write an article about organic food

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

• Nutrition and healthy eating

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?

Discover the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts when it comes to nutrition, safety and price.

Once found only in health food stores, organic food is now a common feature at most grocery stores. And that's made a bit of a problem in the produce aisle.

For example, you can pick an apple grown with usual (conventional) methods. Or you can pick one that's organic. Both apples are firm, shiny and red. They both provide vitamins and fiber. And neither apple has fat, salt or cholesterol. Which should you choose? Get the facts before you shop.

What is organic farming?

The word "organic" means the way farmers grow and process farming (agricultural) products. These products include fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products such as milk and cheese, and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to meet the following goals:

• Improve soil and water quality
• Cut pollution
• Provide safe, healthy places for farm animals (livestock) to live
• Enable natural farm animals' behavior
• Promote a self-sustaining cycle of resources on a farm

Materials or methods not allowed in organic farming include:

• Artificial (synthetic) fertilizers to add nutrients to the soil
• Sewage sludge as fertilizer
• Most synthetic pesticides for pest control
• Using radiation (irradiation) to preserve food or to get rid of disease or pests
• Using genetic technology to change the genetic makeup (genetic engineering) of crops, which can improve disease or pest resistance, or to improve crop harvests
• Antibiotics or growth hormones for farm animals (livestock)

Organic crop farming materials or practices may include:

• Plant waste left on fields (green manure), farm animals' manure or compost to improve soil quality
• Plant rotation to keep soil quality and to stop cycles of pests or disease
• Cover crops that prevent wearing away of soil (erosion) when sections of land aren't in use and to plow into soil for improving soil quality
• Mulch to control weeds
• Insects or insect traps to control pests
• Certain natural pesticides and a few synthetic pesticides approved for organic farming, used rarely and only as a last choice and coordinated with a USDA organic certifying agent

Organic farming practices for farm animals (livestock) include:

• Healthy living conditions and access to the outdoors
• Pasture feeding for at least 30% of farm animals' nutritional needs during grazing season
• Organic food for animals
• Shots to protect against disease (vaccinations)

Organic or not? Check the label

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set up an organic certification program that requires all organic food to meet strict government standards. These standards control how such food is grown, handled and processed.

Any product labeled as organic on the product description or packaging must be USDA certified. If it's certified, the producer may also use an official USDA Organic seal.

The USDA says producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic food don't need to be certified. These producers must follow the guidelines for organic food production. But they don't need to go through the certification process. They can label their products as organic. But they can't use the official USDA Organic seal.

Products certified 95 percent or more organic may display this USDA seal.

The USDA guidelines describe organic foods on product labels as:

• 100% organic. This label is used on certified organic fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat or other foods that have one ingredient. It may also be used on food items with many ingredients if all the items are certified organic, except for salt and water. These may have a USDA seal.
• Organic. If a food with many ingredients is labeled organic, at least 95% of the ingredients are certified organic, except for salt and water. The items that aren't organic must be from a USDA list of approved additional ingredients. These also may have a USDA seal.
• Made with organic. If a product with many ingredients has at least 70% certified organic ingredients, it may have a "made with organic" ingredients label. For example, a breakfast cereal might be labeled "made with organic oats." The ingredient list must show what items are organic. These products can't carry a USDA seal.
• Organic ingredients. If a product has some organic ingredients but less than 70% of the ingredients are certified organic , the product can't be labeled as organic. It also can't carry a USDA seal. The ingredient list can show which ingredients are organic.

Does 'organic' mean the same thing as 'natural'?

No, "natural" and "organic" are different. Usually, "natural" on a food label means that the product has no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. "Natural" on a label doesn't have to do with the methods or materials used to grow the food ingredients.

Also be careful not to mix up other common food labels with organic labels. For example, certified organic beef guidelines include pasture access during at least 120 days of grazing season and no growth hormones. But the labels "free-range" or "hormone-free" don't mean a farmer followed all guidelines for organic certification.

Organic food: Is it safer or more nutritious?

Some data shows possible health benefits of organic foods when compared with foods grown using the usual (conventional) process. These studies have shown differences in the food. But there is limited information to prove how these differences can give potential overall health benefits.

Potential benefits include the following:

• Nutrients. Studies have shown small to moderate increases in some nutrients in organic produce. Organic produce may have more of certain antioxidants and types of flavonoids, which have antioxidant properties.
• Omega-3 fatty acids. The feeding requirements for organic farm animals (livestock) usually cause higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids. These include feeding cattle grass and alfalfa. Omega-3 fatty acids — a kind of fat — are more heart healthy than other fats. These higher omega-3 fatty acids are found in organic meats, dairy and eggs.
• Toxic metal. Cadmium is a toxic chemical naturally found in soils and absorbed by plants. Studies have shown much lower cadmium levels in organic grains, but not fruits and vegetables, when compared with crops grown using usual (conventional) methods. The lower cadmium levels in organic grains may be related to the ban on synthetic fertilizers in organic farming.
• Pesticide residue. Compared with produce grown using usual (conventional) methods, organically grown produce has lower levels of pesticide residue. The safety rules for the highest levels of residue allowed on conventional produce have changed. In many cases, the levels have been lowered. Organic produce may have residue because of pesticides approved for organic farming or because of airborne pesticides from conventional farms.
• Bacteria. Meats produced using usual (conventional) methods may have higher amounts of dangerous types of bacteria that may not be able to be treated with antibiotics. The overall risk of contamination of organic foods with bacteria is the same as conventional foods.

Are there downsides to buying organic?

One common concern with organic food is cost. Organic foods often cost more than similar foods grown using usual (conventional) methods. Higher prices are due, in part, to more costly ways of farming.

Food safety tips

Whether you go totally organic or choose to mix conventional and organic foods, keep these tips in mind:

• Choose a variety of foods from a mix of sources. You'll get a better variety of nutrients and lower your chance of exposure to a single pesticide.
• Buy fruits and vegetables in season when you can. To get the freshest produce, ask your grocer what is in season. Or buy food from your local farmers market.
• Read food labels carefully. Just because a product says it's organic or has organic ingredients doesn't mean it's a healthier choice. Some organic products may still be high in sugar, salt, fat or calories.
• Wash and scrub fresh fruits and vegetables well under running water. Washing helps remove dirt, germs and chemical traces from fruit and vegetable surfaces. But you can't remove all pesticide traces by washing. Throwing away the outer leaves of leafy vegetables can lessen contaminants. Peeling fruits and vegetables can remove contaminants but may also cut nutrients.

There is a problem with information submitted for this request. Review/update the information highlighted below and resubmit the form.

From Mayo Clinic to your inbox

Sign up for free and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips, current health topics, and expertise on managing health. Click here for an email preview.

Error Email field is required

Error Include a valid email address

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.

Thank you for subscribing!

You'll soon start receiving the latest Mayo Clinic health information you requested in your inbox.

Sorry something went wrong with your subscription

Please, try again in a couple of minutes

• Organic production and handling standards. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/organic-production-handling-standards. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Introduction to organic practices. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/introduction-organic-practices. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Organic labeling at farmers markets. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/organic-labeling-farmers-markets. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Labeling organic products. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/labeling-organic-products. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Use of the term natural on food labeling. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Demory-Luce D, et al. Organic foods and children. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Pesticides and food: Healthy, sensible food practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/pesticides-and-food-healthy-sensible-food-practices. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Vegetable and pulses outlook: November 2021. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=102664. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Changes to the nutrition facts label. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Rahman SME, et al. Consumer preference, quality and safety of organic and conventional fresh fruits, vegetables, and cereals. Foods. 2021; doi:10.3390/foods10010105.
• Brantsaeter AL, et al. Organic food in the diet: Exposure and health implications. Annual Review of Public Health. 2017; doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044437.
• Vigar V, et al. A systematic review of organic versus conventional food consumption: Is there a measurable benefit on human health? Nutrients. 2019; doi:10.3390/nu12010007.
• Mie A, et al. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environmental Health. 2017; doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4.
• Innes GK, et al. Contamination of retail meat samples with multidrug-resistant organisms in relation to organic and conventional production and processing: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, 2012-2017. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2021; doi:10.1289/EHP7327.

Products and Services

• A Book: Cook Smart, Eat Well
• A Book: The Mayo Clinic Diet Bundle
• The Mayo Clinic Diet Online
• Antioxidants
• Cuts of beef
• Grass-fed beef
• Menus for heart-healthy eating
• Sea salt vs. table salt
• What is BPA?

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

• Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

• Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
• The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
• Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
• FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
• Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book
• Healthy Lifestyle
• Organic foods Are they safer More nutritious

Your gift holds great power – donate today!

Make your tax-deductible gift and be a part of the cutting-edge research and care that's changing medicine.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Got milk? Does it give you problems?

Cancer risk, wine preference, and your genes

Excited about new diet drug? This procedure seems better choice.

Is organic better, not if you follow the evidence, researcher says, part of the wondering series.

Robert Paarlberg is an associate in the Sustainability Science Program at the Kennedy School and the author of several books on agriculture and food, including “Resetting the Table.” We asked him whether eating organic is better for us.

Is organic food, grown without synthetic chemicals, healthier than conventionally grown food? Roughly 40 percent of Americans say at least some of the food they eat is organic, so quite a few eaters clearly believe it is.

However, there is no reliable evidence showing that organically grown foods are more nutritious or safer to eat. In 2012, a review of data from 237 studies conducted at the Center for Health Policy at Stanford University concluded there were no convincing differences between organic and conventional foods in nutrient content or health benefit. The organic ban on synthetic chemicals also fails to improve food safety in the U.S., since the use of pesticides is now significantly regulated in conventional farming (insecticide use today is 82 percent lower than it was in 1972), and because produce in supermarkets has been washed to remove nearly all of the chemical residues that might remain.

In 2021, the USDA conducted its annual survey of pesticide residues on food in the American marketplace, testing 10,127 food samples from nine different states. It found more than 99 percent had residues safely below EPA’s tolerance levels, which are cautiously set at only 1/100th of an exposure that still does not cause toxicity in laboratory animals. Food scientists at the University of California, Davis, conclude from such surveys that the “marginal benefits of reducing human exposure to pesticides in the diet through increased consumption of organic produce appear to be insignificant.”

By one estimate in 2014, only 8 percent of organic sales in the U.S. were still being made by small farmers through farmers markets or through community supported agriculture.

Many consumers continue to think organic foods come from small local farms, but most now come from distant industrial farms. By one estimate in 2014, only 8 percent of organic sales in the U.S. were still being made by small farmers through farmers markets or through community supported agriculture. Over 80 percent of all U.S. organic sales are now made by corporate conglomerates like ConAgra, H.J. Heinz, and Kellogg. The biggest retailers of organic foods are Walmart, Costco, and Kroger.

Most commercial farmers, both large and small, want to use at least some synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which means they can’t be certified as organic. This is why less than 1 percent of harvested cropland in America is certified organic. Canadian geographer Vaclav Smil has estimated that without synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, 40 percent of the increased food production required by today’s population could never have taken place. Organic yields are lower, so if we shifted more production to organic we would also have to plow up more land to produce the same amount of food, which would reduce wildlife habitat and damage the environment.

Intuition tells us foods grown without manufactured chemicals are more “natural” and therefore better for the environment, safer to eat and helping small local farms. Even the fact that organic foods are more expensive seems a reason to think they are better. But in this case, intuitive thinking takes us in the wrong direction. If we follow the science, organic food loses its apparent advantage.

— As told to Anna Lamb/Harvard Staff Writer

Share this article

Also in this series:.

How old is too old to run?

No such thing, specialist says — but when your body is trying to tell you something, listen

The 20-minute workout

Pressed for time? You still have plenty of options.

How to deliver very bad news

It’s hard to be a doctor. This is when it’s really hard.

How to prepare for a trip to space

Astronauts spend years training for missions. How do commercial travelers get ready?

Next spat with your partner, try silence

If you’re doing all the talking, then you’re probably doing it wrong, says negotiation expert.

How to judge a painting

Do: Ask questions and keep an open mind. Don’t: Say your child could’ve made that.

Can you be close without sex?

Healthy intimate relationships vary but share one key feature, says psychologist

How to write funny

For Cora Frazier, it usually starts with deep sadness

Faster, fitter?

Not really, says Spaulding Rehab expert. When you go for a walk, focus on this instead.

Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is

You’ll never experience a black hole, but Avi Loeb can help you imagine one

Is cycling safe?

We shouldn’t take no for an answer, researcher says

The language of dreams

Proficiency, place, emotion, or something else? These late-night conversations defy easy explanation.

You might like

Biomolecular archaeologist looks at why most of world’s population has trouble digesting beverage that helped shape civilization

Biologist separates reality of science from the claims of profiling firms

Study finds minimally invasive treatment more cost-effective over time, brings greater weight loss

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

How far has COVID set back students?

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize

Organic food and health

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Biotechnology, Microbiology and Human Nutrition, Faculty of Food Science and Biotechnology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Lublin, Poland.
• PMID: 32519524
• DOI: 10.32394/rpzh.2020.0110

The popularity of organic foods grows systematically. In the last decade, several critical reviews and meta-analysis concerning organic food consumption and their effect on some chosen health problems have been published. The aim of the work was to present the current state of knowledge regarding the influence of organic food consumption on human health. On average, organic food of plant origin is characterized by a trace presence of pesticides, a lower content of nitrates and an increased content of polyphenols and vitamin C. Organic products of animal origin contain more beneficial for health unsaturated fatty acid. Organic dairy products, in contrast to meat products, are characterized by a higher content of protein and saturated fatty acids, however, the differences more result from the length of the grazing period and access to fresh forage than to the production system. Although generally, the consumption of organic food does not provide a significant nutritional advantage compared to a conventional diet, regular and frequent consumption of organic products generally reduces the risk of overweight and obesity, both for women and men, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma in case of women. Besides those, consumption of organic fruits and vegetables, as well as dairy products significantly reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia in pregnancy and eczema in infants, respectively. Positive effect on selected health problems probably results from a reduced amount of pesticide residues and an increased secondary plant metabolites intake which characterize organic food. This review showed that there is a need for further, especially, large cohort studies concerning the effect of organic food consumption on specific diseases development.

Keywords: cancer; composition; health; nutrients; organic foods; pesticides.

© Copyright by the National Institute of Public Health - National Institute of Hygiene.

Publication types

• Attitude to Health*
• Diet, Healthy / statistics & numerical data*
• Evidence-Based Practice
• Food Contamination / statistics & numerical data
• Food, Organic / statistics & numerical data*
• Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin / prevention & control
• Nutritive Value*
• Obesity / prevention & control

Organic food

Organic foods and crops

What is organic food and its benefits

It is not only our genes that influence our health, but also the food we eat on a daily basis. That’s why the way food is produced is important to us, not only for our health, but also to preserve the environment. In this article we explain what organic food is, what characterizes it, how it is produced and why it is better than conventional food.

What is organic food?

This type of food is based on the use of ingredients that are grown or produced according to production methods that meet several requirements: the use of natural processes and techniques, respect for animal welfare, the use of environmentally friendly methods and the protection of consumer health.

Organic food rejects the use of chemical components (excessively added chemical components) and is characterized by the limitation of the use of additives or their elimination. In this way, animal welfare and respect for biodiversity are promoted, avoiding any type of environmental pollution.

What does organic food production look like?

This limitation applies to the use of chemical components and additives in foodstuffs. In addition, no chemicals such as pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides or fungicides are used in the production process, although natural products may be used for this purpose. Only a small amount of chemical ingredients and additives may be used in their manufacture.

This also avoids possible long-term adverse health effects of additives. The FAO states that to certify organic production, the land must be free of chemical inputs for 2 to 3 years before the production process begins. This means that producers who certify this type of production can only use pesticides, herbicides or insecticides of natural origin.

One of the methods used to develop these products is biological control, which consists of incorporating insects and other animals into the crops to keep pests away. The use of this control method must be based on the knowledge of the species that are suitable for controlling certain pests.

