Organic farming is a way of Agriculture that relies on Ecosystem management rather than external agricultural inputs. This approach excludes the use of synthetic inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, veterinary drugs, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and usually subscribes to the principles of Sustainable agriculture. Its theoretical basis emphasizes Soil Health as the foundation for successful production. Its proponents believe that healthy soil, maintained without the use of man-made fertilizers and pesticides, and Livestock raised without drugs, yields higher quality Food than conventional, chemical-based agriculture. In many countries, including the US and in the EU, organic farming is also defined by Law, making the commercial use of the term organic to describe farming and food products regulated by the Government.
Methods of organic farming vary. Some farms follow the strict production guidelines of a particular regulatory code, others develop their own independent systems. However, all organic systems share common goals and practices:
Within this framework, farmers develop their own organic production system, determined by factors like Climate, crop selection, local regulations, and the preferences of the individual Farmer. In many parts of the world, Organic certification is available to farms for a fee. Depending on the country, certification is either overseen by the government, or handled entirely by private certification bodies. Where laws exist, it is usually illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products organic. It is important to make the distinction between organic farming and Organic food. Farming is concerned with producing fresh products - vegetables, fruits, Meat, Dairy, eggs - for immediate consumption, or for use as ingredients in processed food. The manufacture of most commercially processed food is well beyond the scope of farming. It is also important to note that organic farming is not "new". In fact, it is a reaction against the large-scale, chemical-based farming practices that have become the norm in food production over the last 80 years. The differences between organic farming and modern conventional farming account for most of the controversy and claims surrounding organic agriculture and organic food. Until recently, the comparison looked something like this:
| Organic | Conventional | |
|---|---|---|
| Size | relatively small-scale, independent operations (e.g. the Family farm) | large-scale, often owned by or economically tied to major Food corporations |
| Methods | low use of purchased fertilizers and other inputs; low Mechanization of the growing and harvesting process | intensive chemical programs and reliance on mechanized production, using specialized equipment and facilities |
| Markets | often local, direct to consumer, through on-farm stands and farmers' markets (see also Local food), and through specialty wholesalers and retailers (eg: health food stores) | wholesale, with products distributed across large areas (average Supermarket produce travels hundreds to thousands of miles) and sold through high-volume outlets |
The contrast is as much economic as it is between methods of production. To date, organic farming has been typically Small business, often based in local economies, and conventional farming is Big Business (often called Agribusiness or, negatively, Corporate farming) that is closely integrated with all aspects of the global food production chain. However, the situation is changing rapidly as Consumer demand encourages large-scale organic production. Development of modern organic farming techniques is also a function of Economics. Most of the agricultural research over the last several decades has concentrated on chemical-based methods - little Funding and effort have been put into using current scientific tools to understand and advance organic agricultural approaches. Principles of plant cultivation, in many situations identical to those of organic farming, are applied - often, though not necessarily, at a smaller scale - in the plough-less practice of Organic horticulture.
In general terms, organic farming involves natural processes, often taking place over extended periods of time, and a holistic approach, while chemical-based farming focusses on immediate, isolated effects and reductionist strategies (some would argue that this Reductionism is Greedy reductionism). In large commercial operations, Technology is used to regulate local conditions-Hybrid seed, synthetic chemicals, high-volume Irrigation-while sophisticated machinery does most of the work, and operators' feet may seldom touch the ground. Beyond the strictly technical aspects, the philosophy, day-to-day activities and required skill sets are quite different.
In contrast, organic farming tends to tolerate some pest populations while looking to the long haul. Organic pest control involves the cumulative effect of many techniques, including:
Each of these techniques also provides other benefits--soil protection and improvement, fertilization, Pollination, water conservation, Season extension, etc.-and these benefits are both complementary and cumulative in overall effect on farm health. Effective organic pest control requires a thorough understanding of pest life cycles and interactions.
Organic pest control is not synonymous, but shares some concepts with Integrated Pest Management.
Also, horses and cattle used to be a basic farm feature that provided labor, for hauling and plowing, fertility, through recycling of manure, and Fuel, in the form of food for farmers and other animals. While today, small growing operations often do not include livestock, domesticated animals are a desirable part of the organic farming equation, especially for true sustainability, the ability of a farm to function as a self-renewing unit.
