pesticides that have been linked to harmful neurological effects in animals and humans, shows a study funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and published in the September 2005 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

The pesticides-malathion and chlorpyrifos-while restricted or banned for home use, are widely used on a variety of crops, and according to the annual survey by U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program, residues of these organophosphate pesticides are still routinely detected in food items commonly consumed by young children.

Over a fifteen-day period, Dr. Chensheng "Alex" Lu and his colleagues from Emory University, the University of Washington, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measured exposure to malathion and chlorpyrifos in 23 elementary students in the Seattle area by testing their urine.

The participants, aged 3-11-years-old, were first monitored for three days on their conventional diets before the researchers substituted most of the children's conventional diets with organic foods for five consecutive days. The children were then given their normal foods and monitored for an additional seven days.

To ensure that any detectable change in dietary pesticide exposure would be attributable to the organic food rather than the change in diet, the researchers substituted organic foods that were the same items the children would have normally eaten as part of their conventional diet. Organic food items were substituted for the conventional diet of fresh fruits and vegetables, juices, processed fruits or vegetables (e.g. salsa), and wheat-based or corn-based products (i.e. pasta, cereal, popcorn, or chips).

"Immediately after substituting organic food items for the children's normal diets, the concentration of the organophosphorus pesticides found in their bodies decreased substantially to non-detectable levels until the conventional diets were re-introduced," said Dr. Lu.

During the days when children consumed organic diets, most of their urine samples contained zero concentration of the malathion metabolite. However, once the children returned to their conventional diets, the average malathion metabolite concentration increased to 1.6 parts per billion with a concentration range from 5 to 263 parts per billion.

A similar trend was seen for chlorpyrifos. The average chlorpyrifos metabolite concentration increased from one part per billion during the organic diet days to six parts per billion when children consumed conventional food.

A second study, published in the February 2006 issue ofEnvironmental Health Perspectives, confirmed these results. Once again, another group of 23 children from the Seattle area aged 3-11 years participated. When the conventionally grown foods in their diets were replaced with comparable organically grown foods, concentrations of compounds in the children's urine indicating exposure to organophosphate pesticides immediately dropped to non-detectable levels and remained nondetectable until they once again consumed conventionally grown foods.

The children were first monitored for three days on their normal diet. Then, most of the conventionally grown items in their diets were replaced with comparable organically grown items for 5 days. Substituted items included fruits and vegetables, juices, processed fruit and vegetable products and wheat or corn based products. Lastly, the children returned to their normal diets for a further 7 days.

Researchers analyzed two spot daily urine samples, first-morning and before-bedtime voids, throughout the 15-day study period. Urinary concentrations of compounds indicating the children were ingesting the organophosphorus pesticides, malathion and chlorpyrifos, became undetectable immediately after the introduction of organic diets and remained undetectable until the conventional diets were reintroduced.

The repetition of this research clearly demonstrates that an organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect against exposures to organophosphorus pesticides, which are commonly used in agricultural production.

Organophosphate pesticides account for approximately half the insecticide use in the United States and are applied to many conventionally grown foods important in children's diets. Organophosphates work by poisoning the nervous system in pests. When exposure to organophosphate pesticides is sufficiently high, these neurological poisons can also interfere with the proper functioning of the nervous system in humans.

Children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of organophosphate pesticides because their bodies and brains are still growing. Even low body levels of organophosphate neurotoxins can contribute to developmental delays, behavioral problems, attention problems/hyperactivity, poor school performance and learning disabilities.

In 2000, the Consumers Union reported that the conventionally grown foods with the highest levels of pesticide residues were apples, peaches, pears, grapes, strawberries, cantaloupe, green beans, winter squash and spinach. The message is clear: to minimize your children's exposure to pesticides, choose organic!

Are organic foods nutritionally superior to conventionally grown foods?

Yes, and significantly more. Proof of their superiority has been demonstrated in numerous studies. In 1998, a review of 34 studies comparing the nutritional content of organic versus non-organic food was published in the peer-reviewed, MEDLINE-indexed journal Alternative Therapies (Volume 4, No. 1, pgs. 58-69). In this review, organic food was found to have higher protein quality in all comparisons, higher levels of vitamin C in 58% of all studies, 5-20% higher mineral levels for all but two minerals. In some cases, the mineral levels were dramatically higher in organically-grown foods-as much as three times higher in one study involving iron content.

Organic foods may also contain more flavonoids than conventionally grown foods, according to Danish research published in the August 2003 issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. In this study, 16 healthy non-smoking participants ranging in age from 21-35 years were given either a diet high in organically or conventionally grown fruits and vegetables for 22 days, after which they were switched over to the other diet for another 22 days. After both dietary trials, the researchers analyzed levels of flavonoids and other markers of antioxidant defenses in the food and in the participants' blood and urine samples. Results indicated a significantly higher content of the flavonoid quercitin in the organic produce and in the subjects' urine samples when on the organic produce diet, plus the subjects' urinary levels of another flavonoid, kaempferol, were also much higher when on the organically grown compared to the conventionally grown diet.

A review of 41 studies comparing the nutritional value of organically to conventionally grown fruits, vegetables and grains, also indicates organic crops provide substantially more of several nutrients, including:

• 27% more vitamin C
• 21.1% more iron
• 29.3% more magnesium
• 13.6% more phosphorus

The review also found that while 5 servings of organically grown vegetables (lettuce, spinach, carrots, potatoes and cabbage) provided the daily recommended intake of vitamin C for men and women, their conventionally grown counterparts did not. Plus, organically grown foods contained 15.1% less nitrates than conventionally grown foods. Nitrates, a major constituent of chemical fertilizers, bind to hemoglobin and, particularly in infants, can significantly reduce the body's ability to carry oxygen. For more information on nitrates, click Nitrates - North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

In another study whose findings are based on pesticide residue data collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, organic fruits and vegetables were shown to have only a third as many pesticide residues as their conventionally grown counterparts. Study data, which covered more than 94,000 food samples from more than 20 crops, showed 73% of conventionally grown foods sampled had residue from at least one pesticide, while only 23% of organically grown samples had any residues. When residues of persistent, long-banned organochlorine insecticides such as DDT were excluded from the analysis, organic samples with residues dropped from 23 to 13%. In contrast, more than 90% of USDA's samples of conventionally grown apples, peaches, pears, strawberries and celery had residues.

When it comes to choosing between organic or conventionally grown foods, size is definitely not everything, suggests another study published in Science Daily Magazine. Chemistry professor Theo Clark and undergraduate students at Truman State University in Mississippi found organically grown oranges contained up to 30% more vitamin C than those grown conventionally. Reporting the results at the June 2, 2002, meeting of the American Chemical Society, Clark said he had expected the conventionally grown oranges, which were twice as large, to have twice the vitamin C as the organic versions. Instead, chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy revealed the much higher level in organic oranges.

Why the big difference? Clark speculated that "with conventional oranges, (farmers) use nitrogen fertilizers that cause an uptake of more water, so it sort of dilutes the orange. You get a great big orange but it is full of water and doesn't have as much nutritional value."

Eating organic may also help protect against chronic inflammation, a major factor in both cardiovascular disease and colon cancer. Another study, published in the European Journal of Nutrition, found that organic soups sold in the UK contain almost 6 times as much salicylic acid as non-organic soups. Salicylic acid, the compound responsible for the anti-inflammatory action of aspirin, has been shown to help prevent hardening of the arteries and bowel cancer. Researchers compared the salicylic acid content of 11 brands of organic soup to that found in non-organic varieties. The average level of salicylic acid in 11 brands of organic vegetable soup was 117 nanograms per gram, compared with 20 nanograms per gram in 24 types of non-organic soup. The highest level (1,040 nanograms per gram) was found in an organic carrot and coriander soup. Four of the conventional soups had no detectable levels of salicylic acid.

What substances do we avoid by eating organic food?

Over 3,000 high-risk toxins routinely present in the U.S. food supply are, by law, excluded from organic food, including:Pesticides: By far the largest group of toxins to be largely prohibited from organically grown foods are synthetic pesticides, which are found virtually everywhere else in the food supply. Several hundred different chemicals and several thousand brand-name pesticide products are legally used in commercial food production in the U.S. Act of 1992; the Environmental Protection Agency had classified 73 pesticides authorized for agricultural use as potential carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). And pesticides don't just remain where they are applied. A 1996 study by the Environmental Working Group found 96% of all water samples taken from 748 towns across the U.S. contained the pesticide atrazine, and at least 20 different chemical pesticides are routinely present in municipal tap water across the U.S. Heavy metals: The toxic metals cadmium, lead, and mercury enter the food supply through industrial pollution of soil and groundwater and through machinery used in food processing and packaging. Cadmium, which can be concentrated in plant tissues at levels higher than those in soil, has been linked to lung, prostate and testicular cancers. Despite lead's long-recognized serious adverse impact on health, especially that of young children, lead solder is still used to seal tin cans, imparting the lead residues found in many canned foods. Even low levels of lead are harmful and are associated with decreased intelligence, impaired neurobehavioral development, decreased stature and growth, and impaired hearing. Mercury is toxic to brain cells and has been linked to autism and Alzheimer's disease. Solvents: Used to dissolve food components and produce food additives, solvents are also virtually omnipresent in commercially processed food. Solvents, such as benzene and toluene have been linked to numerous cancers. Benzene, specifically, has been repeatedly associated with rheumatoid arthritis-an auto-immune condition involving pain and degeneration in the joints that affects over 2 million adults in the U.S.