What characterizes organic food

You may want to learn more about a specific case of this problem, such as the negative effects of the herbicide glyphosate.

Another characteristic of these products from ecologically or organically produced animals, such as milk or meat, is that they avoid the use of antibiotic drugs, seeking a treatment as natural as possible and based on prevention, such as selecting healthy strains naturally, through their genetics, living in appropriate environments and a balanced and quality diet through the use of organic food.

Another advantage of these products is for the environment, that is, the damage caused to the environment is reduced and even avoided because the whole process is more natural. In fact, in industrialized production, the abuse of pesticides and other chemical substances releases toxic gases into the atmosphere that cause air pollution. Similarly, cows that are fed chemical-intensive pastures end up releasing more gases into the atmosphere than if they were fed more natural diets.

Is organic food better than conventional food?

Over the years, many studies have been done comparing organic foods to conventional foods and, while they don’t show conclusive data in terms of quality differences, some foods, such as apples or tomatoes, have been found to have more flavor than conventional foods.

What has been proven are the environmental benefits of farming more organically. In addition, organic farming is closely linked to sustainable rural development and fair trade.

The benefits of organic food

Organic food has several benefits for you and the environment. Here are some of them:

• They are natural foods. This means that they retain all their nutritional properties. No chemicals or genetically modified organisms are used in their production. This means that the food retains its nutritional qualities and is of better quality.
• They are healthier. The absence of chemicals makes organic foods healthier because they are better assimilated by the body, improve defenses and help prevent disease.
• They are sustainable. Respect for the environment is one of the requirements of organic food. When we consume this type of food, we contribute to the conservation of the natural environment around us. Organic farming respects the fauna and flora because it uses less aerosols and does not generate pollution.
• They guarantee the highest quality. European legislation guarantees that organic food is controlled at all stages: processing, packaging, labeling, etc., thus ensuring the maximum quality of each product.
• They guarantee the respect of animals. The regulations applicable to this type of product guarantee that the animals live in semi-freedom, that they are not stressed and that they develop at their normal pace and in appropriate conditions. The animals are not manipulated for greater production.
• They taste better. The production process of organic food products is artisanal, so that they retain all their flavor and natural properties. Many consumers choose these products because they get the authentic taste of food. In addition, this means that organic food keeps better and longer.

Organic food health benefits have been hard to assess, but that could change

Assistant Professor, Boise State University

Disclosure statement

Cynthia Curl receives funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

Boise State University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

“Organic” is more than just a passing fad. Organic food sales totaled a record US$45.2 billion in 2017 , making it one of the fastest-growing segments of American agriculture. While a small number of studies have shown associations between organic food consumption and decreased incidence of disease, no studies to date have been designed to answer the question of whether organic food consumption causes an improvement in health.

I’m an environmental health scientist who has spent over 20 years studying pesticide exposures in human populations. Last month, my research group published a small study that I believe suggests a path forward to answering the question of whether eating organic food actually improves health.

What we don’t know

According to the USDA, the organic label does not imply anything about health. In 2015, Miles McEvoy, then chief of the National Organic Program for USDA, refused to speculate about any health benefits of organic food, saying the question wasn’t “relevant” to the National Organic Program. Instead, the USDA’s definition of organic is intended to indicate production methods that “foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.”

While some organic consumers may base their purchasing decisions on factors like resource cycling and biodiversity, most report choosing organic because they think it’s healthier .

Sixteen years ago, I was part of the first study to look at the potential for an organic diet to reduce pesticide exposure. This study focused on a group of pesticides called organophosphates, which have consistently been associated with negative effects on children’s brain development . We found that children who ate conventional diets had nine times higher exposure to these pesticides than children who ate organic diets.

Our study got a lot of attention. But while our results were novel, they didn’t answer the big question. As I told The New York Times in 2003 , “People want to know, what does this really mean in terms of the safety of my kid? But we don’t know. Nobody does.” Maybe not my most elegant quote, but it was true then, and it’s still true now.

Studies only hint at potential health benefits

Since 2003, several researchers have looked at whether a short-term switch from a conventional to an organic diet affects pesticide exposure. These studies have lasted one to two weeks and have repeatedly shown that “going organic” can quickly lead to dramatic reductions in exposure to several different classes of pesticides.

Still, scientists can’t directly translate these lower exposures to meaningful conclusions about health. The dose makes the poison, and organic diet intervention studies to date have not looked at health outcomes. The same is true for the other purported benefits of organic food. Organic milk has higher levels of healthy omega fatty acids and organic crops have higher antioxidant activity than conventional crops. But are these differences substantial enough to meaningfully impact health? We don’t know. Nobody does.

Some epidemiologic research has been directed at this question. Epidemiology is the study of the causes of health and disease in human populations, as opposed to in specific people. Most epidemiologic studies are observational, meaning that researchers look at a group of people with a certain characteristic or behavior, and compare their health to that of a group without that characteristic or behavior. In the case of organic food, that means comparing the health of people who choose to eat organic to those who do not.

Several observational studies have shown that people who eat organic food are healthier than those who eat conventional diets. A recent French study followed 70,000 adults for five years and found that those who frequently ate organic developed 25% fewer cancers than those who never ate organic. Other observational studies have shown organic food consumption to be associated with lower risk of diabetes , metabolic syndrome , pre-eclampsia and genital birth defects .

The problem with drawing firm conclusions from these studies is something epidemiologists call “uncontrolled confounding.” This is the idea that there may be differences between groups that researchers cannot account for. In this case, people who eat organic food are more highly educated, less likely to be overweight or obese, and eat overall healthier diets than conventional consumers . While good observational studies take into account things like education and diet quality, there remains the possibility that some other uncaptured difference between the two groups – beyond the decision to consume organic food – may be responsible for any health differences observed.

When clinical researchers want to figure out whether a drug works, they don’t do observational studies. They conduct randomized trials, where they randomly assign some people to take the drug and others to receive placebos or standard care. By randomly assigning people to groups, there’s less potential for uncontrolled confounding.

My research group’s recently published study shows how we could feasibly use randomized trial methods to investigate the potential for organic food consumption to affect health.

We recruited a small group of pregnant women during their first trimesters. We randomly assigned them to receive weekly deliveries of either organic or conventional produce throughout their second and third trimesters. We then collected a series of urine samples to assess pesticide exposure. We found that those women who received organic produce had significantly lower exposure to certain pesticides (specifically, pyrethroid insecticides) than those who received conventional produce.

On the surface, this seems like old news but this study was different in three important ways. First, to our knowledge, it was the longest organic diet intervention to date – by far. It was also the first to occur in pregnant women. Fetal development is potentially the most sensitive period for exposures to neurotoxic agents like pesticides. Finally, in previous organic diet intervention studies, researchers typically changed participants’ entire diets – swapping a fully conventional diet for a fully organic one. In our study, we asked participants to supplement their existing diets with either organic or conventional produce. This is more consistent with the actual dietary habits of most people who eat organic food – occasionally, but not always.

Even with just a partial dietary change, we observed a significant difference in pesticide exposure between the two groups. We believe that this study shows that a long-term organic diet intervention can be executed in a way that is effective, realistic and feasible.

The next step is to do this same study but in a larger population. We would then want to assess whether there were any resulting differences in the health of the children as they grew older, by measuring neurological outcomes like IQ, memory and incidence of attention-deficit disorders. By randomly assigning women to the organic and conventional groups, we could be sure any differences observed in their children’s health really were due to diet, rather than other factors common among people who consume organic food.

The public is sufficiently interested in this question, the organic market is large enough, and the observational studies suggestive enough to justify such a study. Right now, we don’t know if an organic diet improves health, but based on our recent research, I believe we can find out.

[ Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter to get insight each day ]

• Organic food

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Communications and Engagement Officer, Corporate Finance Property and Sustainability

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Business, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha, Wisconsin, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland

• Raghava R. Gundala, 
• Anupam Singh

• Published: September 10, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Consumers perceive organic foods as more nutritious, natural, and environmentally friendly than non-organic or conventional foods. Since organic foods developed, studies on consumer behavior and organic foods have contributed significantly to its development. The presesent study aims to identify the factors affecting consumer buying behaviour toward organic foods in the United States. Survey data are collected from 770 consumers in the Midwest, United States. ANOVA, multiple linear regression, factor analysis, independent t-tests, and hierarchical multiple regression analysis are used to analyze the collected primary data. This research confirms health consciousness, consumer knowledge, perceived or subjective norms, and perception of price influence consumers’ attitudes toward buying organic foods. Availability is another factor that affected the purchase intentions of consumers. Age, education, and income are demographic factors that also impact consumers’ buying behavior. The findings help marketers of organic foods design strategies to succeed in the US’s fast-growing organic foods market.

Citation: Gundala RR, Singh A (2021) What motivates consumers to buy organic foods? Results of an empirical study in the United States. PLoS ONE 16(9): e0257288. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288

Editor: Ali B. Mahmoud, St John’s University, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: January 7, 2021; Accepted: August 30, 2021; Published: September 10, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Gundala, Singh. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

What is organic food.

Foods that are cultivated without the application of chemical pesticides can be called organic foods [ 1 ]. The feed cannot include antibiotics or growth hormones for the food products labeled organic for foods derived from animals (e.g., eggs, meat, milk, and milk products) [ 2 ]. Organic foods are perceived as environmentally safe, as chemical pesticides and fertilizers are not used in their production. They also are not grown from genetically modified organisms. Furthermore, organic foods are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or synthetic food additives [ 3 ]. Thus, these foods are considered environmentally safe, as they are produced using ecologically sound methods.

When the world’s population was low, almost all agriculture was primarily organic and near-natural. However, these traditional practices, passed from one generation to the next, did not produce enough food to meet the rapidly increasing global population’s demands. This led to the "green revolution," in which farmers used technological interventions to maximize outputs to meet the growing need for food for the increasing population [ 4 ]. Unfortunately, this increased food production also increased chemical pesticides and fertilizers, causing environmental and health issues.

Consumers worldwide are now more concerned with the environment [ 5 ]. They are sensitive to information about products, processing, and brands that might impact the environment [ 6 ]. Environmental issues are perceived as having a more direct impact on consumers’ well-being. Consumers who know environmental degradation activities are willing to buy organic foods [ 7 ].

Heightened awareness of the environment and the consumer’s desire to buy organic foods leads to increased corporate investment toward organic food production and marketing. They are thus initiating significant innovations in the organic food industry [ 8 ]. As a result, the organic food market is increasing [ 9 ]. In addition, effective campaigns create awareness about the environment. Because of these effective campaigns, consumers are now ready to spend more on green products [ 10 ].

Furthermore, people’s living standards have significantly improved in the past few decades. With these improvements, the demand for better lifestyles and food has also increased. The steady growth in purchases of organic foods is an emerging trend. Consumers want to learn what organic foods offer before purchasing decisions [ 11 ].

Global organic food market.

According to a recent report, the organic food market is expected to grow with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 16% during 2015–2020. This growth might be due to consumers’ health concerns as they become aware of organic foods’ perceived health benefits. Further, rising income levels, changes in living standards, and government initiatives encourage the broader adoption of organic products [ 12 ].

Organic food market in the USA

In 2018, organic market sales were US$47.86 billion, and the market grew by 6.3% from 2017 to 2018 [ 13 ]. In 2017, the organic food market in the United States hit a record of US$45.2 billion in sales; this market consists of both the organic food market and the organic non-food market (see Fig 1 ). It is predicted that the organic food market will grow at a consistent pace as it matures. The demand for organic foods is flourishing as consumers seek nutritious and clean eating, which they perceive as suitable for their health and the environment.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Source: Statista.com .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.g001

Understanding consumer buying behavior toward organic foods is essential to pursue better marketing and management of the market. This can help us learn about the consumer decision-making process on organic foods and understand how consumers’ attitudes and beliefs impact their consumption patterns. In addition, studying consumers’ willingness to pay a premium price and their response to organic food advertisements [ 14 ] is necessary for companies to succeed in this growing market.

This study focuses on exploring the factors influencing consumers’ buying behavior of organic foods. Although many factors can affect consumer buying behavior, we chose health consciousness, knowledge, subjective norms, price, and availability for this study based on Singh & Verma’s [ 1 ] study. Understanding these factors is vital for developing marketing strategies for successfully marketing of these products.

Theory and research hypotheses

Earlier research in the area of consumer buying behavior of organic foods discussed reasons why people buy. Even though there are some differences, the main reasons are product quality, concerns related to environmental degradation, and health-related issues [ 15 ]. Subsequent studies on consumer buying behavior of organic foods confirmed this [ 16 ]. Consumers tend to perceive organic foods as being healthier than conventional alternatives. This perception of organic foods is one of the most commonly cited reasons for purchasing them. In two studies [ 17 , 18 ], it became evident that consumers tend to have a positive attitude toward organic foods. However, they may not be purchasing organic foods due to environmental concerns. Instead, purchasing decisions are driven by the perceived health benefits the foods offer, the desire to fit in with a social group, try a new trend, or differentiate themselves from others [ 19 ].

Health consciousness (HEC)

Consumer attitudes are significantly influenced by their health consciousness [ 20 ]. Consumers mainly purchase organic foods due to health benefits [ 21 ]. Several studies show that health factors significantly influence consumers’ willingness to buy organic foods [ 22 – 26 ]. One of the significant reasons that influence consumers could be the deterioration of their health [ 22 ]; thus, consumers see consumers’ purchases as an investment for good health. Bourn and Prescott [ 27 ] found that organic foods have a competitive advantage over conventional foods due to organic foods’ nutritive attributes.

However, in a study conducted by Fotopoulos and Krystallis [ 28 ], taste is also another reason consumers buy organic foods. Even though many studies said that the perceived health benefits are the primary motivator, work by Tarkiainen and Sundqvist [ 29 ] and Michaelidou and Hassan [ 25 ] did not find it to be a compelling driver. In the earlier studies, the health benefit is the least significant influencer on organic foods. We examined our respondents’ thoughts on this topic with these different findings on the importance of health benefits. Based on the above, we formulated Hypothesis 1:

• H1: Health consciousness has a positive impact on buying behavior toward organic foods.

Consumer knowledge (CK)

The Theory of Reasoned Actions (TRA) supports our understanding of consumer behavior development by exploring the motivational influences on how consumers behave [ 30 ]. TRA offers a basis for predicting consumer attitudes and behavior [ 31 ]. Liu [ 20 ] further confirms that TRA is the best theory to predict consumer behavior about organic foods. Consumers want to be aware of what they are buying and satisfy their needs and wants. Therefore, knowledge is essential in impacting consumer behavior on foods.

Sapp [ 32 ] argued that knowledge involves a cognitive learning process. Consumer purchase intentions differ based on the consumers’ levels of expertise [ 33 ]. Consumers’ purchase of organic products cannot be separated from their knowledge and understanding of organic foods [ 34 , 35 ]. Recent research on consumer awareness and knowledge about organic foods found that consumer awareness worldwide is low relative to Europe’s awareness level. This elevated awareness about organic food is due to its market, which is well developed compared to the rest [ 3 , 36 – 39 ].

Studies also found that consumers’ knowledge about what is "organic" is inconsistent. For example, in one study, respondents assumed that organic foods are produced without pesticides, fertilizers, or growth regulators [ 40 ]. However, in a similar study done in the UK by Hutchings and Greenhalgh [ 41 ], respondents thought that "organic" farming is free from chemicals and is grown naturally. Further, respondents felt that organic foods are not intensively farmed.

In consumer purchase decisions of organic foods, awareness and knowledge about these products are essential. Smith and Paladino [ 42 ] conducted a study on factors affecting organic foods’ purchasing behavior. They found that learning about social and environmental issues will positively impact consumers’ purchase behavior. However, from the above, it is evident that consumers’ knowledge about organic foods is inconsistent. While they are likely to perceive that organic foods are pure, natural, and healthy, this perception might be based on their belief that organic foods are free from pesticides and chemical fertilizers. To evaluate the same, we proposed Hypothesis 2 as:

• H2: Consumer buying behavior is positively associated with consumer knowledge of organic foods.