Organic and conventional farming methods are quite different, however, large-scale agriculture and organic farming are not mutually exclusive. For example, Integrated Pest Management is a multifaceted strategy, that can include synthetic pesticides as a last resort - both organic and conventional farms use IPM systems for pest control.
An international framework for organic farming is provided by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), the international democratic umbrella organization established in 1972. For these farmers, organic agriculture is based upon the Principles of Organic Agriculture and the IFOAM Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing (IBS).
The basic claim is that organic farms are less productive. One prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average 20% lower organic yields over conventional methods, however, that came with consumption of 50% less fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticide. A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed of some 150 growing seasons of data on various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields. Comparative yield studies are still scarce, and overall results remain "inconclusive".
In fact, the issue of productivity is more complex than a summary of yield, which is the measure often assumed. For one, productivity is often calculated in labour time rather than by land area - chemical farming sometimes requires much more physical space than organic farming to produce the same yield, but much less labor. Also, grain forms the majority of world agricultural production, and most of that is fed to animals, not humans - broad calculations of how much agriculture is feeding people is therefore complicated when feeding animals to feed people is factored in.
On a more abstract economic level, the hidden costs of conventional agriculture are seldom addressed in productivity calculations. Conventional agriculture is based on importing energy, particularly in the form of fertilizer and other agrichemicals, machinery and fuel, and long-distance transport, while the full cost of these inputs are not recognized. Directly, for example, maintenance of the airports and highways that allow easy transport are not factored into food cost. This may seem farfetched, however, if airports shut down, or highway systems were compromised, this would immediately affect the cost of food. More indirectly, it is argued that the cost of the side-effects of chemical agriculture, like health care and environmental clean-up, should be included in the cost of doing agribusiness. Instead, these hidden costs are paid by the public in other ways, such as through taxation to fund services like pollution control measures, and increased health care costs. Of course, many of these hidden cost factors are highly disputed, and the scope involved in investigating these issues is tremendous.
A related aspect is the amount of money that actually reaches the farmer: currently, large-scale farms receive around 10-20% of the supermarket retail price. The other 80-90% is absorbed by the food distribution system, for processing, transport, packaging, marketing. The organic argument holds that more efficient distribution, through decentralization of production (e.g. family farm vs factory farm), and development of local and regional markets, would put more money in the hands of the farmer, allowing them to improve productivity.
In England in the 1920s, a few individuals in agriculture began to speak out against these agricultural trends.
The British botanist Sir Albert Howard is often referred to as the father of modern organic agriculture. From 1905 to 1924, he worked as an agricultural adviser in Pusa, Bengal, India, where he documented traditional Indian farming practices, and came to regard them as superior to his conventional agriculture Science. His research and further development of these methods is recorded in his writings, notably, his 1940 book, An Agricultural Testament, which influenced many scientists and farmers of the day.
In Germany, Rudolf Steiner's development Biodynamic agriculture was probably the first comprehensive organic farming system (the apparent beginning of which was a lecture Steiner presented in 1924).
In the early 1900s, American agronomist F.H. King toured China, Korea, and Japan, studying traditional fertilization, tillage, and general farming practices. He published his findings in Farmers of Forty Centuries (1911). King probably did not view himself as part of a movement, organic or otherwise, but in later years his book became an important organic reference.
In 1939, influenced by Sir Howard's work, Lady Eve Balfour launched the Haughley Experiment on farmland in England. It was the first scientific, side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming. Four years later, she published The Living Soil, based on the initial findings of the Haughley Experiment. Widely read, it led to the formation of a key international organic advocacy group, the Soil Association.
The coinage of the term organic farming is usually credited to Lord Northbourn, in his book, Look to the Land (1940), wherein he described a holistic, ecologically-balanced approach to farming.
In Japan, Masanobu Fukuoka, a microbiologist working in Soil science and plant Pathology, began to doubt the modern agricultural movement. In the early 1940s, he quit his job as a research scientist, returned to his family's farm, and devoted the next 30 years to developing a radical no-till organic method for growing grain, now known as Fukuoka farming.
