Facts; Myth and Reality
environment
Comprehensive European-wide literature review
provides evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves soil
fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water pollution
from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide emissions per
hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission potential appears to be
lower, energy consumption is usually lower, and energy efficiency is
usually higher.
* Environmental and resource use impacts of organic farming
in Europe, Stolze, Piorr, Haring and Dabbert , 2000
health
This US study of April 2001 quantified for the first time the difference in nutrient levels between organic and conventional food. It reviewed all the available comparative studies on crops produced with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers (41 studies) and found that organic crops had higher average levels of all 21 nutrients analysed. The results were statistically significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).
Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173. V. Worthington, 2001
health
This report of all aspects of food quality in relation to health showed that on the basis of the available evidence, organic food is healthier than non-organic food because it is safer and more nutritious. It minimises possible dietary toxins such as pesticides, artificial additives and GMOs. Comparative studies show that it contains on average more minerals and vitamin C than non-organic food. Moreover, important improvements in health have been observed in animal feeding trials, such as better fertility and growth.
[Reviews of the comparative research on nutrient levels previous to the above two had been inconclusive. They included many invalid studies and attempted to find consistency between the results, rather than looking for overall differences.]
Organic farming, food quality and human health, Soil Association, 2001
environment
The Soil Association published this report in
May 2000. It reviewed all the known studies that compared the levels
of wildlife on organic and conventional farms (9 fully, 14 briefly).
It found clear evidence that overall organic farms support substantially
higher levels of wildlife in lowland areas, particularly of
those wildlife groups which are declining. Examples include 40% more
birds in a three year study of 44 farms by the British Trust for Ornithology,
twice as many butterflies and five times as many wild arable plants.
This backed up the observation by the organic sector that organic farming
addresses the main causes that conservationists have identified as behind
the current dramatic decline in farm wildlife.
* The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming, Soil
Association, 2000
environment
A DEFRA desk-study comparing organic and non-organic systems found that organic farming is much more energy efficient than non-organic farming both on an area and yield basis. For example, organic arable production is about 35% more energy efficient and organic dairy production about 74% more efficient per unit of output than non-organic production.
Energy use in organic farming systems, DEFRA, 2000
environment
A study of three organic farms by DEFRA found that organic production reduces nitrate leaching to an extent similar to that achieved by the use of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, a major Government objective for all of agriculture. Organic farming standards prohibit the use of inorganic nitrate fertilisers and limit the quantity of manure that can be applied per hectare.
Assessment of relative nitrate losses from organic and conventional farming systems based on recent measurements, DEFRA, 1997
animal welfare
This report in April 2002 by Compassion in World Farming provides a comprehensive assessment and endorsement of the welfare benefits of organic farming. CIWF compared the Soil Association's standards against 15 criteria for animal welfare. They achieved 11-14 out of 15 for the five different livestock categories. In comparison, farm assurance schemes achieved only 4-7.
Farm Assurance Schemes and Animal Welfare – Can we Trust Them?, CIWF, 2002
animal welfare
In December 2000, the Food Ethics Council published its report on farm animal welfare. It concluded that systems like organic farming are the ideal and certainly preferable to 'hi-tech' approaches in their impact on animal welfare.
Farming animals for food: towards a moral menu, Food Ethics Council, 2000
integrated crop management
This study of ICM (Integrated Crop Management) published in February 2000 showed that the limited reductions in agro-chemical use attained though ICM may have little or no effect on wildlife. Despite reductions of pesticides and fertilisers of c. 20%, there was no significant difference in the numbers of invertebrates (beetles, spiders and earthworms) between the conventional and ICM sites after five years.
Link Integrated Farming Systems, HGCA project report 173, 2000
feeding the world
Organic and agro-ecological farming in the Southern hemisphere produces a range of positive outcomes: dramatic yield increases, greater crop diversity, pest and disease reduction, and greater nutritional content. For example: Tigray, Ethiopia (composted plots yield 3-5 times more than chemically treated plots), Brazil (maize yields increased 20-250%); and Peru (increases of 150% for a range of upland crops).
The Real Green Revolution – Organic and agro-ecological farming in the South, N. Parrott and T. Marsden, Greenpeace, 2002
feeding the world
This report also highlighted the capacity for organic farming to feed the developing world. A review of over 200 food production projects in different countries involving simple, organic type techniques showed that they resulted in major yield increases, ranging from 46-150%.
Reducing Food Poverty with sustainable agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence. 'SAFE-World' Research Project. J.N. Pretty and Rachel Hine, 2000
economic costs of non organic farming
This report on the 'external' costs of farming, in September 2000, showed that the indirect costs of non-organic farming to the taxpayer are amounting to over £2.3 billion annually in the UK. This is because of the cost of addressing the negative effects on the environment and health. It indicates major potential for economic savings with widespread organic farming.
An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65 (2000), 113-136. J.N. Pretty et al, 2000
pesticides
In December 2000, a study on two common agro-chemicals highlighted the fact that the safety of pesticides has NOT been established. The study found that brain damage similar to Parkinson's disease resulted in rats when both chemicals (maneb and paraquat) were used, while there were no effects from either chemical alone. Moreover an epidemiological study found a geographical correlation in the US between deaths from Parkinson's disease and the use of these chemicals.
[Multiple pesticides residues are found in about 14% of every day foods in the UK. While the health effects of individual pesticides are tested before approval, several agro-chemicals are often used on a crop but the effects of mixtures are not tested.]
Journal of Neuroscience, 15.12.2000
genetically modified organisms
This survey of the scientific literature on GMOs found that at this time there had been only three published studies of the health effects of consuming GMOs, and none of these animal feeding trials were longer than 70 days. Other published studies that have been used as evidence of safety by the Government and biotechnology companies were in fact only tests of the health effects of the modified protein, not the whole GMO, ie. most existing 'safety' studies have not tested the side effects of the engineering process which is the main health concern.
[Tests of the health effects of the consumption of GMOs are not required before their approval.]
Genetically engineered food: still unlabelled and untested, Greenpeace, 2001
genetically modified organisms
This United Nations report shows that GM crops are not needed to feed the world's growing population. Several forward projections to 2030 when the world's population is expected to be over 8 billion, found that, leaving aside GM crops, the potential of current agricultural resources and technological knowledge are already sufficient to ensure that total crop production "will exceed population growth".
Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Technical Report, FAO, April 2000