Perceived or subjective norms (PSN)

Ajzen [ 43 ] defines perceived or subjective norms (PSN) as "a perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform a behavior." Finlay et al. [ 44 ] said subjective norms are individuals’ perceptions or opinions about what others believe the individual should do. Subjective norms had an impact on consumer purchase behavior in the research conducted by Shimp and Kavas [ 45 ], Sheppard et al. [ 46 ], and Bagozzi et al. [ 47 ]. Chang [ 48 ] tested the correlation between attitudes toward consumer behavior and subjective norms. This study also examined the link between norms and attitudes and found that subjective norms lead to behavior attitudes in a meaningful manner. From the above, we formulated Hypothesis 3 as:

• H3: Perceived or subjective norms will positively influence consumer buying of organic foods.

Perception of the price (PP)

Organic foods are priced higher than conventional foods. Aertsens et al. [ 49 ] and Hughner et al. [ 16 ] confirmed that price is a significant barrier to organic food choice. Padel and Midmore [ 50 ] and O’Doherty et al. [ 51 ] indicate that high prices are likely to impede future demand development; thus, price is crucial in organic food marketing. The research confirmed that consumers switch products due to high prices [ 52 ], and Gan et al. [ 53 ] found that higher costs hurt the chances of buying organic foods. However, Radman [ 54 ] concluded that some consumers have a positive attitude toward organic foods and are willing to pay a higher price. Meanwhile, Smith et al. [ 55 ] found that price does not significantly impact organic food purchases. Since there are contradictory findings on the relationship between price and organic foods, we decided to explore whether consumer perceptions of cost have any link to their buying behavior of organic foods, as stated in Hypothesis 4:

• H4: Perceived price of organic foods is negatively associated with consumer buying.

Availability of organic foods (AV)

Availability is one factor that encourages the purchase of organic foods [ 56 ]. Makatouni [ 24 ] reiterated that organic foods’ availability could be a barrier to consuming the same. In a study by Tarkiainen and Sundqvist [ 29 ], the authors showed that the easy availability of organic foods positively affected their purchase behavior. In a survey conducted by Young et al. [ 57 ], consumers prefer readily available products. Therefore, they do not want to spend time searching for organic products.

However, recently, retailers across the country have noticed the growing popularity of organic foods and have been adding organic foods to their shelves. Increased organic foods marketing by large retail outlets and specialty stores has made organic foods accessible to more consumers [ 58 ]. This discussion poses a question. Does availability have a positive impact on purchase behavior? We decided to test this using Hypothesis 5:

• H5: Availability of organic foods increases consumer buying behavior.

Purchase intention and actual buying behavior (PI and AB)

Planned behavior theory suggests that a reaction is a function of intentions and perceived behavioral control. Sheppard et al. [ 31 ] showed evidence that a relationship exists between choices and actions in different buying behavior types. Ajzen [ 43 ] stated that intentions or willingness could significantly predict actual buying behavior. Studies by Tanner and Kast [ 59 ] and Vermeir and Verbeke [ 60 ] found discrepancies between consumers who expressed favorable attitudes and actual purchase behavior. Hughner [ 16 ] found that, even though consumers have a positive attitude toward purchasing organic foods, very few people bought them. Based on the above, researchers believe that there is a relationship between attitudes and actions. This is in line with the study of Wheale and Hinton [ 61 ]. Attitudes toward organically grown food products might positively and significantly affect purchase behavior [ 62 ]. From this, it is assumed that the purchase of organic food results from an intent to purchase.

The attitude-behavior gap is a gap in consumers’ favorable attitude and actual purchase behavior of organic foods. This gap suggests that a positive attitude toward organic products might not always lead to a purchase. Many factors could influence this gap. Price, availability, and social influence, among many others, can create a discrepancy among consumer attitudes, purchase intentions, and actual buying behavior. We test the effects of influencing factors (HEC, CK, PSN, PP, AV) on purchase intent (PI) and actual buying behavior (AB).

• H6: Consumer attitudes toward organic foods mediate the association between influencing factors and purchase intention.
• H7: Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions mediate the association between influencing factors and actual buying behavior.

Sociodemographic factors

Behavior is not influenced by attitudes alone; many factors influence behavior. For example, Voon et al. [ 62 ] found that sociodemographic factors influence buying behavior. One significant factor is gender. For instance, Lockie et al. [ 63 ] confirm that women are more likely to have positive attitudes than men toward organic foods. Similarly, adolescent girls are more favorable than boys toward organic products [ 64 ].

Research has found that age also influences the purchase of organic foods. For example, Misra et al. [ 65 ] show that older individuals may be willing to buy organic foods due to health-related reasons. However, Cranfield and Magnusson [ 66 ] found that younger consumers are more likely to pay over 6% higher premiums to ensure that food products are pesticide-free. In addition, Rimal et al. [ 67 ] found that older individuals are less likely to buy organic foods than younger individuals. In contrast, younger people and women consider organic foods more essential and include them in their purchases [ 68 , 69 ].

In consumers’ demographic characteristics, income is another factor considered crucial for influencing the purchase of organic food. In two studies conducted by Govidnasamy and Italia [ 68 ] and Loureiro et al. [ 70 ], organic products are more frequently purchased by higher-income households. Likewise, Voon et al. ’s [ 62 ] research found that household income positively relates to organic food purchases. Further, women in the 30–45, with children and having a higher disposable income, include organic foods in their purchases [ 58 ].

Research by Cunningham [ 38 ] and O’Donovan and McCarthy [ 71 ] found a positive relationship between organic foods and education consumption. This is also true of Dettmann and Dimitri’s [ 58 ] work. According to their study, individuals with a higher education level are more likely to purchase organic foods than those with a lower education level. This was also discovered by Aryal et al. [ 72 ]. They showed that education is another factor that might influence the purchase of organic products.

Contrary to the above-referred research, some studies found a negative correlation [ 73 , 74 ]. These negative correlations are also confirmed by the analysis of Arbindra et al. [ 75 ]. They explain that organic food purchase patterns and levels of education are statistically significant.

Since there are different findings in the literature, we test the influence of demographic factors on buying, and the following hypotheses are formulated:

• H8a: The age of the consumer and buying behavior toward organic foods are significantly different.
• H8b: Gender and buying behavior toward organic foods are significantly different.
• H8c: Income and buying behavior toward organic foods are significantly different.
• H8d: Education and buying behavior toward organic foods are significantly different.

Research method

Primary data were collected using a questionnaire developed from prior studies [ 1 , 76 – 80 ]. The questionnaire has two sections. The first section contains questions about organic product purchase behavior, with responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The second section includes questions on respondents’ demographic information (see S1 Appendix ).

The questionnaire was pilot tested on 50 respondents to ensure question and response clarity. Changes were made where necessary based on the feedback of the pilot study. Convenience and snowball sampling methods were used. Online surveys were conducted by sending out the surveys to individuals known to both the researcher and the students taking a Market Research course during Spring 2019. These individuals were asked to pass on the survey to their friends and family members. The snowball sampling method was used to generate as many responses as possible during May-August 2019. Respondents were asked to participate in the study via email. The email sent to potential participants indicated that they voluntarily agreed to participate in the survey by clicking on the survey link. The email also mentioned that, at any time, they could stop participating by merely closing the browser, and their responses will not be saved. A total of 770 responses were received. After going through the questionnaires for completeness, a total of 502 surveys were used for further analysis. The study is approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Wisconsin-Stout as this involves a survey from the consumers based on their consents. Further, the data were analyzed anonymously.

Results and discussion

The respondents’ demographic profile is reported in Table 1 . The table indicates that 58% of the respondents are men, while the remaining 42% are women. The plurality (37%) of the respondents is 31–40 years old. Likewise, most (35%) are graduate students, followed by undergraduate students (28%) and postgraduates/Ph.D. (21%). The analysis also shows that respondents’ plurality has an annual income of over $100,000. The highest proportion of respondents (38%) has a family size of 1–2 members living in their households. This family size is closely followed by 3–4 people in the household (37%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t001

Reasons for purchase of organic foods

Respondents were asked if they have ever bought organic food products, and 55.6% said yes. Then, these respondents were asked further questions about their purchases. When asked about the purchase frequency, 51.8% said they purchase organic food products weekly, 26% purchase at least once a month, and the remaining 21.6% purchase less frequently than once a month.

Respondents mentioned health consciousness as the primary reason for purchasing organic food. Further, non-use of pesticides, lower pesticide residues, environmentally friendly production, and perceived freshness are other reasons respondents choose to buy organic foods (see Fig 2 ). Health consciousness played an essential role in 48% of respondents, followed by pesticide-free (19%) and environmentally friendly (15%) considerations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.g002

To identify the factors influencing attitudes toward organic foods, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) using varimax rotation is conducted. Before applying the factor analysis, the Kaiser-Mayer-Olin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are used to test data suitability. The result shows the KMO measure of sampling adequacy as 0.82. Thus, the value exceeds the cut-off value of 0.60. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ 2 = 2,082, df = 132, p < .001) is also significant. This indicates that the inter-item correlations are significant for PCA. KMO and Bartlett’s test results support the data [ 81 ]. The results are shown in Table 2 to ensure scale reliability. Each factor has a Cronbach’s alpha (α) value higher than the threshold value of 0.70 [ 82 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t002

Multiple linear regression analysis is performed to test hypotheses H1–H5. The analysis ascertains the impact of health consciousness, consumers’ knowledge, perceived or subjective norms, availability, and perception of the price on consumer attitude (AT). As shown in Table 3 , HEC, CK, PSN, PP, and AV account for 33% of the explained variances (F (5, 177) = 32.51, p < .001, R 2 = 0.33).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t003

According to the results, the H1(β = 0.37, p = .016); H2 (β = 0.47, p < .001); H3 (β = 0.34, p = .015); and H4 (β = 0.36, p = .001) are supported, as the β values are positive and significant. However, the values for H5 (β = 0.29, p = .117) are statistically non-significant. This shows that H5 is not supported. The findings confirmed that health consciousness, consumer knowledge, perceptive or subjective norm, and perception of the price affect respondents’ attitudes toward organic foods. However, it is also found that availability has no impact on consumers’ attitudes, at least in our sample.

The hierarchical regression method was applied to test the association between purchase intention and influencing factors (HEC, CK, PSN, PP, and AV) via the mediation of AT. The mediation was ascertained using Baron and Kenny’s [ 83 ] approach. Certain criteria must be met to declare the presence of mediation in the equation. The first necessary criterion is that the independent variable (IV) must affect the dependent variable (DV). The second criterion is that the IV must significantly influence the mediating variables. The third suggests the mediating variables must affect the DV. When all of the above conditions are met, a full mediation is confirmed if the IV no longer affects the DV after the mediator has been controlled for. Partial mediation occurs when the effect of the IV on the DV is reduced after the mediators are controlled for. The results indicate that all β values (for the effect on AT) are positive and significant: HEC (β = 0.17, p < .001), CK (β = 0.29, p < .030), PSN (β = 0.33, p < .020), PP (β = 0.39, p < .010), and AV (β = 0.24, p < .050; see Table 4 ). The presence of mediation is also confirmed, as Baron and Kenny’s criteria are met. Thus, H6, which predicts that the attitude mediates the relationship between the influencing factors and PI, is supported.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t004

According to the results reported in Table 5 , H7—which states that influencing factors have a positive effect on actual buying behavior via the mediating effect of attitude and purchase intention—is supported: AT (β = 0.24, p < .040) and PI (β = 0.26, p < .020). This confirms that AT and PI have a positive and significant effect on consumers’ actual buying behavior. Furthermore, AT and PI mediate the association between influencing factors and AB since the values of the corresponding regression coefficients of HEC, CK, PSN, PP, and AV are reduced when the effects of AT and PI are controlled for. These results support H7.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t005

Demographic differences in the actual buying behavior

An independent t-test is conducted to see if the actual purchase behavior changes are due to gender. Levene’s test ( Table 6 ) indicates that the p-value for gender is more significant than .05. The result confirms the homogeneous variance. Thus, the t-test is suitable for equal variance. Furthermore, the t-value of 0.08 (two-tailed) is higher than the significance level, suggesting a non-significant difference, implying that the mean values (-0.19 and -0.16) are not significant, supporting H8a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t006

Table 7A below shows the results of the one-way ANOVA test. The findings suggest that respondents’ age (F = 7.01; p = .023) has a statistically significant effect on the purchase intention; thus, H8b is supported. However, further analysis of the respondents’ age groups is conducted using the least significant difference (LSD) test. The results of the LSD test, as depicted in Table 7B , indicate that the age group of 41–50 years has a statistically higher score than other age groups.

A. Age groups: ANOVA test. B. LSD test for respondent’s age groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t007

Hypothesis H8c is supported, as the ANONA test reveals that annual income (F = 8.22; p = .011) significantly affects purchase intention (see Table 8A ). Further, the LSD Test for income ( Table 8B ) implies that the income level of more than US$80,000 has a higher score on the actual purchase as compared to those with incomes lower than US$80,000.

A. Annual income: ANOVA test. B. Annual income: LSD test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t008

According to Table 9A , the level of education (F = 7.05; p = .001) affects consumer purchase behavior toward organic foods. The LSD test ( Table 9B ) further clarifies that consumers hold postgraduate/Ph.D. Degrees have a higher score on the AB of organic food products than consumers with only a high school diploma or undergraduates. The test also shows that graduate degree-holders are more likely to purchase organic food than any other group.

A. Education levels: ANOVA Test. B. Education levels: LSD Test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.t009

Conclusions

This study tested Singh and Verma’s [ 1 ] model on US consumers. We initially investigated the factors influencing consumer attitudes. Then we studied how these influencing factors and attitudes together affect the actual buying behavior of consumers. There has always been a debate on consumers’ intention to purchase compared to their actual purchase. Evidence of previous studies suggests that actual purchase behavior is not always the consequence of intent to purchase. Consumers sometimes intend to buy but often fail to do so. Therefore, this study also looked at the impact of demographic variables (such as gender, income, education, and age) on the consumers’ actual buying. This study confirms that all five factors—namely, health consciousness, consumer knowledge, availability, perception of price, and subjective norms—influence consumer attitudes. In contrast, attitudes and purchases were found to have mediating roles between influencing factors and actual buying behavior toward organic foods.

Further, the t-tests and ANOVA test results explored a more in-depth understanding of the relationships between demographic factors and actual buying. LSD tests were conducted to understand which sub-group in a demographic variable is significantly different from its counterparts. The findings of this study suggest that gender does not affect the actual buying of organic foods. Meanwhile, income, age, and education do affect consumers’ actual purchases. Furthermore, the LSD test shows that 41–50 years of age, consumers are more likely to buy organic foods than those in other groups. Not surprisingly, income is found to be another critical determinant of actual buying decisions. This may indicate that income is directly proportional to organic food buying (i.e., the higher the income level, the more likely the consumer is to buy organic foods). The findings also indicate the same trend with education. Higher levels of education correspond to a higher likelihood of purchasing organic foods. This could be because education might increase the consumer’s knowledge, and informed consumers could be health-conscious and aware of organic foods’ benefits. Many studies have stated different reasons for buying organic foods in developed and developing countries. However, if we compare and contrast our research findings with recent work in developed countries, similar results have been obtained. Health consciousness, food safety, environmentally friendly procedures, consumer’s knowledge on organic foods, perceived or subjective norms, availability of organic foods, and demographic factors, like gender, education, and income are the most substantial reasons for buying organic food, irrespective of the country (developed or developing; [ 1 , 3 , 25 ].