Not only are these toxic substances harmful singly, but when combined, as they are in commercially grown and processed food, and in the human body where they accumulate, their effects have been found to be magnified as much as a 1,000-fold.

Why Organicically Grown Foods Are Better for the Health of Our Planet

What are the environmental benefits of organic farming over conventional farming methods?

Organically grown foods are cultivated using farming practices that work to preserve and protect the environment.

Most conventional farming methods used today adhere to a chemical-dependent model of agribusiness. Residues from conventional farming methods use toxic chemicals that remain in the soil, leach into groundwater, and frequently end up either on the skin or become internal constituents of commercially grown foods. The predominant use of this model has resulted in adversely affecting the earth's environment and the health of its inhabitants. These methods have adversely affected:

• Soil quality
• Water purity
• Biodiversity
• Safety and health of farm workers
• Survival of small and family farms
• Connection to the land
• Taste and quality of foods

Organic farming is seen as the alternative to chemical farming. It is often inaccurately and simplistically described as farming without the use of pesticides. More accurately, it is a method of farming which partners with nature rather than altering or controlling natural processes which includes:

• Absence of use of dangerous synthetic pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers
• Improving soil quality
• Conserving and keeping up water quality
• Encouraging biodiversity
• Minimalizing the health and occupational hazards to farm workers
• Maintaining a restorative and sustainable biosystem.

Organic Farming Significantly Improves Soil Quality

Results recently published from a long-term study conducted by researchers at the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, PA, show that organic farming practices help retain significantly more carbon in the soil, making the soil more productive, better able to retain water, and helping to prevent global warming.

Data gathered since 1981 from the Rodale Institute's experimental farms in east-central Pennsylvania on organically grown corn and soybeans shows that the soil retained 15-28% more carbon than conventionally farmed soil, the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of carbon, or 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre foot of soil. According to Paul Hepperly, research manager for the Rodale Institute, converting the nation's 160 million acres of corn and soybeans would significantly reduce the carbon dioxide produced each year by the United States.

Some conventional growers have responded that the Rodale Institute's numbers are too high to be believable, but Hepperly explains that his excellent carbon sequestration results are due to the fact that organic farming keeps a variety of crops in the field longer than conventional farming. "We grow diversified crops in the organic system, and actually that looks like it's more important than whether it's plowed or not," Hepperly said. "It's the extended cropping season and the crops grown through a longer portion of the season that seem to be very important for the trapping of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. They're retaining the nutrients and building the organic matter through a longer season." State Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff and Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty said their offices would build on the Rodale Institute research to help develop policies that would allow farmers to benefit from environmentally sound practices.

Organic farming is highly preferable to conventional agriculture in terms of its effects on the environment, confirms a study published in the March 6 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The yearlong experiment, conducted in an established apple orchard on a 4-acre site in the Yakima Valley of central Washington, used some trees raised with conventional synthetic fertilizers; others grown organically without pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilization; and a third group raised on integrated farming, which combines organic and conventional agricultural techniques.

Each tree in all three groups was given the same amount of nitrogen at two feedings, one in October and another in May. Organically grown trees were fertilized with either composted chicken manure or alfalfa meal, while conventionally raised plants were given calcium nitrate, a synthetic fertilizer widely used by commercial apple growers. Trees raised using the integrated system got a blend of equal parts chicken manure and calcium nitrate.

One goal of the study was to compare the amount of nitrogen leaching into the soil from each of the four fertilizer treatments. Nitrogen fertilizers release or break down into nitrates-chemical compounds plants need to build proteins. When present in excess of the amounts needed by plants, however, nitrates percolate through the soil, contaminating surface and groundwater supplies.

Besides their harmful impact on aquatic life, high nitrate levels in drinking water can cause serious illness in humans, particularly small children. According to the PNAS study, nearly one of 10 domestic wells in the United States sampled between 1993 and 2000 had nitrate concentrations that exceeded the EPA's drinking water standards.

"Nitrogen compounds also enter our watersheds and have effects quite distant from the fields in which they are applied, as for example in contaminating water tables and causing biological dead zones at the mouths of major rivers," said study co-author Harold A. Mooney, the Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology at Stanford.

The researchers measured nitrate leaching during the entire year and found it was 4.4 to 5.6 times higher in the conventional treatment than in the two organic treatments, with the integrated treatment in between.

"The intensification of agricultural production over the past 60 years and the subsequent increase in global nitrogen inputs have resulted in substantial nitrogen pollution and ecological damage. The primary source of nitrogen pollution comes from nitrogen-based agricultural fertilizers, whose use is forecasted to double or almost triple by 2050," wrote study co-authors.

The research team also compared the amount of nitrogen gas released into the atmosphere by the four treatments. Nitrogen compounds from fertilizer can enter the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

Air samples collected in the orchard after the fall and spring fertilizations revealed that organic and integrated soils emitted larger quantities of an environmentally benign gas called dinitrogen (N2) than soils treated with conventional synthetic fertilizer.

This may be due to the fact that the organic and integrated soils contained active concentrations of denitrifying bacteria-naturally occurring microbes that convert excess nitrates in the soil into N2 gas. Communities of denitrifying microbes were much smaller and far less active and efficient in conventionally treated soils.

Modern conventional farming practices have also led to nutrient-poor food. The mineral content of vegetables has dropped significantly over the last few decades. Today, you need to eat almost twice as many carrots and three times as much broccoli to get the same of calcium you would have received from one carrot in 1950. The lesson is clear: organically grown foods are the clear choice to promote the health of both ourselves and our planet.

How do conventional farming methods affect water quality?

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates pesticides (some which are known to be cancer causing) contaminate the groundwater in 38 states, polluting the primary source of drinking water for more than half the country's population.

What is sustainable agriculture?

Sustainable agriculture is farming practices that preserve and protect the future productivity and health of the environment. Sustainable agriculture is, however, a wider topic than organic farming. The way food is processed, packaged and transported may pose a threat to the environment, even when the food was cultivated organically. For example, pretzels may be organic-meaning 95% of their ingredients are organically grown-but have been produced from highly refined flour processed using energy-wasting machinery, packaged in non-recyclable plastic, and shipped around the world using large amounts of fossil fuel. Growing foods organically is, therefore, only the first step in achieving sustainable agriculture. Most environmentalists and ecologists and many individuals involved in the production of organic foods believe that sustainable agriculture is necessary if we are to reach the long-term goals of personal health and ecological balance.

In 1988 the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization adopted the following official definition of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development:

Sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) should conserve land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.

In the 1990 Farm Bill, the U.S. Congress defined sustainable agriculture as an integrated system of plant and animal production practices that:

• Satisfy human food and fiber needs
• Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends
• Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrates, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls
• Sustain the economic viability of farm operations
• Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.

In 1992, during the UN Conference on Environment and Development, a number of non-governmental organizations (NGO) drafted their own Sustainable Agriculture Treaty which states:

Sustainable Agriculture is a model of social and economic organization based on equitable and participatory vision of development which recognizes the environment and natural resources as the foundation of economic activity. Agriculture is sustainable when it is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, culturally appropriate and based on a holistic scientific approach.

Sustainable Agriculture preserves biodiversity, maintains soil, fertility and water purity, conserves and improves the chemical, physical and biological qualities of the soil, recycles natural resources and conserves energy.

Sustainable Agriculture uses locally available renewable resources, appropriate and affordable technologies, and minimizes the use of external and purchased inputs, thereby increasing local independence and self sufficiency and insuring a source of stable income for peasants, family small farmers and rural communities, and integrates humans with their environment. Sustainable Agriculture respects the ecological principles of diversity and interdependence and uses the insights of modern science to improve rather than displace the traditional wisdom accumulated over centuries by innumerable farmers around the world.

How to Understand the April 2001 Regulation of Organic Foods

Can you give me more details about federal regulation of organic farming?

Yes. Most of these details are presented in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as discussed below.

What was the Organic Foods Production Act?

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was Title XXI of the 1990 Farm Bill. Its purpose was to establish national standards for the production and handling of foods labeled as organic.

Previously, private and State agencies had been certifying organic practices, but there was no uniformity in standards and therefore no guarantee that organic meant the same thing from state to state, or even locally from certifier to certifier. National standards for organic products were desired by both producers and consumers to clear up this confusion in the marketplace and to protect against mislabeling or fraud.