At the same time, increasingly powerful and sophisticated farm machinery allowed a single farmer to work ever larger areas of land. Fields grew bigger, and Agribusiness as we know it today was well on its way.
In 1944, an international campaign called the Green Revolution was launched in Mexico with private funding from the US. It encouraged the development of hybrid plants, chemical controls, large-scale irrigation, and heavy mechanization in agriculture around the world.
During the 1950s, sustainable agriculture was a topic of scientific interest, but research tended to concentrate on developing the new chemical approaches. In the US, J.I. Rodale began to popularize the term and methods of organic growing, particularly to consumers through promotion of Organic gardening.
In 1962, Rachel Carson, a prominent scientist and naturalist, published Silent Spring, chronicling the effects of DDT and other pesticides on the environment. A Bestseller in many countries, including the US, and widely read around the world, Silent Spring is widely considered as being a key factor in the US government's 1972 banning of DDT. The book and its author are often credited with launching the worldwide Environmental movement.
In the 1970s, global movements concerned with pollution and the environment increased their focus on organic farming. As the distinction between organic and conventional food became clearer, one goal of the organic movement was to encourage consumption of locally grown food, which was promoted through slogans like "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food".
In 1972, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, widely known as IFOAM, was founded in Versailles, France, and dedicated to the diffusion and exchange of information on the principles and practises of organic agriculture of all schools and across national and linguistic boundaries.
In 1975, Fukuoka released his first book, One Straw Revolution, with a strong impact in certain areas of the agricultural world. His approach to small-scale grain production emphasized a meticulous balance of the local farming Ecosystem, and a minimum of human interference and labor.
In the 1980s, around the world, various farming and consumer groups began seriously pressuring for government regulation of organic production. This led to legislation and certification standards being enacted through the 1990s and to date.
Since the early 1990s, the retail market for organic farming in developed economies has been growing by about 20% annually due to increasing consumer demand. Concern for the quality and safety of food, and the potential for environmental damage from conventional agriculture, are apparently responsible for this trend.
Agribusiness is also changing the rules of the organic market. The rise of organic farming was driven by small, independent producers, and by consumers. In recent years, explosive organic market growth has encouraged the participation of agribusiness interests. As the volume and variety of "organic" products increases, the viability of the small-scale organic farm is at risk, and the meaning of organic farming as an agricultural method is ever more easily confused with the related but separate areas of organic food and organic certification.
The controversy centers around the overall value and safety of chemical agriculture, with organic farming popularly regarded as the "opposite" of modern, large-scale, chemical-based, vertically integrated, corporate food production. As public awareness increases, several factors act as obstacles to an easy understanding of the overall situation.
Perhaps most importantly, in recent decades, food production has moved away from the public eye. In developed nations, where most of the world's wealth, consumption, and agricultural policy-making are centered, many people are no longer aware of how their food is produced, or even that food, like energy, is not unlimited. If the methods used to produce food are rapidly destroying the capacity for continued production, then sustainable, organic farming is as critical a topic as renewable energy and pollution control. This proposition is at the center of most organic farming issues.
In terms of the debate, it is useful to make a distinction between organic farming and organic food. Whether organic food is tastier or safer or more nutritious has nothing to do with the effects of chemical agriculture on the environment. And, most food dollars are spent on processed food products, the manufacture of which is beyond the scope of farming. There are separate food and farming issues - lumping the two together only confuses the discussion.
Another important distinction lies between organic farming and organic certification. Defining organic farming with checklists of acceptable and prohibited inputs and practices runs into some of the same criticisms aimed at chemical farming. With rules come exceptions, whether well-intentioned or purely profit-oriented, and critics hold that this can only undermine organic principles. For example, in some organic standards, compost made from Sewage is acceptable, a decision based on best-guess science (that the carryover of unacceptable inputs is negligible) and necessity (a shortage of certified organic compost). Exceptions like this often seem necessary to make certified organic farming commercially viable for independent farmers, although they might be questionable to the consumer: What is "more-or-less organic"? Certification also allows agribusiness to lobby for favorable definitions - anything that can be approved becomes "organic".