Implications

The findings of this research may guide companies dealing with organic foods. The study suggests the companies can craft marketing strategies to increase consumers’ awareness of the benefits of organic food consumption. Providing additional information about the benefits of organic food products may help convince consumers to make the purchase. This study will be helpful to retailers to segment their consumers based on their demographics. The study will also help retailers understand the factors that are likely to influence consumers’ organic food purchases and design strategies to increase their sales. Since availability (access) is one factor in buying decisions, retailers should reach out to local shops/areas to enhance market coverage. As subjective norms are another significant factor, marketers should promote organic food consumption through family, celebrities, and society.

This study offers important implications but with some limitations. First, direct factors related to consumer purchase decisions were measured. The second limitation is the sampling. Since the data is collected using an online survey forwarded by students and researchers to others, it could constitute snowballing. Any data collected using snowballing should be cautiously used to generalize the outcomes. Further research in this area may consider advertisements, federal and state regulations, and consumption patterns of organic foods. Of course, in organic food consumption, more studies in different regions with a higher sample size would validate our findings.

Covid-19 pandemic crisis affecting all aspects of the population’s daily life, in particular, dietary habits [ 85 ]. However, Covid-19 perceptions on adopting healthy food habits are not investigated in the present study. Any further research in this area should consider post-pandemic behavior. Recent studies suggest that parental attitudes affects dietary habits [ 84 – 86 ]. Therefore, future research should also consider how parental attitudes influence the purchase of organic foods.

Supporting information

S1 dataset..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.s001

S1 Appendix. Survey questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257288.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. ch. 94, 7 U.S.C. § 6501. 1990.
• 12. TechSci 2017. Global Organic Food Market By Product Type (Organic Meat, Poultry and Dairy; Organic Fruits and Vegetables; Organic Processed Food; etc.), By Region (Europe, North America, Asia-Pacific, etc.), Competition Forecast and Opportunities, 2012–2022 [cited 2020 April] Available from: https://www.techsciresearch.com/report/global-organic-food-market-by-product-type-organic-meat-poultry-and-dairy-organic-fruits-and-vegetables-organic-processed-food-etc-by-region-europe-north-america-asia-pacific-etc-competition-forecast-and-opportunities/833.html
• 13. Organic Trade Association[cited 2020 March]. Available from:: https://ota.com/
• 19. Vermeir I, Verbeke W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer attitude-behavior gap (Working Paper No. 121). 2004. Ghent University, Belgium.
• 20. Liu ME. US college students’ organic food consumption behavior (Ph.D. dissertation). 2007. Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 22. Grossman M. The Demand for Health: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation. 1972. Columbia University Press, NEW YORK. https://doi.org/10.7312/gros17900
• 30. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 1975. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
• 36. Compagnoni A, Pinton R, Zanoli R. Organic farming in Italy. In S. Graf & H. Willer (eds.), Organic agriculture in Europe: Current status and future prospects of organic farming in twenty-five European countries. 2000. SÖL, Germany: Bad Durkheim.
• 37. Environics International Ltd: Food Issues Monitor Survey 2001.
• 38. Cunningham R. Who is the organic consumer? Paper presented at Growing Organic Conference, 2002. Red Deer, Alberta.
• 39. Demeritt L. All things organic 2002: A look at the organic consumer. Bellevue, WA: The Hartman Group.
• 81. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). 2011. Boston: Pearson Education.
• 82. Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. 1978. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Definition and Regulation of Organic Foods

Related terms, scope of consumer use, prices, and trends in organic food, nutritional quality of organic versus conventional food, sex steroids, nontherapeutic use of antibiotic agents, synthetic chemical exposure, environmental impact and production efficiency of organic versus conventional farming methods, environmental impact, production efficiency, the difference in price of organic versus conventional foods, advice for pediatricians, lead authors, committee on nutrition, 2011–2012, former committee members, council on environmental health executive committee, 2011–2012, organic foods: health and environmental advantages and disadvantages.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Joel Forman , Janet Silverstein , COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION , COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH , Jatinder J. S. Bhatia , Steven A. Abrams , Mark R. Corkins , Sarah D. de Ferranti , Neville Hylton Golden , Janet Silverstein , Jerome A. Paulson , Alice Cantwell Brock-Utne , Heather Lynn Brumberg , Carla C. Campbell , Bruce Perrin Lanphear , Kevin C. Osterhoudt , Megan T. Sandel , Leonardo Trasande , Robert O. Wright; Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages. Pediatrics November 2012; 130 (5): e1406–e1415. 10.1542/peds.2012-2579

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

The US market for organic foods has grown from $3.5 billion in 1996 to $28.6 billion in 2010, according to the Organic Trade Association. Organic products are now sold in specialty stores and conventional supermarkets. Organic products contain numerous marketing claims and terms, only some of which are standardized and regulated.

In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches. However, current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. Studies also have not demonstrated any detrimental or disease-promoting effects from an organic diet. Although organic foods regularly command a significant price premium, well-designed farming studies demonstrate that costs can be competitive and yields comparable to those of conventional farming techniques. Pediatricians should incorporate this evidence when discussing the health and environmental impact of organic foods and organic farming while continuing to encourage all patients and their families to attain optimal nutrition and dietary variety consistent with the US Department of Agriculture’s MyPlate recommendations.

This clinical report reviews the health and environmental issues related to organic food production and consumption. It defines the term “organic,” reviews organic food-labeling standards, describes organic and conventional farming practices, and explores the cost and environmental implications of organic production techniques. It examines the evidence available on nutritional quality and production contaminants in conventionally produced and organic foods. Finally, this report provides guidance for pediatricians to assist them in advising their patients regarding organic and conventionally produced food choices.

Organic farming uses an approach to growing crops and raising livestock that avoids synthetic chemicals, hormones, antibiotic agents, genetic engineering, and irradiation. In the United States, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has implemented the National Organic Program (NOP) 1 in response to the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. 2 The NOP set labeling standards that have been in effect since October 2002. NOP standards for organic food production include many specific requirements for both crops and livestock. To qualify as organic, crops must be produced on farms that have not used most synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer for 3 years before harvest and have a sufficient buffer zone to decrease contamination from adjacent lands. Genetic engineering, ionizing radiation, and sewage sludge is prohibited. Soil fertility and nutrient content is managed primarily with cultivation practices, crop rotations, and cover crops supplemented with animal and crop waste fertilizers. Pests, weeds, and diseases are managed primarily by physical, mechanical, and biological controls instead of with synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Exceptions are allowed if substances are on a national approved list. Organic livestock must be reared without the routine use of antibiotic agents or growth hormones (GHs) and must be provided with access to the outdoors. If an animal is treated for disease with antibiotic agents, it cannot be sold as organic. Preventive health practices include vaccination and vitamin and mineral supplementation. The USDA certifies organic products according to these guidelines. Organic farmers must apply for certification, pass a test, and pay a fee. The NOP requires annual inspections to ensure ongoing compliance with these standards.

Consumers are confronted with a wide range of food product marketing terms, some regulated and some not ( Table 1 ). The labeling requirements of the NOP apply to raw, fresh products and processed products that contain organic agricultural ingredients. These labeling requirements are based on the percentage of organic ingredients in a product. 3 Products labeled “100% organic” must contain only organically produced ingredients and processing aids (excluding water and salt). Products labeled “organic” must consist of at least 95% organically processed ingredients (excluding water and salt); the remaining 5% of ingredients may be conventional or synthetic but must be on the USDA’s approved list. Processed products that contain at least 70% organic ingredients can use the phrase “made with organic ingredients” and list up to 3 of the organic ingredients or food groups on the principal display panel. For example, soup made with at least 70% organic ingredients and only organic vegetables may be labeled either “soup made with organic peas, potatoes, and carrots” or “soup made with organic vegetables.”

Commonly Used Food Product Marketing Terms

There are no restrictions on use of other truthful labeling claims, such as “no drugs or growth hormones used,” or “sustainably harvested.”

The NOP places no restrictions on the use of truthful labeling claims, such as “no drugs or growth hormones used,” “free range,” or “sustainably harvested.” 3 The USDA regulates the term “free range” for poultry products; to use this term, producers must demonstrate that the poultry has been allowed “access to the outside.” 4 According to Consumers Union’s evaluation, this means that a poultry product comes from a bird that had at least 5 minutes of access to the outdoors each day. 4 , 5 No standard definition exists for all other products carrying the “free range” label, such as beef, pork, or eggs; the use of the term, however, is allowed.

The term “natural” or “all natural” is defined by the USDA for meat and poultry and means that the products contain no artificial flavoring, color ingredients, chemical preservatives, or artificial or synthetic ingredients and are “minimally processed.” Minimally processed means that the raw product was not fundamentally altered. Additional USDA definitions of other labeling terms can be found in publicly available USDA fact sheets. 4  

The term “raw” milk refers to unpasteurized milk. All milk certified as organic by the USDA is pasteurized. Raw milk can contain harmful bacteria, such as Salmonella species, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria species, Campylobacter species, and Brucella species, and has been repeatedly associated with outbreaks of disease caused by these pathogens. The American Academy of Pediatrics, US Food and Drug Administration, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise consumers not to consume raw milk. 6 , – 8  

In 2008, more than two-thirds of US consumers bought some organic products, and more than one-quarter bought organic at least weekly. The amount of US acreage dedicated to organic crops has doubled since 1997. 9 Consumers choose organic food in the belief that organic foods are more nutritious, have fewer additives and contaminants, and are grown more sustainably. 10 Some studies 11 , 12 suggest that families with children and adolescents or younger consumers in general are more likely to buy organic fruits and vegetables than are other consumers. 13 The factor most consistently associated with the increased propensity to purchase organic food is the level of consumer education. 14 , – 21 Organic products, however, cost up to 40% more.

Consumers believe that organic produce is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, but the research to support that belief is not definitive. Many studies have demonstrated no important differences in carbohydrate or vitamin and mineral content. 22 Some studies have found lower nitrate content in organic foods versus conventionally grown foods, which is potentially desirable because of the association of nitrates with increased risk of gastrointestinal cancer and, in infants, methemoglobinemia. Higher vitamin C concentrations were found in organic leafy vegetables, such as spinach, lettuce, and chard versus the same conventionally produced vegetables in 21 of 36 (58%) studies. 22 Other studies have found higher total phenols in organic produce versus conventionally grown produce and have postulated health benefits from antioxidant effects. 23  

Several attempts have been made to review the relevant literature and draw conclusions on organic versus conventional foods, but the results are conflicting. 24 , – 28 A large systematic review published in 2009 found that fewer than 20% of 292 articles with potentially relevant titles met criteria for quality, leaving only 55 studies to assess. The authors highlighted the fact that the nutrient content of produce is affected by numerous factors, including the geographic location of the farm, local soil characteristics, climactic conditions that can vary by season, maturity at time of harvest, and storage and time to testing after harvest. Because of the large number of nutrients reported in various articles, the authors grouped the nutrients into large categories. They found no significant differences in most nutrients, with the exception of higher nitrogen content in conventional produce and higher titratable acidity and phosphorus in organic produce. 29 Better-quality research that accounts for the many confounding variables is needed to elucidate potential differences in nutrients and the clinical importance of nutrients that may be different. At this time, however, there does not appear to be convincing evidence of a substantial difference in nutritional quality of organic versus conventional produce.

The composition of dairy products, including milk, is affected by many factors, including differences caused by genetic variability and cattle breed; thus, the results of studies assessing milk composition must be interpreted with caution. In general, milk has the same protein, vitamin, trace mineral content, and lipids from both organically and conventionally reared cows. Fat-soluble antioxidants and vitamins present in milk come primarily from the natural components of the diet or from the synthetic compounds used to supplement the feed ingested by lactating cows. 30  

One recent study examined antibiotic and microorganism content, hormone concentrations, and nutritional values of milk in 334 samples from 48 states labeled as organic, not treated with bovine GH (referred to as “GH-free”), or conventional. This study found that milk labeled “conventional” had lower bacterial counts than milk that was organic or GH-free, although this was not clinically significant. Estradiol and progesterone concentrations were lower in conventional milk than in organic milk, but GH-free milk had progesterone concentrations similar to conventional milk and estradiol concentrations similar to organic milk. Macronutrient composition was similar, although organic milk had 0.1% more protein than the other 2 milk types. 31  

Several studies have demonstrated that organic milk has higher concentrations of antioxidants and polyunsaturated fatty acids. However, it is important to recognize that the composition of milk is strongly related to what the cows eat. This differs by time of year (outdoors in the summer, indoor forage in the winter) and whether the farms are high or low input. High-input farms supplement the diets of cattle with proprietary minerals and vitamins. Low-input farms use methods similar to those used in organic farming but do not follow all the restrictions prescribed by organic farming standards; they use mineral fertilizers but at lower levels than used by conventional high-input systems. One study comparing milk from all 3 production systems found milk from both the low-input organic and low-input nonorganic systems generally had significantly higher concentrations of nutritionally desirable unsaturated fatty acids (conjugated linoleic acid and omega-3 fatty acids) and fat-soluble antioxidants compared with milk from the high-input systems; milk derived from cows in both organic certified and nonorganic low-input systems was significantly higher in conjugated linoleic acid content than was milk from conventional high-input systems. 32  

Hormone supplementation of farm animals, especially with GH, is one of the major reasons consumers state they prefer to buy organic foods. Bovine GH (ie, recombinant bovine somatotropin) increases milk yield by 10% to 15% and is lipotropic in cows. Because GH is degraded in the acidic stomach environment, it must be given by injection. GH is species-specific, and bovine GH is biologically inactive in humans. Because of this, any bovine GH in food products has no physiologic effect on humans, even if it were absorbed intact from the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, 90% of bovine GH in milk is destroyed during the pasteurization process. There is no evidence that the gross composition of milk (fat, protein, and lactose) is altered by treatment with bovine GH, nor is there any evidence that the vitamin and mineral contents of milk are changed by GH treatment. 31  

GH treatment of cows may actually have environmental benefits. GH increases milk production per cow, which could theoretically decrease the number of cows needed to produce a given amount of milk, with resultant need for fewer cows and, thus, less cultivated land needed to feed the cows. In addition, fewer cows would result in the production of less manure with resultant reduced methane production and less carbon dioxide production, with a resultant salutary effect on global warming. 33  

Treatment of cattle with sex steroids increases lean muscle mass, accelerates the rate of growth, and is an efficient way to increase meat yield. Estrogens are usually given by implantation of estrogen pellets into the skin on the underside of the ear, and the ear is discarded during slaughter. Unlike GH, sex steroids are not species-specific and may be given orally without degradation in the stomach. In 1998, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization jointly concluded that meat from estradiol-treated animals was safe on the basis of data obtained from residue levels in meat from studies performed in the 1970s and 1980s using radioimmunoassay methods. One study demonstrated concentrations of estrogens found in meat residues were low and overlapped with concentrations found in untreated cows. 34 Gas chromatography measurements of sex steroids progesterone, testosterone, 17β estradiol, and estrone and their metabolites in meat products, fish, poultry, milk, and eggs revealed insignificant amounts compared with daily production of these steroids in adults and children. 35 Furthermore, 98% to 99% of endogenous sex steroids are bound by sex-hormone-binding globulin, rendering them metabolically inactive as only the unbound (free) forms of sex steroids are metabolically active. Synthetic sex steroids (zeranol, melengestrol, and trenbolone) commonly used in animals have lower affinities to sex-hormone-binding globulin and, therefore, are potentially more metabolically active unbound sex steroids. These hormones do not occur naturally in humans, and although the concentrations of these hormones are low in cattle, the biological effects in humans, if any, are unknown.