OFPA allows for state standards that are more restrictive than the federal standards, but they must be approved by the USDA. In addition, states cannot discriminate against out-of-state products that meet the federal standards.

What is the National Organic Program?

OFPA authorized the formation of a National Organic Program (NOP) to establish organic standards, and to require and oversee mandatory certification of organic production. The NOP will be implemented once the Final Rules are signed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The NOP, by statute, is administered by State and private organizations rather than by the Federal government. The USDA's role is to act as overseer of the Program.

While the NOP has required federal funding during its developmental stages, it is expected that, as with similar USDA programs, future costs will be covered by user fees paid by certifying agencies.

Currently, fees for certification are paid by growers and processors to private or state certifying agencies.

What is the National Organic Standards Board?

Under the Act, a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was created to advise the Secretary of Agriculture in setting the standards on which the USDA's National Organic Program will be based.

The NOSB wanted their recommendations to be based on industry consensus. They asked for and received an unprecedented amount of public input from farmers, businesses and consumers during every step of their decision-making process. After considering the recommendations of the NOSB, the Secretary has final authority in determining the regulations. Appointments to the NOSB are made by the Secretary of Agriculture for five year terms, and must include:

Four farmers, two handlers/processors, one retailer, one scientist (with expertise in toxicology, ecology or biochemistry), three consumer/public interest advocates, three environmentalists.

In addition to making recommendations on the national standards, the NOSB is authorized to convene Technical Advisory Panels to advise on materials to be included on a National List of materials allowed for use in organic production.

Who actually gets certified in the organic certification process?

With two exceptions (listed below), everyone who wants to sell products labeled as organic must be certified. This includes producers of organic livestock, food and fiber crops, and handlers of organic products.

A handler is any operation that receives, processes, packages, or stores agricultural products. Some examples: a processing company that buys organic tomatoes and makes canned spaghetti sauce; any distributor who substantially transforms, repacks or re-labels organic agricultural products. This last distinction is meant to exclude brokering, warehousing or trucking operations that merely store or move finished processed products from place to place without altering them in any way.

Is anyone exempt from certification?

Yes. Growers who gross less than $5,000 annually are exempt from certification. The NOSB recommends that these growers sign a declaration (available from certifying agencies) stating that they understand and are in compliance with the Act, and that they have a written Organic Farm Plan (see below), which can be made available to the public upon request. The NOSB further recommends that growers falling under this Small Farm Exemption may not use the term certified organic when marketing their crops, and may market through direct sales only (i.e., farm stands, farmers' markets, or direct sales to a retailer).

At present, retailers aren't required to be certified. The NOSB, however, recommends certification for retailers that engage in activities that qualify them as handlers. (An example: repacking bulk products such as dry beans or grain.)

How does the certification process actually work?

A grower or handler seeking organic certification submits an Organic Farm Plan or an Organic Handling Plan to a USDA-accredited private or state certification program. The Organic Plan must detail all current growing or handling methods and any materials that will be used. The Plan also covers future intentions and improvements to all areas of production.

Even growers or harvesters of organic wild crops, such as fiddlehead ferns, must develop a Plan showing that harvesting practices will not be destructive to the environment or to the future productivity of the crop.

Five-year records must be kept of all management practices and materials used in organic production.

In addition to assessing the Organic Plan, the certification agency performs annual on-site inspections of each farm or handling operation participating in its program. Certification is then either awarded or denied. User fees are collected from each grower or handler to cover the cost of the certification program.

What if a farm only wants to be part organic?

The Act does allow for only part of a farm or handling operation to be certified. The organic and conventional parts of the operation must be kept separate - whether by physical boundaries and buffer zones, in the case of a farm, or by proper cleaning and management of facilities and machinery, in the case of a handler.

Separate records must be kept for each part of a split operation. This provision can be seen as a short-term compromise. The NOSB's intent is to encourage conversion to 100% certified organic production.

What are the basic organic standards for plant crops?

Organically produced crops must be grown on land which has been free of prohibited substances for three years prior to harvest. Crops grown on land which is in transition to organic (during the first three years after switching from conventional farming, for instance) cannot be labeled as organic. The Act makes no provision for a USDA-sanctioned transitional label.

The Act covers organic agricultural methods and materials in great detail, including managing soil fertility, when and how manure may be applied to crops, crop rotation, and composting. Compost ingredients recommended by the NOSB include crop residues, crop waste from food processing operations, animal manures, yard waste from private or municipal sources, or other vegetable by-products. The NOSB recommends prohibiting municipal solid waste compost and sewage sludge compost, and the use of any prohibited material as a compost ingredient. The NOSB also recommends that all ingredients must be documented.

Prevention is considered a grower's first approach to pest management, but the Act establishes a National List of acceptable and prohibited materials, which includes pest control treatments as well as other agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and seed treatments.

The NOSB recommends that all agricultural inputs be evaluated as to their long- term affect on the environment and not simply on whether they are synthetic or natural.

The following highlights address some of the questions most frequently asked about the NOSB Recommendations for Organic Crop Production Standards.

Pesticide/Fertilizer Drift

Organic farmers are responsible for establishing adequate buffer zones or barriers to protect against pesticide or fertilizer drift from neighboring conventional farms. Organic crops that have been contaminated in this way cannot be sold or labeled as organic, or fed to organic livestock.

Certifying agents are responsible for verifying such incidents, and for deciding when products from the area may again be sold as organic. The certifier may also decide to implement pre-harvest residue testing.

Emergency Pest Eradication Programs

The NOSB recommends that local, state and federal agencies avoid treating certified organic farms during emergency pest eradication programs, and that they seek alternatives to chemical pest control methods on these farms. Organic growers are responsible for registering their farms with the appropriate state and local agencies to facilitate this.

The NOSB also recommends that certified organic farms be compensated for damages resulting from emergency pest eradication programs.

Residue Testing

Although the NOSB feels strongly that residue standards do not define organic food, it recommends that organic products shall not contain pesticide residues in excess of the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) action level or 5% of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) tolerance. The NOSB proposes the following residue testing system:

1. National monitoring through the Federal Regulatory Monitoring program of at least one percent (1%) of organic fresh produce and processed product samples.
2. State monitoring by those states which conduct pesticide residue programs.
3. Local monitoring by certification agencies when suspicions of contamination arise, or for a three year period following an emergency spray program, or to follow up on positive results from federal, state or local government testing, or in response to complaints.

What are the basic organic standards for livestock (animals)?

Quite simply, organic livestock must be fed organic feed.

The NOSB recommends that conventional feed be allowed only if the organic feed supply has been compromised by a national, state or local weather emergency, or by fire or flood on an organic farm.

Growth promoters and hormones, and plastic pellets for roughage in feed are prohibited. Synthetic vitamins and minerals are allowed.

Organic Livestock Production

Standards for organic livestock production are meant to assure both an organic product to the consumer and living conditions for farm animals that limit stress and promote good health. They address substances used in health care and feeding, as well as herd or flock management and housing.

Livestock includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, fish, wild or domesticated game and horses raised for slaughter or used as draft animals. There are even standards for organic bee-keeping.

Regardless of whether they're raised as breeding stock, as dairy animals, or for slaughter, all livestock is covered by the Act.

The following highlights address some of the questions most frequently asked about the NOSB Recommendations for Organic Livestock Standards.

Housing and Health Care for Organic Livestock

Healthy living conditions and attentive care are considered first steps in the prevention of illness. Therefore, animals must not be overcrowded, and must be allowed periodic access to the outdoors and direct sunlight.

Antibiotics, wormers and other medications may not be used routinely as preventative measures. See The National List for specific details on medications recommended by the NOSB for use in organic livestock health care.

Recordkeeping for Organic Livestock

Records must be kept on all feeding and health care practices for each animal or flock, and there must be a verifiable audit trail to trace any animal or flock back to the farm.

Are there basic organic standards for processing and handling?

Yes. Standards for the processing, handling and labeling of organic products cover all steps in the process from receiving organic raw materials, acceptable processing aids and ingredients, appropriate packaging materials and labeling, to cleaning methods, waste disposal and pest management at processing facilities.

The following highlights address some of the questions most frequently asked about the NOSB Recommendations for Organic Processing, Handling & Labeling Standards.

Processing Additives

The following additives are not allowed in organic processing: sulfites, nitrates or nitrites; any ingredient known to contain higher levels of heavy metals or toxic residues than permitted by federal regulation; and any non-agricultural ingredient that is not organically produced unless it is designated as acceptable on The National List.

Packaging Materials

Organic products cannot be packaged in materials, storage containers or bins that contain synthetic fungicides, preservatives or fumigants. The reuse of containers that have been in contact with any prohibited substance is not allowed.

Imported Products

Imported products may be labeled as organically produced if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that they have been produced and handled under an organic program that meets or exceeds the requirements of the USDA's National Organic Program.

What is the National List, and why has it been so controversial?

