Discussion of Whether Organic Food is Really Organic

In the past decade, the demand for organic food has skyrocketed. As more information about human health and the effect of our ecological footprint becomes available, the appeal of organic products increases. The influence of this on younger generations specifically is extremely evident in social media. Green smoothies, acai bowls, and avocado toast that often include organic products are extremely popular among health and lifestyle influencers; the fact that these foods are also aesthetically pleasing only adds to the charm. Unfortunately, the media portrayal of organic consumables is not completely honest. In many cases, only the attractive and polished finished product is broadcasted. Many consumers are unaware of what actually happens behind the manufacturing of organics and their specific scientific benefits, or lack thereof. Organic foods are not as beneficial as many think they are.

The most direct way to point out the deceit of the organic food industry is to explain food labels. There are three main types of labels: “100% organic,” “Organic,” and “Made with organic ingredients”. All of these seems to say the same thing, but in fact, they are completely different. “100% organic” products have the USDA seal, are raised separately, are not genetically modified, and contain only organic ingredients (Bahl). “Organic” foods also have the USDA seal, but contain 95% organic ingredients. Products labeled “Made with organic ingredients” do not have the USDA seal and are made with only 70% organic ingredients. Many consumers are unaware of these distinctions and only see the organic portion of the label. Some may be buying “Organic” foods thinking that they are completely pure when in actuality, 5% of the products’ contents are not explicitly stated. Furthermore, the industry is not transparent about this, which significantly decreases their reliability. If companies are labeling their products to deceive consumers into buying them, how can people trust that the foods are legitimately beneficial?

Without knowing the background about food labels, most, if not all, people believe organic foods are more nutritious compared to foods grown traditionally; at this point in time, this statement is practically common knowledge. In a study conducted by Stanford University published in the article 'Eating Organic Food Isn't that Much Healthier, Study Finds,' this belief was actually not found to be entirely true. There are actually very few differences between organic and non-organic foods. Of course conventionally grown foods have higher rates of pesticide residue and antibiotic usage - if this was not true, that would be a whole other issue - but the actual nutritional value is virtually identicalю Dr. Dena Brevata, the head researcher for this experiment says, “There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods, from environmental concerns to taste preferences, but when it comes to individual health, there isn't much difference'. This shows that the doctor herself would not recommend investing in organic products because of their marketed health benefits. Dr. Brevata also points out the interesting fact that not enough research has been done to investigate how organic foods even affect the human health: only 17 out of 237 studies the Stanford team reviewed mention this. If the organic industry is claiming that their products benefit people more than non-organic foods, it is obviously important to actually show how.

Another major reason why people believe organic foods are so great is because they are supposedly treatment free. The USDA defines organic products as pesticide, synthetic fertilizer, sewage sludge, genetic modification, and ionizing radiation free; organic animal products have to be free of antibiotics and growth hormones. This does not mean, however, that they are not exposed to all treatments. Copper sulfate, which can cause poisoning, is commonly used. Mulch used as fertilizers can contain pesticide residue from spraying conventional crops; organic farms take advantage of this in order to reduce infestation while still legally maintaining the organic standard (Smith). The fact that one of the main perks of buying organic foods is in many cases false is enough to prove that these products are not as pure as the industry claims them to be. There is virtually no difference in this regard between organic and non-organic foods. In fact, the organic industry looks incredibly poor for finding loopholes through regulations and cheating consumers out of what they thought they were paying for. Additionally, the mulch, especially those used in soy plants, may contain bone meal from slaughterhouses. Bone meal could be incorporated into mulch to substitute the traditional additives used in non-organic farms, which is incredibly shocking, especially to those who buy these foods thinking they are animal-product free. Some may say that it is equally as possible for conventional foods to use bone meal in their fertilizers, but the difference is that organic farms advocate that their products are ethical, while conventional foods do not explicitly state these promises to the consumers.