Ingestion of milk from estrogen-treated cows appears to be safe for children. Estradiol and estrone concentrations in organic and conventional 1%, 2%, and whole milk were the same, although the concentrations of sex steroids were higher as the fat content of the milk increased and were lower than endogenous production rates in humans. Estradiol concentrations in milk ranged from 0.4 to 1.1 pg/mL, and estrone concentrations ranged from 2.9 to 7.9 pg/mL, with the lowest concentrations in skim milk and the highest in whole milk. 36  

Endogenous estradiol concentrations are as high as 80 pg/mL in 2- to 4-month-old female infants and 40 pg/mL in 2- to 4-month-old male infants. Human milk has estradiol concentrations as high as 39 pg/mL and estrone (which has approximately half the potency of estradiol) concentrations as high as 1177 pg/mL. Human colostrum has even higher estrogen concentrations of 500 pg/mL and 4000 to 5000 pg/mL for estradiol and estrone, respectively. Cow milk, by comparison, has estradiol concentrations of 4 to 14 pg/mL and estrone concentrations of 34 to 55 pg/mL. 37 , 38  

It has been postulated that ingested estrogen in food derived from sex-hormone-treated animals may play a role in earlier development of puberty and increasing risk of breast cancer. However, no studies have supported this hypothesis in humans. Studies in animals demonstrating carcinogenic and teratogenic effects of estrogens used high doses of estradiol and cannot be extrapolated to the low doses of sex steroids found in the food supply. Estrogen concentrations in the myometrium, breast, and vagina of postmenopausal women, although still low, are higher than those found in serum, and additional studies are needed to determine the significance of these low concentrations of sex steroids in estrogen-sensitive tissues. 39  

An association has been found between red meat consumption in high school girls and the development of breast cancer later in life. A 7-year prospective longitudinal study of 39 268 premenopausal women 33 to 53 years of age who filled out a comprehensive diet history of foods eaten while in high school in the 1960s and 1970s revealed a linear association between each additional 100 g of red meat consumed in high school per day with the risk of developing hormone-receptor-positive premenopausal tumors (relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.70; P = .008). Red meat ingestion did not increase the risk of hormone-receptor-negative tumors. Although this intriguing study, which suggested that higher red meat consumption in adolescence may increase breast cancer risk, tracked cases of cancer prospectively after the dietary history was obtained, it was limited by a number of factors, including the dependence on subjects’ long-term memory of amount of food eaten decades previously, the likelihood that hormone concentrations in meat were higher in that period, and the lack of direct measurement of hormonal exposure. 40 Longitudinal prospective studies are needed to compare the risk of breast cancer in women who eat meat from hormone-treated animals with the risk in women who eat meat from untreated animals.

Endocrine disrupters, chemicals that interfere with hormone signaling systems, are pervasive in our environment. Among the most commonly found endocrine disrupters are bisphenol A, found in industrial chemicals and plastics; phthalates, found in personal care items such as cosmetics; and lavender and tea tree oil, found in many hair products, soaps, and lotions; all have estrogenic properties. Endocrine disrupters are postulated to be involved in the increased occurrence of genital abnormalities among newborn boys and precocious puberty in girls. Recent literature on sex steroid concentrations and their physiologic roles during childhood indicate that concentrations of estradiol in prepubertal children are lower than originally thought and that children are extremely sensitive to estradiol and may respond with increased growth and/or breast development even at serum concentrations below the current detection limits. 41 No threshold has been established below which there are no hormonal effects on exposed children. Furthermore, the daily endogenous production rates of sex steroids in children estimated by the Food and Drug Administration in 1999 and still used in risk assessments are highly overestimated and should be reevaluated by using current assays. 41 It is therefore important to determine the relative importance of hormone treatment of animals in the context of other environmental endocrine disrupters through long-term longitudinal studies in children.

Conventional animal husbandry frequently includes the administration of antibiotic agents in nontherapeutic doses to livestock to promote growth and increase yields. Between 40% and 80% of the antimicrobial agents used in the United States each year are used in food animals, three-quarters of which is nontherapeutic. Many of these agents are identical or similar to drugs used in humans. 42 Evidence is clear that such nontherapeutic use promotes the development of drug-resistant organisms in the animals and that these organisms then colonize the intestines of people living on farms where this practice occurs. 43 Evidence is also ample that human disease caused by antibiotic-resistant organisms spread through the food chain. 44 Because organic farming prohibits the nontherapeutic use of antibiotic agents, it could contribute to a reduction in the threat of human disease caused by drug-resistant organisms.

Pesticides have a host of toxic effects that range from acute poisonings to subtle subclinical effects from long-term, low-dose exposure. 45 Organophosphate pesticides are commonly used in agriculture, and poisoning is a persistent problem in the agricultural setting. From 1998 to 2005, 3271 cases of agricultural occupational acute pesticide poisoning were reported to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the National Institute of Occupational Health’s SENSOR-Pesticides program. This constitutes a rate of 56 cases per 100 000 full-time equivalents, 38 times the rate observed in nonagricultural occupations. 46 Chronic exposure among farm workers has been associated with numerous adult health problems, including respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions, depression, neurologic deficits including Parkinson disease, miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer. 47 , – 50 Prenatal organophosphate pesticide exposure has been associated with adverse birth outcomes, such as decreased birth weight and length 51 and smaller head circumference. 52 A large prospective birth cohort study that measured pesticide exposure in pregnant farm workers in California and followed their offspring found lower mental development index scores at 24 months of age 53 and attentional problems at 3.5 and 5 years of age. 54 An analysis of cross-sectional data from the NHANES has demonstrated that within the range of exposure in the general US population, the odds of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder for 8- to 15-year-old children were increased 55% with a 10-fold increase in urinary concentrations of the organophosphate metabolite dimethyl alkylphosphate. 55  

The National Research Council reported in 1993 that the primary form of exposure to pesticides in children is through dietary intake. 56 Organic produce consistently has lower levels of pesticide residues than does conventionally grown produce, 57 and a diet of organic produce reduces human exposure. Several studies have clearly demonstrated that an organic diet reduces children’s exposure to pesticides commonly used in conventional agricultural production. A small longitudinal cohort of children who regularly consumed conventional produce demonstrated that urinary pesticide residues were reduced to almost nondetectable levels (below 0.3 µg/L for malathion dicarboxylic acid, for example) when they were changed to an organic produce diet for 5 days. 58 In addition, residues varied with seasonal intake of produce, suggesting that dietary intake of organophosphate pesticides represented the major source of exposure in these young children. 59  

Although a common practice, rinsing conventionally farmed produce reduces some but not all pesticide residues on produce to varying degrees but has not been proven to decrease human exposure. 60  

Pesticide metabolite concentrations observed in studies that examined exposure in farming communities as well as in residential settings were in the same range as those observed in subjects consuming conventional produce in studies of biological exposure measures for organic versus conventional produce diets. For instance, the median concentration observed for malathion urinary metabolites in female farm workers whose offspring had significantly lower mental development index scores at 24 months of age was 0.82 µg/L, 53 which is close to the median concentration found in children in the initial conventional diet phase of the organic diet study of 1.5 µg/L, discussed previously. 58 Ranges for other pesticide metabolites were similar.

Although chronic pesticide exposure and measurable pesticide metabolite concentrations seem undesirable and potentially unhealthy, no studies to date have experimentally examined the causal relationship between exposure to pesticides directly from conventionally grown foods and adverse neurodevelopmental health outcomes. Most of the research implicating pesticides in these adverse health outcomes is from case-control or cross-sectional studies. These studies are limited by a number of factors, including difficulties measuring past exposures and the lack of a positive temporal relationship between exposure and outcome. It is difficult to directly extrapolate from these studies and draw conclusions about potential toxicity at the levels of pesticide exposure documented from dietary intake of conventional produce. Data derived from large prospective cohort studies may address some of these shortcomings.

A major subject in the organic debate is whether organic farming methods have less impact on the environment, can be equally as productive, and can be no more expensive than conventional approaches. A variety of surveys and studies have attempted to compare these issues for organic and conventional farming methods. Many believe that organic farming is less damaging to the environment because organic farms do not use or release synthetic pesticides into the environment, some of which have the potential to harm soil, water, and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. 61 In addition, it is thought that organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining diverse ecosystems, including populations of plants, insects, and animals, because of practices such as crop rotation. When calculated either per unit area or per unit of yield, organic farms use less energy and produce less waste. 62 , 63 Organically managed soil has been demonstrated to be of higher quality and have higher water retention, which may increase yields for organic farms in drought years. 64  

Critics of organic farming methods believe that organic farms require more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms. One study found a 20% smaller yield from organic farms. 65 Another study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area for area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beets, and seed grass produce as little as half the output as their conventional farm counterparts. 66  

It remains controversial whether organic farming is able to provide adequate food supply to sustain the world population. Norman Borlaug, considered to be the father of the “green revolution” and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, believes that organic farming alone is incapable of feeding the world population and needs to be used in conjunction with genetically modified food. 67 On the other hand, a meta-analysis of 292 studies designed to assess the efficiency of both organic and conventional farming concluded that organic methods could produce enough food on a global per-capita basis to sustain the current human population and potentially an even larger population without increasing the agricultural land base. 68  

The largest prospective farming study to date is a comparative trial of more than 20 years’ duration conducted by researchers from Cornell University. This study, conducted in Pennsylvania, compared various conventional and organic farming approaches in a controlled prospective design in which confounding influences such as weather and moisture were similar in the different systems. Over 20 years of observation, the organic fields had productivity that was generally comparable to the conventional fields, while avoiding environmental pollution with herbicides and pesticides and reducing fossil fuel consumption by 30%. Although costs were higher primarily because of increased labor costs (15%), the return for the organic plots was higher because of the higher prices commanded at the marketplace. 64  

One major concern with organic food is its higher price to consumers. Organic products typically cost 10% to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products. 69 A number of factors contribute to these higher costs, including higher-priced organic animal feed, lower productivity, and higher labor costs because of the increased reliance on hand weeding. Of potential concern is that the higher price of organically produced fruits and vegetables might lead consumers to eat less of these foods, despite the well-established literature documenting the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, including lower rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and certain types of cancer. Fifty-five percent of children born in the United States are eligible for food packages under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, and these food packages are currently giving families approximately $10 a month to spend on fruits and vegetables, so the money must be used wisely to maximize spending capacity for healthy foods.

To demonstrate superiority of 1 food production method over another, it is important to show an advantage in terms of improved individual health or an important societal advantage. Organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Nontherapeutic use of antibiotic agents in livestock contributes to the emergence of resistant bacteria; thus, organic animal husbandry may reduce the risk of human disease attributable to resistant organisms. There is sound evidence that organic foods contain more vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and phosphorus than do conventional foods, but there is no direct evidence that this provides meaningful nutritional benefits to children eating organic foods compared with those who eat conventionally grown food products. Well-designed farming studies demonstrate that comparable yields can be achieved with organic farming techniques and that organic farming has a lower environmental impact than do conventional approaches. However, no well-powered human studies have directly demonstrated health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet. Such studies would be difficult to perform and require large prospective cohort populations or, better, randomly assigning subjects to interventions that increase organic versus conventional food intakes. Additional data are needed to identify relationships between diet and pesticide exposure and individual health outcomes. Pediatricians should incorporate this evidence when discussing the health and environmental impact of organic foods and organic farming while continuing to encourage all patients and their families to attain optimal nutrition and dietary variety by choosing a diet high in fresh fruits and vegetables, consistent with the USDA’s MyPlate recommendations.

Nutritional differences between organic and conventional produce appear minimal, but studies examining this have been limited by inadequate controls for the many subtle potential confounders, such as moisture, maturity of the produce, and measurement techniques. No direct evidence of a clinically relevant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce exists.

Organic produce contains fewer pesticide residues than does conventional produce, and consuming a diet of organic produce reduces human exposure to pesticides. It remains unclear whether such a reduction in exposure is clinically relevant.

Organic animal husbandry that prohibits the nontherapeutic use of antibiotic agents has the potential to reduce human disease caused by drug-resistant organisms.

There is no evidence of clinically relevant differences in organic and conventional milk.

There are few, if any, nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk. There is no evidence that any differences that may exist are clinically relevant.

There is no evidence that organic milk has clinically significant higher bacterial contamination levels than does conventional milk.

There is no evidence that conventional milk contains significantly increased amounts of bovine GH. Any bovine GH that might remain in conventional milk is not biologically active in humans because of structural differences and susceptibility to digestion in the stomach.

Organic farming approaches in practice are usually more expensive than conventional approaches, but in carefully designed experimental farms, the cost difference can be mitigated.

The price differential between organic and conventional food might be reduced or eliminated as organic farming techniques advance and as the prices of petroleum products, such as pesticides and herbicides, as well as the price of energy, increase.

Organic farming reduces fossil fuel consumption and reduces environmental contamination with pesticides and herbicides.

Large prospective cohort studies that record dietary intake accurately and measure environmental exposures directly will likely greatly enhance understanding of the relationship between pesticide exposure from conventional foods and human disease and between consumption of meat from hormone-treated animals and the risk of breast cancer in women.

Encourage patients and their families to eat an optimally health-promoting diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat-free milk and dairy products.

When approached by families interested in consuming organic foods, review key facts presented in this report to address the full range of relevant nutrition, human health, environmental, and cost issues. Be explicit about areas in which scientific evidence is strong as well as those in which it is uncertain.

When advice is sought by families concerned with the potential health impact of pesticide residues in food, direct them toward reliable resources that provide information on the relative pesticide content of various fruits and vegetables. Two such examples include:

Consumer Reports article (September 2008) “Fruits and Vegetables, When to Buy Organic” ( http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/diet-nutrition/healthy-foods/organic-foods/overview/when-to-buy-organic.htm ) and

Environmental Working Group’s “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides” ( http://www.foodnews.org ).

Joel Forman, MD

Janet Silverstein, MD

Jatinder J. S. Bhatia, MD, Chairperson

Steven A. Abrams, MD

Mark R. Corkins, MD

Sarah D. de Ferranti, MD

Neville Hylton Golden, MD

Stephen R. Daniels, MD, PhD

Frank R. Greer, MD

Marcie B. Schneider, MD

Nicolas Stettler, MD

Dan W. Thomas, MD

Laurence Grummer-Strawn, PhD – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Van S. Hubbard, MD, PhD – National Institutes of Health

Valérie Marchand, MD – Canadian Pediatric Society

Benson M. Silverman, MD – US Food and Drug Administration

Valery Soto, MS, RD, LD – US Department of Agriculture

Debra L. Burrowes, MHA

Jerome A. Paulson, MD, Chairperson

Alice Cantwell Brock-Utne, MD

Heather Lynn Brumberg, MD, MPH

Carla C. Campbell, MD, MS

Bruce Perrin Lanphear, MD, MPH

Kevin C. Osterhoudt, MD, MSCE

Megan T. Sandel, MD

Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP

Robert O. Wright, MD, MPH

Helen J. Binns, MD, MPH

Peter C. Grevatt, PhD – US Environmental Protection Agency

Mary Ellen Mortensen, MD, MS – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Walter Rogan, MD – National Institutes of Health

Sharon Ann Savage, MD – National Cancer Institute

growth hormone

National Organic Program

US Department of Agriculture

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication.

The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Journal Blogs
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 1098-4275
• Print ISSN 0031-4005
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Food Quality and Safety
• About Zhejiang University Press
• Editorial Board
• Outstanding Reviewers
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, organic farming process, benefits of organic farming, organic agriculture and sustainable development, status of organic farming in india: production, popularity, and economic growth, future prospects of organic farming in india, conclusions, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Suryatapa Das, Annalakshmi Chatterjee, Tapan Kumar Pal, Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation, Food Quality and Safety , Volume 4, Issue 2, May 2020, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/fqsafe/fyaa018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Food quality and safety are the two important factors that have gained ever-increasing attention in general consumers. Conventionally grown foods have immense adverse health effects due to the presence of higher pesticide residue, more nitrate, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotic residue, and also genetically modified organisms. Moreover, conventionally grown foods are less nutritious and contain lesser amounts of protective antioxidants. In the quest for safer food, the demand for organically grown foods has increased during the last decades due to their probable health benefits and food safety concerns. Organic food production is defined as cultivation without the application of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides or genetically modified organisms, growth hormones, and antibiotics. The popularity of organically grown foods is increasing day by day owing to their nutritional and health benefits. Organic farming also protects the environment and has a greater socio-economic impact on a nation. India is a country that is bestowed with indigenous skills and potentiality for growth in organic agriculture. Although India was far behind in the adoption of organic farming due to several reasons, presently it has achieved rapid growth in organic agriculture and now becomes one of the largest organic producers in the world. Therefore, organic farming has a great impact on the health of a nation like India by ensuring sustainable development.