The National List provides a complete account of all substances permitted and prohibited in the production of organic food. Its purpose is to make clear which materials can and cannot be used in organic production, processing and handling in the United States. You can view the National List directly by visiting the following website:http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/nop2000/Final%20Rule/regtext/reg-natlist.htm

Who defines the National List?

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is responsible for recommending to the Secretary of Agriculture which materials will be on the list. This process began in 1995, when the NOSB completed a massive review of the materials in use by organic producers, and those recommendations became the base for the first draft of the National List.

The procedure is ongoing, however, and many manufacturers and processors seek to add new substances to the National List that are currently prohibited in organic food production. While the NOSB includes five separate committees, including committees on livestock, food processing, crops and materials, it is the materials committee that must review the most constant supply of petitions asking for permission to use currently prohibited substances in the production of organically-certified foods. The committee continues to review these petitions on a quarterly basis. For example, in its March 2001 quarterly meeting, the materials committee was asked to recommend use of hydroxyquinoline sulfate and polaxalene in livestock husbandry, and cyclohexylamine, morpholine, and octadecylamine in plant food processing.

Once the NOSB makes a recommendation, the Secretary of Agriculture makes the final determination. A Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) gathers and evaluates the scientific data and makes recommendations to the board based on seven review criteria:

1. Effect on human health.
2. Effect on the farm ecosystem.
3. Toxicity and mode of action.
4. Availability of gentler alternatives.
5. Probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use and disposal.
6. Potential for interactions with other materials used.
7. Overall compatibility with a system of sustainable agriculture.

How is The National List structured?

The NOSB recommended that the National List be divided into three parts:

1. Acceptable synthetic production materials;
2. Prohibited natural production materials;
3. Acceptable non-agricultural, non-synthetic processing aids.

These lists contain the exceptions to the basic understanding within the organic industry that all organically grown and handled foods are produced with solely natural materials.

This may seem like an unusual structure; however, it avoids the problem of trying to list every natural material that organic growers or processors might use. Such a list might neglect to mention all of the local resources available in a given region.

Why are there exceptions?

Organic production systems encourage a healthy environment with as few inputs as possible. The NOSB recommends that cultural, biological and other management tools be sought to replace material inputs - whether synthetic or natural.

Congress, in passing the OFPA, recognized that it will take time for organic producers and handlers to achieve the long term goals expressed in the Act. The National List was meant to reflect realistic organic practices and to take into account current obstacles to ideal organic production. Therefore, some synthetics are allowed if the review process shows that they are:

1. Not harmful to human health or the environment.
2. Necessary to production because of unavailability of natural products.
3. Consistent with organic ideals.

Likewise, the law provides for prohibition of natural materials that may be harmful to human health or the environment and inconsistent with organic ideals.

Following are some of the questions most frequently asked about the materials recommended by the NOSB for inclusion on The National List.

Why are there no brand names on The List?

The National List applies only to generic materials that are active ingredients and does not apply directly to brand name products. The complexity of brand name product formulations, the changeable nature of what is on the marketplace at any given time, and manufacturer's concerns over confidentiality made this approach the most viable.

Do organic farmers use any pesticides or pest control products?

Yes. Sometimes, organic farmers find that they need to use pest control products as part of an ecological farm plan. However, they may only use products included as acceptable in the National List.

When would an organic grower need to use a pesticide or pest control product?

In a natural ecosystem, predators keep plant pests in check, while diseases strike individual plants or may even wipe out a species. Nature constantly works to correct imbalances. Organic farmers also strive for such a balance, but farming interferes with the native mix of plants and animals, and so farmers must contend with the problems that arise. They must also meet customer expectations of quality - and do all of this in an economic fashion. The allowed pesticides are, therefore, sometimes used as a corrective measure when cultural methods of pest control have failed.

Organic farmers look for pesticides that target their pest specifically while impacting the ecosystem as little as possible. For example, if a field of tomatoes has attracted a large population of tomato hornworms, a natural toxin can be sprayed which harms only leaf-eating caterpillars. If aphids are the problem, a light petroleum oil spray could be used to suffocate these soft-bodied insects without harming their predators.

Next season, the farmer might change his fertility plan or use a natural repellent such as a garlic or cayenne spray to make the crop less attractive, use crop covers and rotations to encourage beneficial predators, or use traps and visual inspection to catch the problem earlier.

What is the difference between IPM and organic production?

IPM, or Integrated Pest Management, differs from organic production in three ways. First, IPM only addresses pest control and not fertility. Second, IPM focuses on reducing chemical sprays, but has no compunction about using them when indicators point to a need. Third, IPM allows for the use of any synthetic pesticide as a last resort measure, rather than restricting to natural and least toxic materials.

What synthetic materials does the NOSB recommend for use in crop production?

Petroleum oil and soaps are allowed for insect control because of their benign nature to people and the environment. They also do little harm to beneficial insects.

Pheromones are chemicals identical to those given off by insects in locating food or mates. They are used in small quantities to lure pests to traps in the field, or to confuse them so that they won't mate. Pheromones have been revolutionary throughout agriculture in reducing pesticide usage.

Copper and sulfur compounds can stop plant diseases that could destroy entire crops. These metallic compounds mechanically kill fungus spores and have been in use for centuries. Other disease control practices include variety and site selection, proper plant spacing, and improved irrigation methods.

Research is leading to biological controls, but in the meantime, copper and sulfur are allowed for fungus control, along with two antibiotics for virus control on the leaf surface of plants.

Cleaning compounds, specifically alcohol and bleach, are recommended by the NOSB for inclusion in the National List for use in disinfecting irrigation systems and food contact surfaces.

Micronutrient fertilizers are usually synthetic, but are needed in very small amounts. While most natural fertilizers will supply adequate micronutrients, when soil testing shows that micronutrients are needed, they are allowed to balance fertility. Balanced, fertile soil will grow crops with the fewest pest problems and the most nutrition.

Plastic mulch and covers are allowed for weed, insect, and frost protection. Plastics are synthetic, but in this use are not disrupting the natural balance and actually reduce the need for pesticides. They must be removed from the field at the end of each season and may not be plowed in or allowed to decompose.

Liquid fish emulsion also appears on the list of approved synthetics because of added processing aids.

Small quantities of pH adjusters are added to keep the product stable and prevent fermentation in storage.

What are some of the natural substances that the NOSB recommends be prohibited?

Arsenic for insect control, and strychnine for rodent control are some of the few natural materials prohibited in organic production. Their high toxicity and concern about residues has warranted this exclusion. Restrictions have also been placed on the use of other natural materials because they disrupt the ecological balance or are of moderate natural toxicity.

The botanical pest controls Rotenone, Pyrethrum, Ryania, Sabadilla, Neem and Tobacco Dust are derived from plants. Their use is recommended only when primary methods of defense have failed.

This is because they are broad spectrum in action and may affect not only the target pest, but also other insects they contact. These materials are registered with the EPA and have undergone safety testing, falling into EPA's least toxic category. Botanicals are preferred in organic production to even the least toxic synthetic pesticides because botanicals break down quickly into common natural compounds.

An important measure of the safety of these plant-derived materials is their known effects based on historical use for the last 3,000 years.

Sodium nitrate (commonly known as Chilean nitrate) is also a restricted material. Its high salt content may disrupt soil biology, and it is used to feed the plant directly rather than increasing overall soil fertility. While direct feeding may be necessary in certain situations, organic producers should not rely too heavily on this method of fertilizing. Use of sodium nitrate is restricted to a small percent of the total nitrogen requirement of the crop, thus encouraging growers to build soil fertility with less soluble materials that have a lower impact on soil biology.

Why are antibiotics allowed in organic livestock production?

Organic feed, good living conditions and attentive care are usually enough to support animals without medication. However, animals do get sick, and it would be contrary to the underlying values of organic production to let an animal suffer or die when treatment is available. The NOSB therefore recommends that antibiotics be allowed only for the treatment of a sick animal, not as a growth promoter or preventive measure, and never on a routine basis. If an animal intended for slaughter must be given antibiotics, it can no longer be considered organic. If a breeding animal, dairy cow, or laying hen must be given antibiotics, the NOSB recommends it be taken out of the organic production system for an appropriate withdrawal period.

What other drugs does the NOSB recommend for livestock health care?

Synthetic wormers are recommended as allowed for use in much the same way as antibiotics, to prevent the suffering or death of an animal. However, they cannot be used routinely. The producer must have a plan in place to prevent worm infestation. Without such a plan, the producer cannot be certified.

Other recommended allowed synthetics in livestock production include vitamins and trace minerals to balance nutritional requirements, aspirin for inflammation, electrolytes for dehydration, local anesthetics with appropriate withdrawal periods, and milk replacers when fresh milk is not available.

Why are there non-organic ingredients in some organic food?

