WIXLIB

Nutritional content is not the only factorthe observation that these effects were caused atthat interests organic consumers. Since thevery low dosages.[21] In a similar vein, University1960s, they have been concerned about pesticideof Wisconsin researchers have recently reportedresidues. The concern is not about acute poisoning,a connection between exposure of pre g n a n tbut the possible effects from bioaccumulationwomen to the popular pesticide chlorpyrifosover time.(trade names include Dursban and Lorsban )That there would be less pesticide residue ono rganic produce seems to be a given. It was re confirmed by a 2002 study of residue data fromandlong-lasting birth defectsinfemaleoffspring.[22] Again, the damage appears atextremely low dose levels.several sources over time. Organic produce hadBeginning in the 1990s, genetic engineeringo n e - t h i rd the residue levels of conventional fruitsbecame another issue in the organic food qualityand vegetables and half the level found on producedebate. The National Organic Standard prohibitsgrown using integrated pest management.[17]the use of genetic engineering in organic agricul-The compelling question is whether pesticide residues actually have significant negativeeffects on human health. This is not clearlya n s w e red. The scientific community is mostconcerned about the possible impacts onchildren.[18] Whatever those impacts, severalstudies do demonstrate marked reductions inpesticide metabolites in children switched to adiet of organic food.[19,20]ture as per §205.105(e), where its various permutations are referred to as “excluded methods.”The concern over so-called “frankenfoods” andtheir possible effects on human health werecertainly a major factor in the organic community’sinsistence that genetic engineering be bannedfrom organic food production.Do organic crops resist pests?The assertion that organic culture inducesThe concern for children is certainly valid.pest and disease resistance in crops is much lessTheir body weight is lower and small effects inwell known than the healthy food claim, thoughchildhood can grow to major problems over athe notion has been around for some time. Inlong lifetime. But the danger may occur wellThe Soil and Health, one of the earliest classics ofbefore childhood. A 2009 article in Newsweekorganic thought, the father of organic agricul-suggests that the impact of pesticide (and otherture, Albert Howard, writes that health is theenvironmental chemical) exposure may be“birthright of all living things,” and that health inequally or more significant to those in the womb.humans depends on a chain of health that beginsThere is growing evidence that hormone-in the soil. He goes on to state that “vegetablemimicking pollutants from pesticides and plasti-(and animal) pests and diseases are evidence ofcizers are a major factor in infant obesity, whicha great failure of health” in the plant and animalhas risen 73% since 1980. Of particular note islinks in that chain and those failures begin withA Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture5

the soil and its management. In other words, pestssusceptible.[29] If, as research shows, organicand diseases may be considered agricologenic –crops produce more phytochemical antioxidants,induced by the farmer. The organic method was,it is logical to believe they might also produceaccording to Howard, a means for restoring andmore pest-repellant phytochemicals.sustaining soil health, thereby reducing and eveneliminating most pest problems.[23]Another theory about how predispositionworks relates to the breakdown of proteins underThe notion that plant stress and disease/stress, leading to the accumulation of solublepest tolerance are related did not originate withamino acids in plant sap. It is believed that theseA l b e rt Howard and the organic movement.forms of free nitrogen are more digestible by insectThere is an independent school of thought onpests, many of which lack the enzymes to breakpredisposition theory that traces back to the workproteins down to their amino acid constituents.of H.M. Ward in 1890 and continues at leastTherefore, they thrive on stressed plants.[30,31]through the mid-1970s.[24,25] Subsequent inquirybecame increasingly bound to research onorganic systems. A prime example is P. L.Phelan’s work with European corn borer thatfound reduced pest damage under organicmanagement.[26]A further theory links total dissolved plantsap solids to susceptibility and resistance. Higherlevels of sugars, minerals and other componentsof plant sap are treated as indicators of planthealth and, therefore, improved resistance.[32]Since dissolved solids can be readily monitoredEarly work on predisposition theory focusedusing inexpensive hand-held refractometers, thison fungal diseases but later expanded to addresstheory is quite popular among growers, thoughother diseases and arthropod pests. It is the basisresearch has not always supported a direct corre-for a common belief among organic farmers thatlation. California-based research by Dr. Markinsect pests are nature’s “garbage collectors;”Mayse, for example, did not find a correlationthat their main function is to remove unhealthybetween dissolved solids in grapes and resistanceand unsuitable plants.to leafhoppers during a two-year study.[33]There are several theories regarding theWhile induced resistance offers greatmechanisms of predisposition. One revolvespromise, it is not a panacea and its mechanismsaround phytochemicals that plants produce toare hard to nail down. Furthermore, the degreeprotect themselves from diseases and pests. Aof resistance is likely to vary with the pest orprime example is DIMBOA, a chemicaldisease involved. Predisposition theory may becompound found in young corn plants thattotally irrelevant where a new crop species isprotects against fungi, bacteria, and a range ofinvolved, or a new pest or disease introduced.[34]insect pests, including European corn borer.[27,28]S t ressed plants, it is argued, produce fewerprotective phytochemicals, making them more6Kerr Center for Sustainable AgricultureIf organic crops are more resistant to pestsand diseases, the root cause is most likely the soil