Food quality and safety are two vital factors that have attained constant attention in common people. Growing environmental awareness and several food hazards (e.g. dioxins, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and bacterial contamination) have substantially decreased the consumer’s trust towards food quality in the last decades. Intensive conventional farming can add contamination to the food chain. For these reasons, consumers are quested for safer and better foods that are produced through more ecologically and authentically by local systems. Organically grown food and food products are believed to meet these demands ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

In recent years, organic farming as a cultivation process is gaining increasing popularity ( Dangour et al. , 2010 ). Organically grown foods have become one of the best choices for both consumers and farmers. Organically grown foods are part of go green lifestyle. But the question is that what is meant by organic farming? ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The term ‘organic’ was first coined by Northbourne, in 1940, in his book entitled ‘Look to the Land’.

Northbourne stated that ‘the farm itself should have biological completeness; it must be a living entity; it must be a unit which has within itself a balanced organic life’( Nourthbourne, 2003 ). Northbourne also defined organic farming as ‘an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity’. According to Winter and Davis (2006) , ‘it is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony’.

They mentioned that organic produce is not grown with synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, application of genetic modification techniques (such as genetically modified crops), sewage sludge, or chemical fertilizers.

Whereas, conventional farming is the cultivation process where synthetic pesticide and chemical fertilizers are applied to gain higher crop yield and profit. In conventional farming, synthetic pesticides and chemicals are able to eliminate insects, weeds, and pests and growth factors such as synthetic hormones and fertilizers increase growth rate ( Worthington, 2001 ).

As synthetically produced pesticides and chemical fertilizers are utilized in conventional farming, consumption of conventionally grown foods is discouraged, and for these reasons, the popularity of organic farming is increasing gradually.

Organic farming and food processing practices are wide-ranging and necessitate the development of socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable food production system. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has suggested the basic four principles of organic farming, i.e. the principle of health, ecology, fairness, and care ( Figure 1 ). The main principles and practices of organic food production are to inspire and enhance biological cycles in the farming system, keep and enhance deep-rooted soil fertility, reduce all types of pollution, evade the application of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, conserve genetic diversity in food, consider the vast socio-ecological impact of food production, and produce high-quality food in sufficient quantity ( IFOAM, 1998 ).

Principles of organic farming (adapted from IFOAM, 1998 ).

According to the National Organic Programme implemented by USDA Organic Food Production Act (OFPA, 1990), agriculture needs specific prerequisites for both crop cultivation and animal husbandry. To be acceptable as organic, crops should be cultivated in lands without any synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and herbicides for 3 years before harvesting with enough buffer zone to lower contamination from the adjacent farms. Genetically engineered products, sewage sludge, and ionizing radiation are strictly prohibited. Fertility and nutrient content of soil are managed primarily by farming practices, with crop rotation, and using cover crops that are boosted with animal and plant waste manures. Pests, diseases, and weeds are mainly controlled with the adaptation of physical and biological control systems without using herbicides and synthetic pesticides. Organic livestock should be reared devoid of scheduled application of growth hormones or antibiotics and they should be provided with enough access to the outdoor. Preventive health practices such as routine vaccination, vitamins and minerals supplementation are also needed (OFPA, 1990).

Nutritional benefits and health safety

Magnusson et al. (2003) and Brandt and MØlgaord (2001) mentioned that the growing demand for organically farmed fresh products has created an interest in both consumer and producer regarding the nutritional value of organically and conventionally grown foods. According to a study conducted by AFSSA (2003) , organically grown foods, especially leafy vegetables and tubers, have higher dry matter as compared to conventionally grown foods. Woëse et al. (1997) and Bourn and Prescott (2002) also found similar results. Although organic cereals and their products contain lesser protein than conventional cereals, they have higher quality proteins with better amino acid scores. Lysine content in organic wheat has been reported to be 25%–30% more than conventional wheat ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ; Brandt et al. , 2000 ).

Organically grazed cows and sheep contain less fat and more lean meat as compared to conventional counterparts ( Hansson et al. , 2000 ). In a study conducted by Nürnberg et al. (2002) , organically fed cow’s muscle contains fourfold more linolenic acid, which is a recommended cardio-protective ω-3 fatty acid, with accompanying decrease in oleic acid and linoleic acid. Pastushenko et al. (2000) found that meat from an organically grazed cow contains high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The milk produced from the organic farm contains higher polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E ( Lund, 1991 ). Vitamin E and carotenoids are found in a nutritionally desirable amount in organic milk ( Nürnberg et al. , 2002 ). Higher oleic acid has been found in organic virgin olive oil ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). Organic plants contain significantly more magnesium, iron, and phosphorous. They also contain more calcium, sodium, and potassium as major elements and manganese, iodine, chromium, molybdenum, selenium, boron, copper, vanadium, and zinc as trace elements ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

According to a review of Lairon (2010) which was based on the French Agency for food safety (AFSSA) report, organic products contain more dry matter, minerals, and antioxidants such as polyphenols and salicylic acid. Organic foods (94%–100%) contain no pesticide residues in comparison to conventionally grown foods.

Fruits and vegetables contain a wide variety of phytochemicals such as polyphenols, resveratrol, and pro-vitamin C and carotenoids which are generally secondary metabolites of plants. In a study of Lairon (2010) , organic fruits and vegetables contain 27% more vitamin C than conventional fruits and vegetables. These secondary metabolites have substantial regulatory effects at cellular levels and hence found to be protective against certain diseases such as cancers, chronic inflammations, and other diseases ( Lairon, 2010 ).

According to a Food Marketing Institute (2008) , some organic foods such as corn, strawberries, and marionberries have greater than 30% of cancer-fighting antioxidants. The phenols and polyphenolic antioxidants are in higher level in organic fruits and vegetables. It has been estimated that organic plants contain double the amount of phenolic compounds than conventional ones ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ). Organic wine has been reported to contain a higher level of resveratrol ( Levite et al. , 2000 ).

Rossi et al. (2008) stated that organically grown tomatoes contain more salicylic acid than conventional counterparts. Salicylic acid is a naturally occurring phytochemical having anti-inflammatory and anti-stress effects and prevents hardening of arteries and bowel cancer ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ; Butler et al. , 2008 ).

Total sugar content is more in organic fruits because of which they taste better to consumers. Bread made from organically grown grain was found to have better flavour and also had better crumb elasticity ( BjØrn and Fruekidle, 2003 ). Organically grown fruits and vegetables have been proved to taste better and smell good ( Rembialkowska, 2000 ).

Organic vegetables normally have far less nitrate content than conventional vegetables ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ). Nitrates are used in farming as soil fertilizer but they can be easily transformed into nitrites, a matter of public health concern. Nitrites are highly reactive nitrogen species that are capable of competing with oxygen in the blood to bind with haemoglobin, thus leading to methemoglobinemia. It also binds to the secondary amine to generate nitrosamine which is a potent carcinogen ( Lairon, 2010 ).

As organically grown foods are cultivated without the use of pesticides and sewage sludge, they are less contaminated with pesticide residue and pathogenic organisms such as Listeria monocytogenes or Salmonella sp. or Escherichia coli ( Van Renterghem et al. , 1991 ; Lung et al. , 2001 ; Warnick et al. , 2001 ).

Therefore, organic foods ensure better nutritional benefits and health safety.

Environmental impact

Organic farming has a protective role in environmental conservation. The effect of organic and conventional agriculture on the environment has been extensively studied. It is believed that organic farming is less harmful to the environment as it does not allow synthetic pesticides, most of which are potentially harmful to water, soil, and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife ( Oquist et al. , 2007 ). In addition, organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining biodiversity, due to practices of crop rotation. Organic farming improves physico-biological properties of soil consisting of more organic matter, biomass, higher enzyme, better soil stability, enhanced water percolation, holding capacities, lesser water, and wind erosion compared to conventionally farming soil ( Fliessbach & Mäder, 2000 ; Edwards, 2007 ; Fileβbach et al. , 2007 ). Organic farming uses lesser energy and produces less waste per unit area or per unit yield ( Stolze et al. , 2000 ; Hansen et al. , 2001 ). In addition, organically managed soils are of greater quality and water retention capacity, resulting in higher yield in organic farms even during the drought years ( Pimentel et al. , 2005 ).

Socioeconomic impact

Organic cultivation requires a higher level of labour, hence produces more income-generating jobs per farm ( Halberg, 2008 ). According to Winter and Davis (2006), an organic product typically costs 10%–40% more than the similar conventionally crops and it depends on multiple factors both in the input and the output arms. On the input side, factors that enhance the price of organic foods include the high cost of obtaining the organic certification, the high cost of manpower in the field, lack of subsidies on organics in India, unlike chemical inputs. But consumers are willing to pay a high price as there is increasing health awareness. Some organic products also have short supply against high demand with a resultant increase in cost ( Mukherjee et al. , 2018 ).

Biofertilizers and pesticides can be produced locally, so yearly inputs invested by the farmers are also low ( Lobley et al. , 2005 ). As the labours working in organic farms are less likely to be exposed to agricultural chemicals, their occupational health is improved ( Thompson and Kidwell, 1998 ). Organic food has a longer shelf life than conventional foods due to lesser nitrates and greater antioxidants. Nitrates hasten food spoilage, whereas antioxidants help to enhance the shelf life of foods ( Shreck et al. , 2006 ). Organic farming is now an expanding economic sector as a result of the profit incurred by organic produce and thereby leading to a growing inclination towards organic agriculture by the farmers.

The concept of sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals—environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. The concept of sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The very basic approach to organic farming for the sustainable environment includes the following ( Yadav, 2017 ):

Improvement and maintenance of the natural landscape and agro-ecosystem.

Avoidance of overexploitation and pollution of natural resources.

Minimization of the consumption of non-renewable energy resources.

Exploitation synergies that exist in a natural ecosystem.

Maintenance and improve soil health by stimulating activity or soil organic manures and avoid harming them with pesticides.

Optimum economic returns, with a safe, secure, and healthy working environment.

Acknowledgement of the virtues of indigenous know-how and traditional farming system.

Long-term economic viability can only be possible by organic farming and because of its premium price in the market, organic farming is more profitable. The increase in the cost of production by the use of pesticides and fertilizers in conventional farming and its negative impact on farmer’s health affect economic balance in a community and benefits only go to the manufacturer of these pesticides. Continuous degradation of soil fertility by chemical fertilizers leads to production loss and hence increases the cost of production which makes the farming economically unsustainable. Implementation of a strategy encompassing food security, generation of rural employment, poverty alleviation, conservation of the natural resource, adoption of an export-oriented production system, sound infrastructure, active participation of government, and private-public sector will be helpful to make revamp economic sustainability in agriculture ( Soumya, 2015 ).

Social sustainability

It is defined as a process or framework that promotes the wellbeing of members of an organization while supporting the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community. Social sustainability can be improved by enabling rural poor to get benefit from agricultural development, giving respect to indigenous knowledge and practices along with modern technologies, promoting gender equality in labour, full participation of vibrant rural communities to enhance their confidence and mental health, and thus decreasing suicidal rates among the farmers. Organic farming appears to generate 30% more employment in rural areas and labour achieves higher returns per unit of labour input ( Pandey and Singh, 2012 ).

Organic food and farming have continued to grow across the world. Since 1985, the total area of farmland under organic production has been increased steadily over the last three decades ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). By 2017, there was a total of 69.8 million hectares of organically managed land recorded globally which represents a 20% growth or 11.7 million hectares of land in comparison to the year 2016. This is the largest growth ever recorded in organic farming ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). The countries with the largest areas of organic agricultural land recorded in the year 2017 are given in Figure 2 . Australia has the largest organic lands with an area of 35.65 million hectares and India acquired the eighth position with a total organic agriculture area of 1.78 million hectares ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Country-wise areas of organic agriculture land, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

In 2017, it was also reported that day to day the number of organic produces increases considerably all over the world. Asia contributes to the largest percentage (40%) of organic production in the world and India contributes to be largest number of organic producer (835 000) ( Figures 3 and 4 ).

Organic producers by region, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Largest organic producers in the world, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The growth of organic farming in India was quite dawdling with only 41 000 hectares of organic land comprising merely 0.03% of the total cultivated area. In India during 2002, the production of organic farming was about 14 000 tonnes of which 85% of it was exported ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ). The most important barrier considered in the progress of organic agriculture in India was the lacunae in the government policies of making a firm decision to promote organic agriculture. Moreover, there were several major drawbacks in the growth of organic farming in India which include lack of awareness, lack of good marketing policies, shortage of biomass, inadequate farming infrastructure, high input cost of farming, inappropriate marketing of organic input, inefficient agricultural policies, lack of financial support, incapability of meeting export demand, lack of quality manure, and low yield ( Figure 5 ; Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Constraints of organic farming in India in the past ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Recently, the Government of India has implemented a number of programs and schemes for boosting organic farming in the country. Among these the most important include (1) The Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, (2) Organic Value Chain Development in North Eastern Region Scheme, (3) Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, (4) The mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (a. National Horticulture Mission, b. Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan states, c. National Bamboo Mission, d. National Horticulture Board, e. Coconut Development Board, d. Central Institute for Horticulture, Nagaland), (5) National Programme for Organic Production, (6) National Project on Organic Farming, and (7) National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture ( Yadav, 2017 ).

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a method of farming where the cost of growing and harvesting plants is zero as it reduces costs through eliminating external inputs and using local resources to rejuvenate soils and restore ecosystem health through diverse, multi-layered cropping systems. It requires only 10% of water and 10% electricity less than chemical and organic farming. The micro-organisms of Cow dung (300–500 crores of beneficial micro-organisms per one gram cow dung) decompose the dried biomass on the soil and convert it into ready-to-use nutrients for plants. Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana since 2015–16 and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana are the schemes taken by the Government of India under the ZBNF policy ( Sobhana et al. , 2019 ). According to Kumar (2020) , in the union budget 2020–21, Rs 687.5 crore has been allocated for the organic and natural farming sector which was Rs 461.36 crore in the previous year.

Indian Competence Centre for Organic Agriculture cited that the global market for organically grown foods is USD 26 billion which will be increased to the amount of USD 102 billion by 2020 ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The major states involved in organic agriculture in India are Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh ( Chandrashekar, 2010 ).

India ranked 8th with respect to the land of organic agriculture and 88th in the ratio of organic crops to agricultural land as per Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority and report of Research Institute of Organic Agriculture ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ). But a significant growth in the organic sector in India has been observed ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ) in the last decades.

There have been about a threefold increase from 528 171 ha in 2007–08 to 1.2 million ha of cultivable land in 2014–15. As per the study conducted by Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry in India, the organic food turnover is increasing at about 25% annually and thereby will be expected to reach USD 1.36 billion in 2020 from USD 0.36 billion in 2014 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The consumption and popularity of organic foods are increasing day by day throughout the world. In 2008, more than two-thirds of US consumers purchased organic food, and more than one fourth purchased them weekly. The consumption of organic crops has doubled in the USA since 1997. A consumer prefers organic foods in the concept that organic foods have more nutritional values, have lesser or no additive contaminants, and sustainably grown. The families with younger consumers, in general, prefer organic fruits and vegetables than consumers of any other age group ( Thompson et al. , 1998 ; Loureino et al. , 2001 ; Magnusson et al. , 2003 ). The popularity of organic foods is due to its nutritional and health benefits and positive impact on environmental and socioeconomic status ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ) and by a survey conducted by the UN Environment Programme, organic farming methods give small yields (on average 20% lower) as compared to conventional farming ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). As the yields of organically grown foods are low, the costs of them are higher. The higher prices made a barrier for many consumers to buy organic foods ( Lairon, 2010 ). Organic farming needs far more lands to generate the same amount of organic food produce as conventional farming does, as chemical fertilizers are not used here, which conventionally produces higher yield. Organic agriculture hardly contributes to addressing the issue of global climate change. During the last decades, the consumption of organic foods has been increasing gradually, particularly in western countries ( Meiner-Ploeger, 2005 ).