If you were to make organic cookies at home you would naturally use organic flour, oil, eggs, raisins, etc. But what about the salt and baking soda? Because they are non-agricultural products, neither of these ingredients meets the definition of organic. Processors of many kinds of organic foods face the same dilemma. In addition, nutritional fortification is sometimes required by regulation or professional guidelines, but is not available in natural form.

Thus the NOSB recommends that the National List include synthetic processing aids and natural products such as minerals that are not agricultural. For the finished food to be called organic, these ingredients may not comprise more than 5% of the total product, by weight.

What are some of the non-organic ingredients recommended by the NOSB?

Recommended non-synthetic ingredients include baking soda as a leavener, some calcium compounds, pectin for jelling, and lecithin for consistency. Carrageenan and agar-agar are seaweed products not available in certified organic form, but are recommended as allowed materials for thickening and smooth consistency. Nitrogen and oxygen are recommended as allowed processing aids with restrictions as to source. The NOSB also recommends that bacterial enzymes, cultures and yeast be allowed unless produced from gene splicing.

Recommended synthetic ingredients include the synthesized version of carbon dioxide (a naturally occurring gas) for use in carbonation and pest control, ferrous sulfate and other vitamins and minerals for nutritional fortification, and bleach for cleaning surfaces. The use of ethylene gas, a processed version of the gas naturally produced by fruits for ripening, is recommended by the NOSB only for bananas, since the travel required to get them to market often precludes ripening on the tree.

Synthetic magnesium chloride is available for making tofu, as the FDA restricts the natural form due to health hazards from impurities.

Does the Organic Foods Production Act have provisions for enforcement and penalties for regulatory violation?

Yes. There are provisions and penalties for both producers and certifiers.

Mislabeling and False Statements

Any person who knowingly mislabels a product as organic can be fined a maximum of $10,000 and may be disbarred from the Organic Program for five years. Persons who make false statements to the Secretary of Agriculture, a state official or a certifying agent are subject to penalties under Federal law, and may be disbarred from the program for five years.

Violations by Certifying Agencies

A certifying agency that violates the provisions of the program or falsely or negligently certifies any operation shall lose accreditation and shall not be eligible for re-accreditation for three years.

(Note: The previous summary of the Organic Foods Production Act was based largely on a report produced by Organic Harvest, the educational program of the Organic Trade Association P.O. Box 1078, Greenfield, MA 01302.)

Are there any foods that will not be covered by the federal organic standards?

Yes. Although the Final Rule for federal organic standards, officially approved in April 2001, covers the vast majority of food types, standards for culinary herbs, pet food and food for minor animal species such as rabbits are not yet defined.

Other Questions About Organic Foods

Do organic foods taste better?

Although no formal research has been conducted, some people, including many chefs, believe organic foods have better taste, color and flavor. They speculate that this is because organic farming, which starts with the nourishment of the soil, leads to the nourishment of the plants and ultimately to our taste buds. The use of synthetic nitrate fertilizers in non-organic food crops results in nitrate binding to water, which makes these crops look better but lessens their flavor. The superior taste of organic foods leads many chefs to choose them for their kitchens. A survey conducted by the National Restaurant Association found that 50% of restaurants with a per-person dinner check of $25 or more now offer organic items on their menus.

Why do organic foods cost more?

Organic food production is much more labor intensive. In addition, conventionally grown foods are often produced under subsidies from the government and chemical companies. Although priced lower at the grocery store, this cheap food is produced at the expense of the environment and individual health, hidden costs, which will eventually have to be repaid in environmental cleanup and disease costs.

How do you buy organic foods more inexpensively?

• Buy locally
• Buy seasonally
• Buy in bulk
• Take advantage of coupons and sales

Why should we buy organic foods?

Excerpt from the 1997 National Organic Directory:

1. Health of the soil
2. Safety of the water supply
3. Preservation of a family farm lifestyle
4. Health of farm workers
5. Nutrition, flavor and quality
6. Health investment.

What is the dirty dozen?

In 1995, the Environmental Working Group identified foods in the conventional, non-organic food supply that contained the highest number of pesticide residues. The worst offenders, which were nicknamed the "dirty dozen," included:

• Strawberries
• Celery
• Green and red bell peppers
• Apples
• Spinach
• Apricots
• U.S. grown cherries
• Green beans
• Peaches
• Grapes from Chile
• Mexican grown cantaloupe
• Cucumbers

How popular are organic foods?

Organic foods have been growing in popularity, not only in the United States, but worldwide. Organic sales in the U.S. reached $5.5 billion in 2000. A similar figure for European countries of $5.5 billion is expected to increase more than tenfold to a level of $58 billion by 2006. Approximately 6,000 certified organic farms currently exist in the United States, with 15,000 more farms running organic trials. Over the next five years, farms experimenting with organic crop production are expected to increase by about 12% or 700 farms per year.

What is the history of organic foods?

Long before the federal government got involved in the regulation of organic foods, dozens of states had passed organic laws of their own. Today, 45 out of the 50 states have their own organic laws. And even before state laws were established, concerned farmers set up voluntary organic certification systems. The first organization in the country to certify organic farms was CCOF, California Certified Organic Farmers, over twenty years ago.

Since states continue to uphold their own organic regulations the label on an organically grown food may contain other phrases besides "100% Organic" and "Made with Organic Ingredients". The most important of these phrases are "Certified Organic" and "Transitional Organic". In states that allow the label, "Certified Organic" you can be sure that 100% of the food ingredients were produced organically. In states where the label says "Transitional Organic," you can be sure the food's producers are making an effort to fully comply with state standards but are simply not there yet - it takes time for all prohibited substances to become absent from the soil, even though these substances are no longer being used in the cultivation process.

Since overall food sales in the United States reached $384 billion in 1999, organic food sales still represented only 1.4% of all money spent on food. Because the majority of food is not produced organically, organic regulations have often come under pressure to lower their standard to accommodate non-organic techniques. This pressure was particularly strong in the mid 1990's when a recommendation was made to allow use of sewage sludge, irradiation and genetic engineering in organically-certified foods. This recommendation was rejected, partially in response to more than 250,000 letters received by the USDA in opposition to these regulatory changes.

The most controversial aspect of the OFPA continues to be the National List. This list of substances permitted and prohibited in organic food production undergoes quarterly review by a government board called the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB includes five separate committees, including committees on livestock, food processing, crops and materials. The materials committee, in particular, must review a constant supply of petitions asking or permission to use more and more substances in the production of organically-certified foods. For example, in its March 2001 quarterly meeting, the materials committee was asked to recommend use of hydroxyquinoline sulfate and polaxalene in livestock husbandry, and cyclohexylamine, morpholine, and octadecylamine in plant food processing.

New regulations will help to prevent fraud and support our right to know what's in our food and how it's grown and processed.

Where can I look on the Internet for more information about organic foods?

Consumer's Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reportsmagazine.

Organic Trade Association, a membership-based business association representing the organic industry in Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Organic Trade Alliance, a non-profit organization founded in 1995 through a grant from The Pew Charitable Trust.

National Organic Program, the federal government's organic regulatory program housed in the United States Department of Agriculture.

Organic Research, a website for dissemination of information about organic regulation worldwide sponsored by CABI Publishing, a not-for-profit publisher in applied life sciences, including integrated crop management and forestry.

Who can I contact by phone regarding organic foods?

Organic Trade Association: (413) 774-7511

National Organic Program, USDA: (202) 720-3252

Why Organicically Grown Foods Are Better for the Health of Our Planet

What are the environmental benefits of organic farming over conventional farming methods?

Organically grown foods are cultivated using farming practices that work to preserve and protect the environment.

Most conventional farming methods used today adhere to a chemical-dependent model of agribusiness. Residues from conventional farming methods use toxic chemicals that remain in the soil, leach into groundwater, and frequently end up either on the skin or become internal constituents of commercially grown foods. The predominant use of this model has resulted in adversely affecting the earth's environment and the health of its inhabitants. These methods have adversely affected:

• Soil quality
• Water purity
• Biodiversity
• Safety and health of farm workers
• Survival of small and family farms
• Connection to the land
• Taste and quality of foods

Organic farming is seen as the alternative to chemical farming. It is often inaccurately and simplistically described as farming without the use of pesticides. More accurately, it is a method of farming which partners with nature rather than altering or controlling natural processes which includes:

• Absence of use of dangerous synthetic pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers
• Improving soil quality
• Conserving and keeping up water quality
• Encouraging biodiversity
• Minimalizing the health and occupational hazards to farm workers
• Maintaining a restorative and sustainable biosystem.

Organic Farming Significantly Improves Soil Quality

Results recently published from a long-term study conducted by researchers at the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, PA, show that organic farming practices help retain significantly more carbon in the soil, making the soil more productive, better able to retain water, and helping to prevent global warming.

Data gathered since 1981 from the Rodale Institute's experimental farms in east-central Pennsylvania on organically grown corn and soybeans shows that the soil retained 15-28% more carbon than conventionally farmed soil, the equivalent of 1,000 pounds of carbon, or 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre foot of soil. According to Paul Hepperly, research manager for the Rodale Institute, converting the nation's 160 million acres of corn and soybeans would significantly reduce the carbon dioxide produced each year by the United States.