Of course, the issues, particularly the social ones, will shift if agribusiness fully adapts to and dominates organic farming, and (in early 2005) this is the current trend. Then, large-scale, certified organic farms would probably operate much more like conventional farms do today. Environmental benefits may accrue from a change in types of pesticides and fertilizer used, more crop diversity, and the like, but if the overall agribusiness philosophy remains essentially unchanged, "organic farming" could become the norm, without any great environmental or social improvements.
In any case, here are a number of specific topics, argued from, and supporting, both sides.
Another argument against organic farming is that, while it works acceptably at present because pests are kept under control in surrounding conventional farms and thus do not spread into organic farms, if it became universal, the "islands" they operate on would disappear and pests would become a severe issue. This argument also works in reverse, as organic farms can be islands of safety for predator insects and pollinators, without which, more pollination services would be required, and ever-increasing quantities of pesticides would be needed as pest populations acquired resistance to pesticides (to a degree, in both instances this is already the case).
Workplace safety is a separate, related issue. Toxic agrichemicals create a hazardous work environment. Chemical accidents and the effects of long-term exposure are both well-known risks faced by many farm workers. Also, the effect of chemicals, airborne after spraying, and in the groundwater, on neighboring communities is a concern.
"GMO-free" is also a popular marketing point for organic food. The general argument against is that no one has a clue as to the full impact of Genetic engineering on food quality, plant or animal health: GE could be preparing our food supply for collapse. On the other side, the argument is that with a rapidly expanding global population, genetic engineering to create higher volumes of produce could be the key to ending world hunger. It also could be the key to creating healthier food, and ensuring proper nurishment, and has the potential to make farming more profitable, allowing agricultural industries to survive in increasingly service oriented economies. Often overlooked in this debate is the fact that genetic engineering is a technique, not an essential characteristic of the organisms it produces, and that humans have used selective breeding to modify crops and livestock for tens of thousands of years.
Actively avoiding GM seeds, growth hormones and the like represents one response to the GMO issue. Less publicized, but with potentially greater effect, is the contamination of organic farms with GM product, usually through pollination. The mechanism of cross-contamination is not understood, and only beginning to be studied. Meanwhile, cases of cross-contamination have been documented, while the extent is still unclear. A first-time study of genetic cross-contamination, published in Feb. 2004, found that at least two-thirds of conventional corn, soybeans and canola in the US contain traces of genetic material from GM varieties. Along with commercial GM crops, trials for new GM plants producing food, pharmaceuticals (pharmacrops) and industrial materials (eg: plastics), are being conducted in the US, Canada, and elsewhere. With the genetic engineering of Alfalfa (not yet widely grown), a primary Green manure fertilizer crop, not only primary crops, but the underpinnings of organic agriculture are threatened. It is conceivable that genetic contamination could make GMO-free farming next to impossible.
On the flip side, large-scale organic operations that don't follow sustainable practices would require many of the same resources as conventional operations. For example, an organic farm that made heavy use of farm machinery and indoor production facilities (requiring artificial heat and light), and shipped to far-off markets, would still be a major consumer of energy resources. Also, it is debated whether an organic farm using natural compost and manure on a large scale would cause any less damage to ground water and soil than manufactured fertilizers, which contain little more than what is actually needed for the specific plants to grow.
It should be noted that the conventional, chemical-based approach is also widely practiced in countries that do not heavily subsidise their farmers, such as Australia.
As discussed previously, the entry of large-scale businesses into production of organic food undermines the belief that a preference by consumers for organic food will necessarily translate into a substantive change in the nature of agribusiness. This is where the distinction between organic farming, organic food, and organic certification becomes tricky. If the strong consumer trend represents simply the desire for an "organic" stamp on their food, then the trend to large-scale, global, corporate farming, certified organic or not, will continue. If consumers embrace a broader concept of "organic", which includes fresh, local food, sustantial changes in the food industry would have to follow to meet this demand.
Organic farming is now gaining popularity and is being accepted by people all over the world. In Deborah Koons Garcia's film "The Future of Food," it is stated that the American market for organically grown food amounted to $1 billion in 1994, and $3 billion in 2003. A growing consumer market is naturally one of the main factors encouraging farmers to convert to organic agricultural production. Increased consumer awareness of food safety issues and environmental concerns has contributed to the growth in organic farming over the last few years.