Organic foods have become one of the rapidly growing food markets with revenue increasing by nearly 20% each year since 1990 ( Winter and Davis, 2006 ). The global organic food market has been reached USD 81.6 billion in 2015 from USD 17.9 billion during the year 2000 ( Figure 6 ) and most of which showed double-digit growth rates ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Worldwide growth in organic food sales ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

India is an agriculture-based country with 67% of its population and 55% of manpower depending on farming and related activities. Agriculture fulfils the basic needs of India’s fastest-growing population accounted for 30% of total income. Organic farming has been found to be an indigenous practice of India that practised in countless rural and farming communities over the millennium. The arrival of modern techniques and increased burden of population led to a propensity towards conventional farming that involves the use of synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides, application of genetic modification techniques, etc.

Even in developing countries like India, the demand for organically grown produce is more as people are more aware now about the safety and quality of food, and the organic process has a massive influence on soil health, which devoid of chemical pesticides. Organic cultivation has an immense prospect of income generation too ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ). The soil in India is bestowed with various types of naturally available organic nutrient resources that aid in organic farming ( Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Reddy, 2010 ; Deshmukh and Babar, 2015 ).

India is a country with a concrete traditional farming system, ingenious farmers, extensive drylands, and nominal use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, adequate rainfall in north-east hilly regions of the country where few negligible chemicals are employed for a long period of time, come to fruition as naturally organic lands ( Gour, 2016 ).

Indian traditional farmers possess a deep insight based on their knowledge, extensive observation, perseverance and practices for maintaining soil fertility, and pest management which are found effective in strengthening organic production and subsequent economic growth in India. The progress in organic agriculture is quite commendable. Currently, India has become the largest organic producer in the globe ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 , 2019 ) and ranked eighth having 1.78 million ha of organic agriculture land in the world in 2017 ( Sharma and Goyal, 2000 ; Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Various newer technologies have been invented in the field of organic farming such as integration of mycorrhizal fungi and nano-biostimulants (to increase the agricultural productivity in an environmentally friendly manner), mapping cultivation areas more consciously through sensor technology and spatial geodata, 3D printers (to help the country’s smallholder), production from side streams and waste along with main commodities, promotion and improvement of sustainable agriculture through innovation in drip irrigation, precision agriculture, and agro-ecological practices. Another advancement in the development of organic farming is BeeScanning App, through which beekeepers can fight the Varroa destructor parasite mite and also forms a basis for population modelling and breeding programmes ( Nova-Institut GmbH, 2018 ).

Inhana Rational Farming Technology developed on the principle ‘Element Energy Activation’ is a comprehensive organic method for ensuring ecologically and economically sustainable crop production and it is based on ancient Indian philosophy and modern scientific knowledge.

The technology works towards (1) energization of soil system: reactivation of soil-plant-microflora dynamics by restoration of the population and efficiency of the native soil microflora and (2) energization of plant system: restoration of the two defence mechanisms of the plant kingdom that are nutrient use efficiency and superior plant immunity against pest/disease infection ( Barik and Sarkar, 2017 ).

Organic farming yields more nutritious and safe food. The popularity of organic food is growing dramatically as consumer seeks the organic foods that are thought to be healthier and safer. Thus, organic food perhaps ensures food safety from farm to plate. The organic farming process is more eco-friendly than conventional farming. Organic farming keeps soil healthy and maintains environment integrity thereby, promoting the health of consumers. Moreover, the organic produce market is now the fastest growing market all over the world including India. Organic agriculture promotes the health of consumers of a nation, the ecological health of a nation, and the economic growth of a nation by income generation holistically. India, at present, is the world’s largest organic producers ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ) and with this vision, we can conclude that encouraging organic farming in India can build a nutritionally, ecologically, and economically healthy nation in near future.

This review work was funded by the University Grants Commission, Government of India.

None declared.

Adolph , B. , Butterworth , J . ( 2002 ). Soil fertility management in semi-arid India: its role in agricultural systems and the livelihoods of poor people . Natural Resources Institute , UK .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

AFSSA. ( 2003 ). Report on Evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic foods (Evaluation nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments issus de l’agriculturebiologique, in French), AFSSA, 164 . http://www.afssa.fr . Accessed 3 August 2018 .

Barik , A. , Sarkar , N . ( 2017 , November 8-11). Organic Farming in India: Present Status, Challenges and Technological Break Through . In: 3rd International Conference on Bio-resource and Stress Management, Jaipur, India.

Bhardwaj , M. , Dhiman , M . ( 2019 ). Growth and performance of organic farming in India: what could be the future prospects? Journal of Current Science , 20 : 1 – 8 .

BjØrn , G. , Fruekidle , A. M . ( 2003 ). Cepa onions ( Allium cepa L) grown conventionally . Green Viden , 153 : 1 – 6 .

Bourn , D. , Prescott , J . ( 2002 ). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods . Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition , 42 : 1 – 34 .

Brandt , D.A. , Brand , T.S. , Cruywagen , C.W . ( 2000 ). The use of crude protein content to predict concentrations of lysine and methionine in grain harvested from selected cultivars of wheat, barley and triticale grown in Western Cape region of South Africa . South African Journal of Animal Science , 30 : 22 – 259 .

Brandt , K. , MØlgaord , J.P . ( 2001 ). Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of Science of Food Agriculture , 81 : 924 – 931 .

Butler , G. et al.  ( 2008 ). Fatty acid and fat-soluble antioxidant concentrations in milk from high- and low-input conventional and organic systems: seasonal variation . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 88 : 1431 – 1441 .

Chandrashekar , H.M . ( 2010 ). Changing Scenario of organic farming in India: an overview . International NGO Journal , 5 : 34 – 39 .

Chopra , A. , Rao , N.C. , Gupta , N. , Vashisth , S . ( 2013 ). Come sunshine or rain; organic foods always on tract: a futuristic perspective . International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology Neurological Diseases , 3 : 202 – 205 .

Dangour , A.D. , Allen , E. , Lock , K. , Uauy , R . ( 2010 ). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods-using systematic reviews to question the available evidence . Indian Journal of Medical Research , 131 : 478 – 480 .

Deshmukh , M.S. , Babar , N . ( 2015 ). Present status and prospects of organic farming in India . European Academic Research , 3 : 4271 – 4287 .

Edwards , S . ( 2007 ). The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia . In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security . 2–5 May 2007, FAO , Rome [cited on 2013 March 20], pp. 1 – 42 . http://www.ftp.fao.org/paia/organica/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf .

Fileβbach , A. , Oberholzer , H.R. , Gunst , L. , Mäder , P . ( 2007 ). Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 118 : 273 – 284 .

Fliessbach , A. , Mäder , P . ( 2000 ). Microbial biomass and size—density fractions differ between soils of organic and conventional agricultural system . Soil Biology and Biochemistry , 32 : 757 – 768 .

Food Marketing Institute (FMI) . ( 2008 ). Natural and organic foods . http://www.fmi.org/docs/media-backgrounder/natural_organicfoods.pdf?sfvrsn=2 . Accessed 10 March 2019 .

Gour , M . ( 2016 ). Organic farming in India: status, issues and prospects . SOPAAN-II , 1 : 26 – 36 .

Gutierrez , F. , Arnaud , T. , Albi , M.A . ( 1999 ). Influence of ecologic cultivation on virgin olive oil quality . Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society , 76 : 617 – 621 .

Halberg , N . ( 2008 ). Energy use and green house gas emission in organic agriculture. In: Proceedings of International Conference Organic Agriculture and Climate Change . 17–18 April 2008, ENITA of Clermont , France , pp. 1 – 6 .

Hansen , B. , Alroe , H.J. , Kristensen , E.S. ( 2001 ). Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 83 : 11 – 26 .

Hansson , I. , Hamilton , C. , Ekman , T. , Forslund , K . ( 2000 ). Carcass quality in certified organic production compared with conventional livestock production . Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health , 47 : 111 – 120 .

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) . ( 1998 ). The IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing . General Assembly , Argentina, November, IFOAM, Germany . Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (U.S.C) s. 2103.

Kumar , V. ( 2020 , February 03). Union Budget 2020– 21 : Big talk on natural farming but no support [Web log post] . https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/agriculture/union-budget-2020-21-big-talk-on-natural-farming-but-no-support-69131 . on 28.04.2020

Lairon , D. ( 2010 ). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review . Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 30 : 33 – 41 .

Levite , D. , Adrian , M. , Tamm , L. ( 2000 ). Preliminary results of resveratrol in wine of organic and conventional vineyards, In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Organic Viticulture , 25–26 August 2000, Basel, Switzerland , pp. 256 – 257 .

Lobley , M. , Reed , M. , Butler , A. , Courtney , P. , Warren , M . ( 2005 ). Impact of Organic Farming on the Rural Economy in England . Exeter: Centre for Rural Research, Laffrowda House, University of Exeter , Exeter, UK .

Loureino , L.L. , McCluskey , J.J. , Mittelhammer , R.C . ( 2001 ). Preferences for organic, eco-labeled, or regular apples . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 26 : 404 – 416 .

Lund , P . ( 1991 ). Characterization of alternatively produced milk . Milchwissenschaft—Milk Science International , 46 : 166 – 169 .

Lung , A.J. , Lin , C.M. , Kim , J.M . ( 2001 ). Destruction of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enteritidis in cow manure composting . Journal of Food Protection , 64 : 1309 – 1314 .

Magnusson , M. K. , Arvola , A. , Hursti , U. K. , Aberg , L. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2003 ). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour . Appetite , 40 : 109 – 117 .

Meiner-Ploeger , K . ( 2005 ). Organic farming food quality and human health. In: NJF Seminar , 15 June 2005, Alnarp, Sweden .

Mukherjee , A. , Kapoor , A. , Dutta , S . ( 2018 ). Organic food business in India: a survey of companies . Research in Economics and Management , 3 : 72 . doi: 10.22158/rem.v3n2P72 .

Nourthbourne , C.J. , 5th Lord. ( 2003 ). Look to the Land , 2nd Rev Spec edn. Sophia Perennis , Hillsdale, NY ; First Ed. 1940. J.M. Dent & Sons.

Nova-Institut GmbH . ( 2018 , July 2). High-tech strategies for small farmers and organic farming [press release] . http://news.bio-based.eu/high-tech-strategies-for-small-farmers-and-organic-farming/ . Accessed 28 April 2020 .

Nürnberg , K. et al.  ( 2002 ). N-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acids of longissimus muscle in beef cattle . European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology , 104 : 463 – 471 .

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–624, §§ 2101- 2123, 104 Stat. 3935 (codified at 7 U.S.C.6501–6522).

Oquist , K. A. , Strock , J. S. , Mulla , D. J . ( 2007 ). Influence of alternative and conventional farming practices on subsurface drainage and water quality . Journal of Environmental Quality , 36 : 1194 – 1204 .

Padiya , J. , Vala , N . ( 2012 ). Profiling of organic food buyers in Ahmadabad city: an empirical study . Pacific Business Review International , 5 : 19 – 26 .

Pandey , J. , Singh , A . ( 2012 ): Opportunities and constraints in organic farming: an Indian perspective . Journal of Scientific Research , 56 : 47 – 72 , ISSN: 0447-9483.

Pastushenko , V. , Matthes , H.D. , Hein , T. , Holzer , Z . ( 2000 ). Impact of cattle grazing on meat fatty acid composition in relation to human nutrition. In: Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference . pp. 293 – 296 .

Pimentel , D. , Hepperly , P. , Hanson , J. , Douds , D. , Seidel , R . ( 2005 ). Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems . Bioscience , 55 : 573 – 582 .

Reddy S.B . ( 2010 ). Organic farming: status, issues and prospects—a review . Agricultural Economics Research Review , 23 : 343 – 358 .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2000 ). Wholesomeness and Sensory Quality of Potatoes and Selected Vegetables from the organic Farms . Fundacja Rozwoj SGGW , Warszawa .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2007 ). Quality of plant products from organic agriculture . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 87 : 2757 – 2762 .

Rossi , F. , Godani , F. , Bertuzzi , T. , Trevisan , M. , Ferrari , F. , Gatti , S . ( 2008 ). Health-promoting substances and heavy metal content in tomatoes grown with different farming techniques . European Journal of Nutrition , 47 : 266 – 272 .

Sharma A. K , Goyal R. K. ( 2000 ). Addition in tradition on agroforestry in arid zone . LEISA-INDIA , 2 : 19 – 20 .

Shepherd , R. , Magnusson , M. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2005 ). Determinants of consumer behavior related to organic foods . Ambio , 34 : 352 – 359 .

Shreck , A. , Getz , C. , Feenstra , G. ( 2006 ). Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: findings from an exploratory analysis . Agriculture and Human Values , 23 : 439 – 449 .

Sobhana , E. , Chitraputhira Pillai , S. , Swaminathan , V. , Pandian , K. , Sankarapandian , S . ( 2019 ). Zero Budget Natural Farming. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17084.46727.

Soumya , K. M . ( 2015 ). Organic farming: an effective way to promote sustainable agriculture development in India . IOSR Journal Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) , 20 : 31 – 36 , e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org .

Stolze , M. , Piorr , A. , Haring , A.M. , Dabbert , S. ( 2000 ). Environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe . Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy . vol. 6 . University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany . Retrieved on 15 May 2011. http://orgprints.org/8400/1/Organic_Farming_in_Europe_Volume06_The_Environmental_Impacts_of_Organic_Farming_in_Europe.pdf .

Thompson , G.D. , Kidwell , J . ( 1998 ). Explaining the choice of organic procedure: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 80 : 277 – 287 .

Van Renterghem , B. , Huysman , F. , Rygole , R. , Verstraete , W . ( 1991 ). Detection and prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in the agricultural ecosystem . Journal of Applied Bacteriology , 71 : 211 – 217 .

Warnick , L. D. , Crofton , L. M. , Pelzer , K. D. , Hawkins , M. J . ( 2001 ). Risk factors for clinical salmonellosis in Virginia, USA cattle herd . Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 49 : 259 – 275 .

Willer , H. , Lernoud , J ., eds. ( 2017 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . FiBL & IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn.

Willer , H . Lernoud J , eds. ( 2019 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick and IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn . https://www.organicworld.net/yearbook/yearbook-2019.html .

Winter , C.K. , Davis , S.F . ( 2006 ). Organic food . Journal of Food Science , 71 : 117 – 124 .

Woëse , K. , Lange , D. , Boess , C. , Bögl , K.W . ( 1997 ). A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods—results of a review of the relevant literature . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture , 74 : 281 – 293 .

Worthington , V . ( 2001 ). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains . Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine , 7 : 161 – 173 .

Yadav , M . ( 2017 ). Towards a healthier nation: organic farming and government policies in India . International Journal of Advance Research and Development , 2 : 153 – 159 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2399-1402
• Print ISSN 2399-1399
• Copyright © 2024 Zhejiang University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Organic bulk walnuts sold in natural food stores tied to dangerous E. coli outbreak

FILE - This colorized 2006 scanning electron microscope image made available by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows E. coli bacteria of the O157:H7 strain that produces a powerful toxin which can cause illness. At least a dozen people in California and Washington have been sickened with E. coli food poisoning linked to organic walnuts sold in bulk in 19 states, U.S. health officials said Tuesday, April 30, 2024. Stores included chains such as Whole Foods and Market of Choice. (Janice Haney Carr/CDC via AP, File)

• Copy Link copied

At least a dozen people in California and Washington have been sickened with E. coli food poisoning linked to organic walnuts sold in bulk in 19 states, U.S. health officials said Tuesday. The nuts were sold in natural food and co-op stores such as Whole Foods and Market of Choice.