Some conventional growers have responded that the Rodale Institute's numbers are too high to be believable, but Hepperly explains that his excellent carbon sequestration results are due to the fact that organic farming keeps a variety of crops in the field longer than conventional farming. "We grow diversified crops in the organic system, and actually that looks like it's more important than whether it's plowed or not," Hepperly said. "It's the extended cropping season and the crops grown through a longer portion of the season that seem to be very important for the trapping of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. They're retaining the nutrients and building the organic matter through a longer season." State Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff and Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty said their offices would build on the Rodale Institute research to help develop policies that would allow farmers to benefit from environmentally sound practices.

Organic Farming More Productive Long-term than Conventional Farming

Yields on farms using conventional synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have been steadily declining for the last 20 years, shows an ominous report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 12;104(24):10282-7.

Over the past 40 years, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use has increased 7-fold, and pesticide use has increased 3-fold, yet crop yield continues to decrease because the synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, organochlorine pesticides and other synthetic agrichemicals used on modern farms actually reduce the total amount of nitrogen available to crops.

Most of the nitrogen in farmers' soil is produced via the activity of soil-dwelling, nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium bacteria, which attach to crop roots, and nitrogen-fixing legumes, like soybeans and alfalfa, which farmers plant every other year when following the practice of crop rotation. According to PNAS study researchers, pesticides and other common agrichemicals disrupt the processes through which these bacteria and legumes enrich the soil with nitrogen. Fortunately, a review of the research conducted by Ivette Perfecto and colleagues from the University of Michigan indicates ecologically sustainable organic farming can feed our world's expanding population. Data from existing studies shows that in developed countries, crop yields from organic and conventional farms are about the same. In developing countries, compared to the inefficient methods currently employed, modern organic farming methods can double or triple the amount of food produced per acre. A comparison of nitrogen availability on organic and conventional farms found that crop rotation alone could provide enough nitrogen to replace synthetic fertilizers, confirming the findings of the PNAS report.Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2007 June; 22 (2):80-86; Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2007 June;22(2):86-108.

Organic farming is highly preferable to conventional agriculture in terms of its effects on the environment, confirms a study published in the March 6 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The yearlong experiment, conducted in an established apple orchard on a 4-acre site in the Yakima Valley of central Washington, used some trees raised with conventional synthetic fertilizers; others grown organically without pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilization; and a third group raised on integrated farming, which combines organic and conventional agricultural techniques.

Each tree in all three groups was given the same amount of nitrogen at two feedings, one in October and another in May. Organically grown trees were fertilized with either composted chicken manure or alfalfa meal, while conventionally raised plants were given calcium nitrate, a synthetic fertilizer widely used by commercial apple growers. Trees raised using the integrated system got a blend of equal parts chicken manure and calcium nitrate.

One goal of the study was to compare the amount of nitrogen leaching into the soil from each of the four fertilizer treatments. Nitrogen fertilizers release or break down into nitrates-chemical compounds plants need to build proteins. When present in excess of the amounts needed by plants, however, nitrates percolate through the soil, contaminating surface and groundwater supplies.

Besides their harmful impact on aquatic life, high nitrate levels in drinking water can cause serious illness in humans, particularly small children. According to the PNAS study, nearly one of 10 domestic wells in the United States sampled between 1993 and 2000 had nitrate concentrations that exceeded the EPA's drinking water standards.

"Nitrogen compounds also enter our watersheds and have effects quite distant from the fields in which they are applied, as for example in contaminating water tables and causing biological dead zones at the mouths of major rivers," said study co-author Harold A. Mooney, the Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology at Stanford.

The researchers measured nitrate leaching during the entire year and found it was 4.4 to 5.6 times higher in the conventional treatment than in the two organic treatments, with the integrated treatment in between.

"The intensification of agricultural production over the past 60 years and the subsequent increase in global nitrogen inputs have resulted in substantial nitrogen pollution and ecological damage. The primary source of nitrogen pollution comes from nitrogen-based agricultural fertilizers, whose use is forecasted to double or almost triple by 2050," wrote study co-authors.

The research team also compared the amount of nitrogen gas released into the atmosphere by the four treatments. Nitrogen compounds from fertilizer can enter the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

Air samples collected in the orchard after the fall and spring fertilizations revealed that organic and integrated soils emitted larger quantities of an environmentally benign gas called dinitrogen (N2) than soils treated with conventional synthetic fertilizer.

This may be due to the fact that the organic and integrated soils contained active concentrations of denitrifying bacteria-naturally occurring microbes that convert excess nitrates in the soil into N2 gas. Communities of denitrifying microbes were much smaller and far less active and efficient in conventionally treated soils.

Modern conventional farming practices have also led to nutrient-poor food. The mineral content of vegetables has dropped significantly over the last few decades. Today, you need to eat almost twice as many carrots and three times as much broccoli to get the same of calcium you would have received from one carrot in 1950. The lesson is clear: organically grown foods are the clear choice to promote the health of both ourselves and our planet.

How do conventional farming methods affect water quality?

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates pesticides (some which are known to be cancer causing) contaminate the groundwater in 38 states, polluting the primary source of drinking water for more than half the country's population.

What is sustainable agriculture?

Sustainable agriculture is farming practices that preserve and protect the future productivity and health of the environment. Sustainable agriculture is, however, a wider topic than organic farming. The way food is processed, packaged and transported may pose a threat to the environment, even when the food was cultivated organically. For example, pretzels may be organic-meaning 95% of their ingredients are organically grown-but have been produced from highly refined flour processed using energy-wasting machinery, packaged in non-recyclable plastic, and shipped around the world using large amounts of fossil fuel. Growing foods organically is, therefore, only the first step in achieving sustainable agriculture. Most environmentalists and ecologists and many individuals involved in the production of organic foods believe that sustainable agriculture is necessary if we are to reach the long-term goals of personal health and ecological balance.

In 1988 the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization adopted the following official definition of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development:

Sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) should conserve land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.

In the 1990 Farm Bill, the U.S. Congress defined sustainable agriculture as an integrated system of plant and animal production practices that:

• Satisfy human food and fiber needs
• Enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends
• Make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrates, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls
• Sustain the economic viability of farm operations
• Enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.

In 1992, during the UN Conference on Environment and Development, a number of non-governmental organizations (NGO) drafted their own Sustainable Agriculture Treaty which states:

Sustainable Agriculture is a model of social and economic organization based on equitable and participatory vision of development which recognizes the environment and natural resources as the foundation of economic activity. Agriculture is sustainable when it is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, culturally appropriate and based on a holistic scientific approach.

Sustainable Agriculture preserves biodiversity, maintains soil, fertility and water purity, conserves and improves the chemical, physical and biological qualities of the soil, recycles natural resources and conserves energy.

Sustainable Agriculture uses locally available renewable resources, appropriate and affordable technologies, and minimizes the use of external and purchased inputs, thereby increasing local independence and self sufficiency and insuring a source of stable income for peasants, family small farmers and rural communities, and integrates humans with their environment. Sustainable Agriculture respects the ecological principles of diversity and interdependence and uses the insights of modern science to improve rather than displace the traditional wisdom accumulated over centuries by innumerable farmers around the world.

How to Understand the April 2001 Regulation of Organic Foods

Can you give me more details about federal regulation of organic farming?

Yes. Most of these details are presented in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as discussed below.

What was the Organic Foods Production Act?

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was Title XXI of the 1990 Farm Bill. Its purpose was to establish national standards for the production and handling of foods labeled as organic.

Previously, private and State agencies had been certifying organic practices, but there was no uniformity in standards and therefore no guarantee that organic meant the same thing from state to state, or even locally from certifier to certifier. National standards for organic products were desired by both producers and consumers to clear up this confusion in the marketplace and to protect against mislabeling or fraud.

OFPA allows for state standards that are more restrictive than the federal standards, but they must be approved by the USDA. In addition, states cannot discriminate against out-of-state products that meet the federal standards.

What is the National Organic Program?

OFPA authorized the formation of a National Organic Program (NOP) to establish organic standards, and to require and oversee mandatory certification of organic production. The NOP will be implemented once the Final Rules are signed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The NOP, by statute, is administered by State and private organizations rather than by the Federal government. The USDA's role is to act as overseer of the Program.

While the NOP has required federal funding during its developmental stages, it is expected that, as with similar USDA programs, future costs will be covered by user fees paid by certifying agencies.

Currently, fees for certification are paid by growers and processors to private or state certifying agencies.

What is the National Organic Standards Board?

Under the Act, a National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was created to advise the Secretary of Agriculture in setting the standards on which the USDA's National Organic Program will be based.