On the same notion, genetically modified foods have also become somewhat taboo, and those who are avid investors in organic food often do so because of the supposed negative effects of genetic modification. The simple fact is technology has progressed so quickly in the past few decades that it is impossible to test all of the effects of these newly developed foods. Technology like this simply has not been around long enough, and genetic modification has an equal chance of having positive or negative consequences. A recent 2019 study summarized by Diana Gitig shows that GMOs, specially Bt corn, cotton, and soybeans, actually have positive effects on agriculture. Bt corn and other Bt crops allow for less pesticides because they are bred for insect-killing proteins from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, hence the “Bt”. The effectiveness of these proteins were tested in farms located in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia by tracking the populations of European corn borer and corn earworm moths, whose larvae eat the crops. The GMO crops successfully counteracted the increasing reproduction rate of pests due to rising temperatures, and between 1992 and 2016, the total amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields decreased by a whopping 85 percent. Not only are GMO crops themselves receiving less exposure to pesticides and bugs, the surrounding non-GMO crops also benefit from the decreasing pest population. Organic foods that simply lack the traits to fend pests off are certain to be more susceptible to them. Although this is only one study in a relatively small area of concern, it provides solid scientific evidence of the positive effects of genetic modification and a shortcoming of organic foods.

Outside of the chemical composition of organic foods, the whole image of organic food production is warped. In many advertisements, people see a quaint little field being worked by a happy farmer with a sunset in the background. This, unfortunately, is not reality. The term “industry” has been used consistently throughout this essay so far, and it means exactly that. The same heavy equipment and aggressive techniques used on traditional farms are utilized on organic ones. Sadly in the real world, many times organic methods can not be implemented by smaller farms. The simple fact is that the certification and the procedures involved in organic farming are too expensive for minute farms to maintain. The organic food industry is in fact a big business, and ultimately, corporations exist to make money. Profiting is not something to be looked down upon at all, but many consumers use organic and local farming interchangeably when they mean incredibly different things. For those who are purchasing organics thinking they are supporting small-scale and direct farming, they could not be more wrong.

Another aspect of manufacturing that the organic industry fails to address is worker treatment. S.E. Smith stresses the misconception that workers are treated more ethically on organic farms in the article 'Workers on Organic Farms Are Not Always Paid Fairly'. Organic farmers face very similar, if not identical, issues as conventional farmers, such as insufficient wages, harsh conditions, and minimal protection. Often times, the farmers do not even make enough to buy the food they are growing. In California specifically, workers often point out the lack of income and benefits, wage theft, forced labor, long hours, unsafe conditions, and favoritism within the business. Throughout history, even and especially today, working conditions and employment in general has been a controversial topic that many people are passionate about. Surprisingly, the fact that unethical worker treatment occurs in an industry in which its whole appeal is ethicality has not stirred the consciousness of many people. Many consumers do not even look into the actual practices organic farms engage in because the image put out by the industry is so believable and perfect.

After all of these reasons as to why organic foods are not as miraculous as they seem, everything connects back to money. Organic products are more expensive for both consumers and producers. As mentioned earlier, certification is a strenuous process that requires a lot of investment on the business’ part and is also very difficult to perpetuate. To make up for this, often times organic farms will treat their workers unethically, as explained in the paragraph above, because it costs less. The production cost is reflected onto the consumer cost, and it is very evident that organic foods are pricier than conventionally grown foods. People may say that a trip to the grocery store is a very small amount of money and some extra can be spared in return for a healthier lifestyle. The price for buying groceries might not seem like much at one time, but bills quickly add up, since most people eat every day and multiple meals per day. Also, as proven in previous paragraphs, just because a food is labeled organic does not mean it is more beneficial. Connecting the idea of finances back to the original idea about organic food in media presented in the introduction, young people are one of the most exposed to the lies of the industry. Simultaneously, this age group is also subject to some of the tightest financial situations caused by student debt that many do not pay off until years after finding a stable job. This will only become increasingly burdensome as the generation before us begins to retire. It is unnecessary for people struggling financially to spend more money on foods that provide miniscule benefits.

Unlike popular belief, organic problems do not provide miraculous solutions to issues regarding agriculture. Products with “organic” in the label might not be one hundred percent organic; there are no dramatic nutritional differences; they are not completely treatment free; organic food production a big business; workers are often treated unethically, and ultimately, they are more expensive. Instead of supporting this misleading industry, buy products grown on small and/or local farms. Unlike many organic producers, small farms genuinely care about the community, their workers, the soil, and the environment. Despite not being USDA certified organic, these farms also often produce cleaner foods because of how much they sincerely invest into their crops. More time and energy is focused on the quality and nutrition of the food instead of mass production to generate optimal profit. Local farmers are able to look past the label on their products and create authentically healthy foods.