Seven people have been hospitalized and two have developed a dangerous kidney disease known as hemolytic uremic syndrome, officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

Gibson Farms Inc. of Hollister, California, has recalled potentially affected walnuts with expiration dates between May 21, 2025 and June 7, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration said. Some stores may have repackaged bulk walnut pieces into clamshells or bags. The FDA has a list of stores where the walnuts were sold.

The nuts are potentially contaminated with dangerous E. coli bacteria that can cause severe stomach cramps, diarrhea, including bloody diarrhea and vomiting. Symptoms start three to four days after consuming the food. Most people recover within five to seven days.

Consumers who bought organic walnuts from bulk containers should check to see if they’re part of the recall. Recalled nuts should not be sold or served, the CDC said. Wash items and surfaces that may have come in contact with the nuts using hot soapy water or a dishwasher. Contact a health care provider about any symptoms.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts

Gibson Farms Voluntarily Recalls Organic Light Halves and Pieces Shelled Walnuts Because of Possible Health Risk

COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT

When a company announces a recall, market withdrawal, or safety alert, the FDA posts the company's announcement as a public service. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.

Company Announcement

On 04/26/2024, Gibson Farms recalled Organic Light Halves and Pieces shelled walnuts because Gibson Farms received information that they may have the potential to be contaminated with E. Coli 0157:H7. E. coli O157:H7 causes a diarrheal illness often with bloody stools. Although most healthy adults can recover completely within a week, some people can develop a form of kidney failure called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS). HUS is most likely to occur in young children and the elderly. The condition can lead to serious kidney damage and even death.

The Organic Light Halves and Pieces shelled walnuts were sold to distributors located in CA and WA. Gibsons Farms Organic Light Halves and Pieces shelled walnuts were sold in bulk boxes in Net Wt. 25 lbs quantities and can be identified by lot 3325-043 & 3341-501 with expiration dates 5/21/25 & 6/7/25.

Gibson Farms, Inc. has voluntarily recalled the product(s) after being notified by the CDC of 12 recorded illnesses allegedly linked to the consumption of organic halves and pieces shelled walnuts. A full investigation is currently under way to determine the potential source of the contamination.

Gibson Farms requests consignees to hold and discontinue selling their existing stock of lot 3325-043 and lot 3341-501 and return any remaining inventory of the recalled products to our local warehouse Gibson Farms 1190 Buena Vista Rd Hollister Ca 95023. If you have distributed or sold this product to other retailers, please notify your clients as to the status of this product. Any retailers that have received the recalled walnuts are recommended to do the following:

• Retailers that received recalled products and do not clean and sanitize bulk bins between refilling them, should discard the contents of the bin and clean and sanitize it before refilling.
• Retailers that received recalled product from a distributor but do not know the brand or lot code information, you should hold product, sanitize your bins, and contact your supplier.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at Veronica Cheatham 831-637-3512 or email [email protected] 8:30 am-4:40pm PST Monday through Friday

FDA has reason to believe that the following retail locations received the walnuts, included in the recall by Gibson Farms. These products may have been repacked from their original packaging or sold in bulk. This list may not include all retail establishments that have received the recalled product or may include retail establishments that did not actually receive the recalled product. Therefore, it is important that you use the product-specific identification information, available here, in addition to this list of retail stores, when you check the food you have to see if it has been recalled.

Retail Locations that Received Gibson Farms Walnuts

Outbreak Investigation of E. coli O157:H7: Bulk Organic Walnuts (April 2024) | FDA

Company Contact Information

Product photos.

How to get Google's new AI tool to write your emails

• Google is launching "Help me write" an AI-tool that can generate responses to emails in Gmail. 
• Users can deploy the tool to request a refund for a cancelled flight, for example.
• The tool also includes a "Refine" feature that can tweak the generated message's length and tone. 

Writing emails is about to get a lot easier.

During 2023 Google's I/O conference on Wednesday, Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google, announced that the search giant is launching "Help me write," an AI-powered feature part of Gmail that can generate responses to emails.

In a demonstration of the tool, Pichai used "Help me write" to respond to an email saying that the recipient's flight got cancelled. The demonstrator selected the tool's icon and entered "ask for a full refund for this cancelled flight" in the prompt box. A response draft was generated in moments that included all the relevant details from the airline's note and requested the desired refund. 

Related stories

Not happy with the result? The tool has a button that allows users "refine" the letter, with prompts like "formalize", "elaborate," and "shorten." 

During the demo, Pichai selected the "elaborate" option to "increase the chances of getting a refund," and the tool added lines like "I believe that a full refund is the only fair way to compensate me for the problems I experienced." 

The feature, which was launched to "trusted testers" in March, is among the generative AI functions that Google is using to update its existing tools in the Workspace suite, Google's Aparna Pappu said at Wednesday's event. In addition to "Help me write," Google will integrate AI-features that can brainstorm and proofread text in Docs; generate images, audio, and video in Slides; and analyze data in Sheets, to name a few. 

These features, which will be available to "trusted testers," will eventually be part of Google's " Duet AI for Workspace " service, according to Pappu. Google did not comment on when the tool will be available to the general public.

The new tool comes months after Google first launched the beta version of Bard , a ChatGPT rival, to select users as the AI competition grows among Big Tech companies.

Bard, however, did not launch smoothly: Google employees who tested Bard didn't think the chatbot was ready for launch, calling it "cringeworthy" and a "pathological liar." When Google demoed its chatbot in February, it made a factual error . 

On February 28, Axel Springer, Business Insider's parent company, joined 31 other media groups and filed a $2.3 billion suit against Google in Dutch court, alleging losses suffered due to the company's advertising practices.

Watch: What is ChatGPT, and should we be afraid of AI chatbots?

• Main content

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Kendrick Lamar vs. Drake Beef Goes Nuclear: What to Know

The two rappers had circled one another for more than a decade, but their attacks turned relentless and very personal in a slew of tracks released over the weekend.

By Joe Coscarelli

The long-building and increasingly testy rap beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake exploded into full-bore acrimony and unverifiable accusations over the weekend. Both artists rapid-fire released multiple songs littered with attacks regarding race, appropriation, sexual and physical abuse, body image, misogyny, hypocrisy, generational trauma and more.

Most relentless was Lamar, a Pulitzer Prize winner from Compton, Calif., who tends toward the isolated and considered but has now released four verbose and conceptual diss tracks — totaling more than 20 minutes of new music — targeting Drake in the last week, including three since Friday.

Each racked up millions of streams and the three that were made available commercially — “Euphoria,” “Meet the Grahams” and “Not Like Us” — are expected to land near the top of next week’s Billboard singles chart, while seeming to, at least momentarily, shift the public perception of Drake, long a maestro of the online public arena and meme ecosystem .

In between, on Friday night, Drake released his own broadside against Lamar — plus a smattering of other recent challengers — in a teasing Instagram interlude plus a three-part track and elaborate music video titled “Family Matters,” in which he referred to his rival as a fake activist and attempted to expose friction and alleged abuse in Lamar’s romantic relationship.

But that song was followed within half an hour by Lamar’s “Meet the Grahams,” an ominous extended address to the parents and young son of Drake, born Aubrey Graham, in which Lamar refers to his rival rapper as a liar and “pervert” who “should die” in order to make the world safer for women.

Lamar also seemed to assert that Drake had more than a decade ago fathered a secret daughter — echoing the big reveal of his son from Drake’s last headline rap beef — a claim Drake quickly denied on Instagram before hitting back in another song on Sunday. (Neither man has addressed the full array of rapped allegations directly.)

On Tuesday, a security guard was shot and seriously injured outside of Drake’s Toronto home, which appeared on the cover art for Lamar’s “Not Like Us.” Authorities said they could not yet speak to a motive in the shooting, but the investigation was ongoing. Representatives for Drake and Lamar did not immediately comment.

How did two of the most famous artists in the world decide to take the gloves off and bring real-life venom into an extended sparring match for rap supremacy? It was weeks, months and years in the making, with a sudden, breakneck escalation into hip-hop infamy. Here’s a breakdown.

Since late March, the much-anticipated head-to-head seemed inevitable. Following years of “will they or won’t they?” lyrical feints, Lamar hit directly on record first this year during a surprise appearance on the song “Like That” by the Atlanta rapper Future and the producer Metro Boomin, both formerly frequent Drake collaborators.

With audible disgust, Lamar invoked the track “First Person Shooter” from last year’s Drake album, “For All the Dogs,” in which a guest verse from J. Cole referred to himself, Drake and Lamar as “the big three” of modern MCs.

Lamar took exception to the grouping, declaring that there was no big three, “just big me.” He also called himself the Prince to Drake’s Michael Jackson — a deeper, more complex artist versus a troubled, pop-oriented hitmaker.

“Like That” spent three weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, as Future and Metro Boomin released two chart-topping albums — “We Don’t Trust You” and “We Still Don’t Trust You” — that were anchored by a parade of Drake’s past associates, each of whom seemed to share a simmering distaste toward the rapper, who later called the ambush a “20 v. 1” fight.

In early April, J. Cole fought back momentarily , releasing the song “7 Minute Drill,” in which he called Lamar overrated, before backtracking, apologizing and having the song removed from streaming services. But Drake soon picked up the baton, releasing a wide-ranging diss track called “Push Ups” less than a week later that addressed the field, with a special focus on Lamar’s height, shoe size and supposedly disadvantageous business dealings.

Less than a week later, Drake mocked Lamar’s lack of a response on “Taylor Made Freestyle,” a track released only on social media. It featured Drake taunting Lamar for being scared to release music at the same time as Taylor Swift and using A.I. voice filters to mimic Tupac and Snoop Dogg imploring Lamar to battle for the good of the West Coast.

“Since ‘Like That,’ your tone changed a little, you not as enthused,” Drake rapped in an abbreviated third verse, as himself. “How are you not in the booth? It feel like you kinda removed.” (“Taylor Made Freestyle” was later removed from the internet at the request of the Tupac Estate.)

But it was a seemingly tossed-off line from the earlier “Push Ups” that included the name of Lamar’s longtime romantic partner — “I be with some bodyguards like Whitney” — that Lamar would later allude to as a red line crossed, making all subject matter fair game in the songs to come. (It was this same alleged faux pas that may have triggered an intensification of Drake’s beef with Pusha T in 2018.)

How We Got Here

Even with Drake-dissing cameos from Future, Ye (formerly Kanye West), Rick Ross, the Weeknd and ASAP Rocky, the main event was always going to be between Drake, 37, and Lamar, 36, who have spent more than a decade subtly antagonizing one another in songs while maintaining an icy frenemy rapport in public.

In 2011, when Drake introduced Lamar to mainstream audiences with a dedicated showcase on his second album, “Take Care,” and an opening slot on the subsequent arena tour, the tone was one of side-eying competition. “He said that he was the same age as myself/and it didn’t help ’cause it made me even more rude and impatient,” Lamar rapped on “Buried Alive Interlude” of his earliest encounter with a more-famous Drake. (On his Instagram on Friday, Drake released a parody of the track, citing Lamar’s jealousy since then.)

The pair went on to appear together on “Poetic Justice,” a single from Lamar’s debut album, “Good Kid, M.A.A.D City,” in 2012, as well as “___ Problems” by ASAP Rocky the same year.

But their collaborations ceased as Drake became his generation’s premier hitmaker across styles in hip-hop and beyond, while Lamar burrowed deeper into his own psyche on knotty concept albums that brought wide critical acclaim alongside less constant commercial success.

When asked, the two rappers tended to profess admiration for one another’s skill, but seemed to trade subtle digs in verses over the years, always with plausible deniability and in the spirit of competition, leading to something of a hip-hop cold war.

The Week It Went Nuclear

Lamar’s first targeted response, “Euphoria,” was more than six minutes long and released last Tuesday morning. In three sections that raised the temperature as they built, he warned Drake about proceeding and insisted, somewhat facetiously, that things were still friendly. “Know you a master manipulator and habitual liar too,” Lamar rapped. “But don’t tell no lie about me and I won’t tell truths ’bout you.”

He accused the biracial Drake, who was born and raised in Toronto, of imitating Black American heritage and insulting him subliminally. “I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk, I hate the way that you dress,” Lamar said. “I hate the way that you sneak diss, if I catch flight, it’s gon’ be direct.” And he called Drake’s standing as a father into question: “Teachin’ him morals, integrity, discipline/listen, man, you don’t know nothin’ ’bout that.”

Days later, Lamar doubled down with an Instagram-only track called “6:16 in LA,” borrowing both Drake’s “Back to Back” diss tactic from his 2015 beef with Meek Mill and a song title structure lifted from what is known as Drake’s time-stamp series of raps. Opting for psychological warfare on a beat produced in part by Jack Antonoff, Swift’s chief collaborator, Lamar hinted that he had a mole in Drake’s operation and was aware of his opponent’s opposition research.

“Fake bully, I hate bullies, you must be a terrible person,” he rapped. “Everyone inside your team is whispering that you deserve it.”

That night, Drake’s “Family Matters” started with its own justification for getting personal — “You mentioned my seed, now deal with his dad/I gotta go bad, I gotta go bad” — before taking on Lamar’s fatherhood and standing as a man in excruciating detail. “They hired a crisis management team to clean up the fact that you beat on your queen,” Drake rapped. “The picture you painted ain’t what it seem/you’re dead.”

Yet in a chess move that seemed to anticipate Drake’s familial line of attack, Lamar’s “Meet the Grahams” was released almost immediately. “This supposed to be a good exhibition within the game,” Lamar said, noting that Drake had erred “the moment you called out my family’s name.” Instead of a rap battle, Lamar concluded after another six minutes of psychological dissection, “this a long life battle with yourself.”

He wasn’t done yet. Dispensing with subtlety, Lamar followed up again less than 24 hours later with “Not Like Us,” a bouncy club record in a Los Angeles style that delighted in more traditional rap beef territory, like juvenile insults, proudly unsubstantiated claims of sexual preferences and threats of violence.

Lamar, however, didn’t leave it at that, throwing one more shot at Drake’s authenticity as a rapper, calling him a greedy and artificial user as a collaborator — “not a colleague,” but a “colonizer.”

On Sunday evening, Drake responded yet again. On “The Heart Part 6,” a title taken from Lamar’s career-spanning series, Drake denied the accusation that he preyed on young women, indicated that he had planted the bad information about his fake daughter and seemed to sigh away the fight as “some good exercise.”

“It’s good to get out, get the pen working,” Drake said in an exhausted outro. “You would be a worthy competitor if I was really a predator.” He added, “You know, at least your fans are getting some raps out of you. I’m happy I could motivate you.”

Joe Coscarelli is a culture reporter with a focus on popular music, and the author of “Rap Capital: An Atlanta Story.” More about Joe Coscarelli

Explore the World of Hip-Hop

The long-building and increasingly testy rap beef between Kendrick Lamar and Drake  has exploded into full-bore acrimony .

As their influence and success continue to grow, artists including Sexyy Red and Cardi B are destigmatizing motherhood for hip-hop performers .

ValTown, an account on X and other social media platforms, spotlights gangs and drug kingpins of the 1980s and 1990s , illustrating how they have driven the aesthetics and the narratives of hip-hop.

Three new books cataloging objects central to rap’s physical history  demonstrate the importance of celebrating these relics before they vanish.

Hip-hop got its start in a Bronx apartment building 50 years ago. Here’s how the concept of home has been at the center of the genre ever since .

Over five decades, hip-hop has grown from a new art form to a culture-defining superpower . In their own words, 50 influential voices chronicle its evolution .