The NOSB wanted their recommendations to be based on industry consensus. They asked for and received an unprecedented amount of public input from farmers, businesses and consumers during every step of their decision-making process. After considering the recommendations of the NOSB, the Secretary has final authority in determining the regulations. Appointments to the NOSB are made by the Secretary of Agriculture for five year terms, and must include:

Four farmers, two handlers/processors, one retailer, one scientist (with expertise in toxicology, ecology or biochemistry), three consumer/public interest advocates, three environmentalists.

In addition to making recommendations on the national standards, the NOSB is authorized to convene Technical Advisory Panels to advise on materials to be included on a National List of materials allowed for use in organic production.

Who actually gets certified in the organic certification process?

With two exceptions (listed below), everyone who wants to sell products labeled as organic must be certified. This includes producers of organic livestock, food and fiber crops, and handlers of organic products.

A handler is any operation that receives, processes, packages, or stores agricultural products. Some examples: a processing company that buys organic tomatoes and makes canned spaghetti sauce; any distributor who substantially transforms, repacks or re-labels organic agricultural products. This last distinction is meant to exclude brokering, warehousing or trucking operations that merely store or move finished processed products from place to place without altering them in any way.

Is anyone exempt from certification?

Yes. Growers who gross less than $5,000 annually are exempt from certification. The NOSB recommends that these growers sign a declaration (available from certifying agencies) stating that they understand and are in compliance with the Act, and that they have a written Organic Farm Plan (see below), which can be made available to the public upon request. The NOSB further recommends that growers falling under this Small Farm Exemption may not use the term certified organic when marketing their crops, and may market through direct sales only (i.e., farm stands, farmers' markets, or direct sales to a retailer).

At present, retailers aren't required to be certified. The NOSB, however, recommends certification for retailers that engage in activities that qualify them as handlers. (An example: repacking bulk products such as dry beans or grain.)

How does the certification process actually work?

A grower or handler seeking organic certification submits an Organic Farm Plan or an Organic Handling Plan to a USDA-accredited private or state certification program. The Organic Plan must detail all current growing or handling methods and any materials that will be used. The Plan also covers future intentions and improvements to all areas of production.

Even growers or harvesters of organic wild crops, such as fiddlehead ferns, must develop a Plan showing that harvesting practices will not be destructive to the environment or to the future productivity of the crop.

Five-year records must be kept of all management practices and materials used in organic production.

In addition to assessing the Organic Plan, the certification agency performs annual on-site inspections of each farm or handling operation participating in its program. Certification is then either awarded or denied. User fees are collected from each grower or handler to cover the cost of the certification program.

What if a farm only wants to be part organic?

The Act does allow for only part of a farm or handling operation to be certified. The organic and conventional parts of the operation must be kept separate - whether by physical boundaries and buffer zones, in the case of a farm, or by proper cleaning and management of facilities and machinery, in the case of a handler.

Separate records must be kept for each part of a split operation. This provision can be seen as a short-term compromise. The NOSB's intent is to encourage conversion to 100% certified organic production.

What are the basic organic standards for plant crops?

Organically produced crops must be grown on land which has been free of prohibited substances for three years prior to harvest. Crops grown on land which is in transition to organic (during the first three years after switching from conventional farming, for instance) cannot be labeled as organic. The Act makes no provision for a USDA-sanctioned transitional label.

The Act covers organic agricultural methods and materials in great detail, including managing soil fertility, when and how manure may be applied to crops, crop rotation, and composting. Compost ingredients recommended by the NOSB include crop residues, crop waste from food processing operations, animal manures, yard waste from private or municipal sources, or other vegetable by-products. The NOSB recommends prohibiting municipal solid waste compost and sewage sludge compost, and the use of any prohibited material as a compost ingredient. The NOSB also recommends that all ingredients must be documented.

Prevention is considered a grower's first approach to pest management, but the Act establishes a National List of acceptable and prohibited materials, which includes pest control treatments as well as other agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and seed treatments.

The NOSB recommends that all agricultural inputs be evaluated as to their long- term affect on the environment and not simply on whether they are synthetic or natural.

The following highlights address some of the questions most frequently asked about the NOSB Recommendations for Organic Crop Production Standards.

Pesticide/Fertilizer Drift

Organic farmers are responsible for establishing adequate buffer zones or barriers to protect against pesticide or fertilizer drift from neighboring conventional farms. Organic crops that have been contaminated in this way cannot be sold or labeled as organic, or fed to organic livestock.

Certifying agents are responsible for verifying such incidents, and for deciding when products from the area may again be sold as organic. The certifier may also decide to implement pre-harvest residue testing.

Emergency Pest Eradication Programs

The NOSB recommends that local, state and federal agencies avoid treating certified organic farms during emergency pest eradication programs, and that they seek alternatives to chemical pest control methods on these farms. Organic growers are responsible for registering their farms with the appropriate state and local agencies to facilitate this.

The NOSB also recommends that certified organic farms be compensated for damages resulting from emergency pest eradication programs.

Residue Testing

Although the NOSB feels strongly that residue standards do not define organic food, it recommends that organic products shall not contain pesticide residues in excess of the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) action level or 5% of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) tolerance. The NOSB proposes the following residue testing system:

1. National monitoring through the Federal Regulatory Monitoring program of at least one percent (1%) of organic fresh produce and processed product samples.
2. State monitoring by those states which conduct pesticide residue programs.
3. Local monitoring by certification agencies when suspicions of contamination arise, or for a three year period following an emergency spray program, or to follow up on positive results from federal, state or local government testing, or in response to complaints.

What are the basic organic standards for livestock (animals)?

Quite simply, organic livestock must be fed organic feed.

The NOSB recommends that conventional feed be allowed only if the organic feed supply has been compromised by a national, state or local weather emergency, or by fire or flood on an organic farm.

Growth promoters and hormones, and plastic pellets for roughage in feed are prohibited. Synthetic vitamins and minerals are allowed.

Organic Livestock Production

Standards for organic livestock production are meant to assure both an organic product to the consumer and living conditions for farm animals that limit stress and promote good health. They address substances used in health care and feeding, as well as herd or flock management and housing.

Livestock includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, fish, wild or domesticated game and horses raised for slaughter or used as draft animals. There are even standards for organic bee-keeping.

Regardless of whether they're raised as breeding stock, as dairy animals, or for slaughter, all livestock is covered by the Act.

The following highlights address some of the questions most frequently asked about the NOSB Recommendations for Organic Livestock Standards.

Housing and Health Care for Organic Livestock

Healthy living conditions and attentive care are considered first steps in the prevention of illness. Therefore, animals must not be overcrowded, and must be allowed periodic access to the outdoors and direct sunlight.

Antibiotics, wormers and other medications may not be used routinely as preventative measures. See The National List for specific details on medications recommended by the NOSB for use in organic livestock health care.

Recordkeeping for Organic Livestock

Records must be kept on all feeding and health care practices for each animal or flock, and there must be a verifiable audit trail to trace any animal or flock back to the farm.

Are there basic organic standards for processing and handling?

Yes. Standards for the processing, handling and labeling of organic products cover all steps in the process from receiving organic raw materials, acceptable processing aids and ingredients, appropriate packaging materials and labeling, to cleaning methods, waste disposal and pest management at processing facilities.

The following highlights address some of the questions most frequently asked about the NOSB Recommendations for Organic Processing, Handling & Labeling Standards.

Processing Additives

The following additives are not allowed in organic processing: sulfites, nitrates or nitrites; any ingredient known to contain higher levels of heavy metals or toxic residues than permitted by federal regulation; and any non-agricultural ingredient that is not organically produced unless it is designated as acceptable on The National List.

Packaging Materials

Organic products cannot be packaged in materials, storage containers or bins that contain synthetic fungicides, preservatives or fumigants. The reuse of containers that have been in contact with any prohibited substance is not allowed.

Imported Products

Imported products may be labeled as organically produced if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that they have been produced and handled under an organic program that meets or exceeds the requirements of the USDA's National Organic Program.

What is the National List, and why has it been so controversial?

The National List provides a complete account of all substances permitted and prohibited in the production of organic food. Its purpose is to make clear which materials can and cannot be used in organic production, processing and handling in the United States. You can view the National List directly by visiting the following website:http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/nop2000/Final%20Rule/regtext/reg-natlist.htm

Who defines the National List?

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is responsible for recommending to the Secretary of Agriculture which materials will be on the list. This process began in 1995, when the NOSB completed a massive review of the materials in use by organic producers, and those recommendations became the base for the first draft of the National List.

The procedure is ongoing, however, and many manufacturers and processors seek to add new substances to the National List that are currently prohibited in organic food production. While the NOSB includes five separate committees, including committees on livestock, food processing, crops and materials, it is the materials committee that must review the most constant supply of petitions asking for permission to use currently prohibited substances in the production of organically-certified foods. The committee continues to review these petitions on a quarterly basis. For example, in its March 2001 quarterly meeting, the materials committee was asked to recommend use of hydroxyquinoline sulfate and polaxalene in livestock husbandry, and cyclohexylamine, morpholine, and octadecylamine in plant food processing.

Once the NOSB makes a recommendation, the Secretary of Agriculture makes the final determination. A Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) gathers and evaluates the scientific data and makes recommendations to the board based on seven review criteria:

1. Effect on human health.
2. Effect on the farm ecosystem.
3. Toxicity and mode of action.
4. Availability of gentler alternatives.
5. Probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use and disposal.
6. Potential for interactions with other materials used.
7. Overall compatibility with a system of sustainable agriculture.

How is The National List structured?

The NOSB recommended that the National List be divided into three parts:

1. Acceptable synthetic production materials;
2. Prohibited natural production materials;
3. Acceptable non-agricultural, non-synthetic processing aids.

These lists contain the exceptions to the basic understanding within the organic industry that all organically grown and handled foods are produced with solely natural materials.

This may seem like an unusual structure; however, it avoids the problem of trying to list every natural material that organic growers or processors might use. Such a list might neglect to mention all of the local resources available in a given region.

Why are there exceptions?

Organic production systems encourage a healthy environment with as few inputs as possible. The NOSB recommends that cultural, biological and other management tools be sought to replace material inputs - whether synthetic or natural.

Congress, in passing the OFPA, recognized that it will take time for organic producers and handlers to achieve the long term goals expressed in the Act. The National List was meant to reflect realistic organic practices and to take into account current obstacles to ideal organic production. Therefore, some synthetics are allowed if the review process shows that they are:

1. Not harmful to human health or the environment.
2. Necessary to production because of unavailability of natural products.
3. Consistent with organic ideals.

Likewise, the law provides for prohibition of natural materials that may be harmful to human health or the environment and inconsistent with organic ideals.

Following are some of the questions most frequently asked about the materials recommended by the NOSB for inclusion on The National List.

Why are there no brand names on The List?

The National List applies only to generic materials that are active ingredients and does not apply directly to brand name products. The complexity of brand name product formulations, the changeable nature of what is on the marketplace at any given time, and manufacturer's concerns over confidentiality made this approach the most viable.

Do organic farmers use any pesticides or pest control products?

Yes. Sometimes, organic farmers find that they need to use pest control products as part of an ecological farm plan. However, they may only use products included as acceptable in the National List.

When would an organic grower need to use a pesticide or pest control product?

In a natural ecosystem, predators keep plant pests in check, while diseases strike individual plants or may even wipe out a species. Nature constantly works to correct imbalances. Organic farmers also strive for such a balance, but farming interferes with the native mix of plants and animals, and so farmers must contend with the problems that arise. They must also meet customer expectations of quality - and do all of this in an economic fashion. The allowed pesticides are, therefore, sometimes used as a corrective measure when cultural methods of pest control have failed.

Organic farmers look for pesticides that target their pest specifically while impacting the ecosystem as little as possible. For example, if a field of tomatoes has attracted a large population of tomato hornworms, a natural toxin can be sprayed which harms only leaf-eating caterpillars. If aphids are the problem, a light petroleum oil spray could be used to suffocate these soft-bodied insects without harming their predators.

Next season, the farmer might change his fertility plan or use a natural repellent such as a garlic or cayenne spray to make the crop less attractive, use crop covers and rotations to encourage beneficial predators, or use traps and visual inspection to catch the problem earlier.

What is the difference between IPM and organic production?

IPM, or Integrated Pest Management, differs from organic production in three ways. First, IPM only addresses pest control and not fertility. Second, IPM focuses on reducing chemical sprays, but has no compunction about using them when indicators point to a need. Third, IPM allows for the use of any synthetic pesticide as a last resort measure, rather than restricting to natural and least toxic.

Organic Farming More Productive Long-term than Conventional Farming

Yields on farms using conventional synthetic fertilizers and pesticides have been steadily declining for the last 20 years, shows an ominous report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 12;104(24):10282-7.

Over the past 40 years, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use has increased 7-fold, and pesticide use has increased 3-fold, yet crop yield continues to decrease because the synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, organochlorine pesticides and other synthetic agrichemicals used on modern farms actually reduce the total amount of nitrogen available to crops.

Most of the nitrogen in farmers' soil is produced via the activity of soil-dwelling, nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium bacteria, which attach to crop roots, and nitrogen-fixing legumes, like soybeans and alfalfa, which farmers plant every other year when following the practice of crop rotation. According to PNAS study researchers, pesticides and other common agrichemicals disrupt the processes through which these bacteria and legumes enrich the soil with nitrogen. Fortunately, a review of the research conducted by Ivette Perfecto and colleagues from the University of Michigan indicates ecologically sustainable organic farming can feed our world's expanding population. Data from existing studies shows that in developed countries, crop yields from organic and conventional farms are about the same. In developing countries, compared to the inefficient methods currently employed, modern organic farming methods can double or triple the amount of food produced per acre. A comparison of nitrogen availability on organic and conventional farms found that crop rotation alone could provide enough nitrogen to replace synthetic fertilizers, confirming the findings of the PNAS report.Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2007 June; 22 (2):80-86; Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2007 June;22(2):86-108.

References

• . National standards for organic foods proposed. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000 May 1;216(9):1381 2000. PMID:17810.
• Amaditz KC. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and its impending regulations: a big zero for organic food. Food Drug Law J 1997;52(4):537-59 1997. PMID:17820.
• Badgley C, Moghtadera J, Quinteroa E, Zakema E, Chappella MJ, Avilés-Vázqueza K, Samulona A, Perfecto I. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2007 July, 22(2): 86-108. 2007.
• Badgley C, Perfecto I. Can organic agriculture feed the world. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2007 July, 22(2): 80-86. 2007.
• Baker BP, Benbrook CM, Groth E 3rd, Lutz Benbrook K. Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. Food Addit Contam. 2002 May;19(5):427-46. 2002. PMID:12028642.
• Baxter GJ, Graham AB, Lawrence JR, Wiles D, Paterson JR. Salicylic acid in soups prepared from organically and non-organically grown vegetables. Eur J Nutr. 2001 Dec;40(6):289-92. 2001. PMID:11876493.
• Clark T. More vitamin C in organic oranges than conventional oranges. Research presented at American Chemical Society Meeting, Press Release, Science Daily News, June 2, 2002. 2002.
• Davis DR, Epp MD, Riordan HD. Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999. J Am Coll Nutr. 2004 Dec;23(6):669-82. 2004. PMID:15637215.
• Eskenazi B, Bradman A, Castorina R. Exposures of children to organophosphate pesticides and their potential adverse health effects. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Jun;107 Suppl 3:409-19. 1999. PMID:10346990.
• Fisher BE. Organic: What's in a name. Environ Health Perspect 1999 Mar;107(3):A150-3 1999. PMID:17830.
• Fox JE, Gulledge J, Engelhaupt E, Burow ME, McLachlan JA. Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 12;104(24):10282-7. Epub 2007 Jun 4. 2007. PMID:17548832.
• Grinder-Pedersen L, Rasmussen SE, Bugel S, Jorgensen LV, Dragsted LO, Gundersen V, Sandstrom B. Effect of diets based on foods from conventional versus organic production on intake and excretion of flavonoids and markers of antioxidative defense in humans. J Agric Food Chem. Sep 10;51(19):5671-6. 2003. PMID:12952417.
• Hepperly P. Organic farming improves carbon sequestration.J. Nutr. October 2003, 133:3170-3174. 2003.
• Kramer SB, Reganold JP, Glover JD, Bohannan BJ, Mooney HA. Reduced nitrate leaching and enhanced denitrifier activity and efficiency in organically fertilized soils. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 13; [Epub ahead of print] 2006. PMID:16537377.
• Lu C, Toepel K, Irish R, Fenske R, Barr D, Bravo R. Organic diets significantly lower children's dietary exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. Environ Health Perspect doi:10.1289/ehp.8418 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 1 September 2005] 2005.
• Lu C, Toepel K, Irish R, Fenske RA, Barr DB, Bravo R. Organic diets significantly lower children's dietary exposure to organophosphorus pesticides. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Feb;114(2):260-3. 2006. PMID:16451864.
• National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington: National Academy Press, 1993. 1993.
• United States Congress. Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Public Law 701-624: 1990; Title 21, U.S. 1990 Farm Bill 1990. PMID:17840.
• Wilkinson T. Rats 'Healthier' on Organic Diet. The Scotsman (UK), February 18, 2005. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm 2005.
• Worthington V. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. J Altern Complement Med 2001 Apr;7(2):161-73 2001. PMID:17530.
• Worthington V. Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of organic with conventional crops. Altern Ther Health Med 1998 Jan;4(1):58-69 1998. PMID:17540.
• Worthington V. Analyzing data to compare nutrients in conventional versus organic crops. J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Oct;8(5):529-32. 2002. PMID:12028642

Original Source:

Worlds Healthies Foods by George Matjelan