food web. A healthy food web leads to good tilthare inevitable, no matter how a crop is grown, andand a better air and water balance. Increasedthat they must always be dealt with by dire c thumus means more moisture retention and lessmeans such as pesticides.drought stress. There is also a significant nutritional benefit. Though organic agriculture recognizes that plants absorb soil nutrients in soluble(inorganic) form, it places great importance onthe organic compounds – chelated nutrients,Earning Credibility:Groundbreaking Researchamino acids, natural antibiotics, vitamins, growthBecause the organic movement criticizedfactors, humic substances, etc. – that plants alsoand diverged from mainstream agriculture, itabsorb. Traditional practitioners believe that thesebecame something of a pariah in the profession-phytamins contribute much more to plant healthal community. Few researchers would considerand growth than is generally recognized.[35]proposing serious research for fear of ridicule,The soil food web not only makes phyta-isolation, and damage to their careers. A slowmins available, it also aids in their uptake. Albertchange began in the late 1970s with two widelyHoward noted this and wrote in considerablepublicized studies.detail on the importance of mycorrhizal associa-The better known of these was a USDAtions in particular.[36] Mycorrhizae are fungi thatevaluation of organic farming that was publishedcoat, and form symbiotic relationships with,in 1980 as the Report and Recommendations onplant roots. They effectively increase the absorp-Organic Farming.[46] The USDA team inter-tive surface of the root hairs, aid in the uptake ofviewed a large number of organic spokespeople,minerals and water, and provide a barrier topromoters, writers, and farmers, studied a varietypathogens.[37] High-humus, biodiverse, organicallyof farms across the country, toured Europeanmanaged soil certainly favors the survival andoperations, and produced a positive report thatproliferation of mycorrhizae.[38]pointed to the environmental benefits of organicAs early organic farmers embraced predispo-farming, its wise use of resources, innovations insition theory, it led to a plant-positive paradigm forpest and disease management, and the need fordisease and pest management. By accepting agri-the USDA and land-grant universities to respondcologenic stress as a root cause of pest problems,better to the needs of these growers.organic growers sought to change and improveAt roughly the same time, a large study oftheir systems and reduce plant stress by improvingMidwestern organic farming was also underway.tilth, balancing crop nutrition, and whatever elseIt was conducted by The Center for the Biologythey could do to protect and enhance the soilof Natural Systems (CBNS) at Washingtonfood web.[39] This is in contrast to a conventionalUniversity in St. Louis, Missouri.[47] CBNS hadpest-negative paradigm that assumes outbreaksA Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture7

acquired a multi-year National Science FoundationIn four out of five years, the lower organicgrant to study energy use in Corn Belt agriculture.yields and higher labor costs were offset by lowerThe study zeroed in on organic farms becauseinput costs, resulting in generally similar netthey used few energy-intensive inputs.re t u rns per acre. The significance of this becomesThe CBNS study took a snapshot of organicfarming at a time before the organic marketplacedeveloped in the Midwest. Therefore marketmost apparent when one realizes that all sales fromthese organic farms were made into the conventional market at conventional market prices.[53]premiums were almost nonexistent and did notWith no market premiums available, theinfluence crop selection, agronomic practices,motivations for converting to organic farming werethe economics of farming, or the decision tosomewhat diff e rent from today. Organic growersfarm organically. Among its many findings:in these studies cited livestock health, soil problems,Though conventional wisdom dictatedotherwise, commercial organic farming of agronomic crops was a fact in the Corn Belt.Organic crop farms growing corn, soybeans,small grains and hay crops consumed 40% of theenergy used by conventional farms to produce adollar’s worth of crop. The key factor in theaccounting was the high use of energy-intensivenitrogen fertilizer on conventional farms.[48]These same farms had 33% less soil erosionthan conventional farms, based on crop mixalone. Though not quantified, almost all organicfarms had converted to mulch- and ridge tillageto conserve soil. These practices were seldom inevidence on neighboring conventional farms.[49]and the cost of chemicals as their top threereasons for converting.[54]It is right to question how relevant theWashington University findings might be to otherp a rts of the country, including the Mid-south andthe Southeast. Higher temperatures and rainfallpatterns that deplete the soil, resist the buildup ofhumus, and increase pest and disease pre s s u rehint at challenges for humus farming in theSouth. They tend to buttress the conventionalwisdom that insists “it doesn’t work here.”However, prior to the Washington Universitystudy, conventional wisdom also denied the viability and existence of organic farming in that region,where it has ultimately proven workable andcompetitive. No doubt, successful organicOrganic farming sequestered more carbonfarming systems in the South will look diff e rentin the soil. There was no evidence of phosphatefrom their northern counterparts, but to deny thator potash depletion.[50]such systems can be developed is premature.Organic farms had lower yields of corn(about 10%), comparable yields of soybeans, andrequired about 12% more labor per dollar of cropproduced.[51]8Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture

The Influence of the ‘60sand ‘70s CountercultureOrganic agriculture is beset by manymyths. Among the most common is that itwas created by the counterculture of the1960s and 1970s. Obviously, this is not true.What the counterculture did, instead, was toco-opt what was then a small and ratherobscure organic movement whose politicaland social tendencies were ultraconservativeand even reactionary.[55] The countercultureFIGURE 2gave it a left-leaning political and socialflavor. It also gave organic food, farming, andtraditional organic method. A lot of unattractive,gardening greater visibility and popularity. Butlow-quality produce appeared, grown using a do-most significantly, it gave it customers and setnothing approach that became known asthe stage for an industry to develop. So while one“organic by neglect.” “Organic by neglect” wascan’t say that the ‘60s counterculture inventedprecisely the approach to farming that the pioneersorganic farming, it is fair to say that it createdof organic farming railed against in the first half ofthe organic industry.the twentieth century. They would have beenappalled to see the critics label these poorThe 1960s also married organic agricultureexamples of gardening and farming as “organic.”to the wider environmental movement. RachelCarson’s Silent Spring, published in 1962, high-One very positive residual of the ‘60s andlighted the dangers – real and perceived – of70s counterculture was a holistic and enduringpesticides, making organic agriculture especiallyvision of what organic agriculture was and how itattractive, as it eschewed the use of mostcontrasted with mainstream, industrialized foodsynthetic pesticides.[56]and farming. This vision is well articulated byMichael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma. HeThe 1960s and 1970s also spawned a back-writes that there are three pillars or legs to theto-the-land movement, with a new generationcounterculture vision of organic (Figure 2). Thesetting out to farm and garden organically.first pillar is environmentally sound farm i n gUnfortunately, many novices failed to under-without the use of synthetics, to produce highstand that growing quality food without pesti-quality, safe food (i.e. humus farming). The secondcides or synthetic fertilizers would not work veryis an alternative food distribution system withwell without the regenerative practices of thefew middlemen. One bought organic food eitherA Brief Overview of the History and Philosophy of Organic Agriculture9

directly from the grower or from food coopera-As organic standards developed in thetives, buying clubs, or health food stores – never1970s and 1980s, they came to include thefrom “industrial food” supermarkets. Last of all,absolute exclusion of most synthetic pesticidesorganic food meant whole, fresh food, withand fertilizers. This was significant. As USDAminimal processing and no artificial ingredients –investigators learned in the late 1970s, the“counter cuisine” for the “counterculture.” Thereorganic movement represented “a spectrum ofwould be no room here for an organic version ofpractices, attitudes, and philosophies” thatthe Twinkie.[57]included purists who used no synthetic chemicals whatsoever, and those who were moreThe Slow March towardsFederal RegulationThe growing demand for organic food in the1960s and 1970s produced a more sophisticatedmarketplace. Supply chains lengthened as organicflexible – using small amounts of agriculturalchemicals in limited circumstances.[58] Suchcircumstances might have included spot sprayingof problem weeds, using an insecticide to rescuean infested crop, or using starter fertilizer in coldspring weather.products traveled longer distances to reachThe emerging organic standards did notcustomers. Third party certification emerged as aallow these. All fertility and pest managementmeans of assuring those consumers that thewould be accomplished without these inputs.[59]p roducts they purchased were truly org a n i c .F rom this time onwards, unfortunately, organicCertification agents, as the “third party,” standbecame better known and understood for what itbetween organic farmers and food processors,did not allow (synthetic pesticides and fertilizers)and the ones who buy their products. Theythan for positive farming practices and enviro n-provide assurance to the consumer that he or shemental benefits they yielded.is truly getting an organic product.California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)Certification begins with the establishmentestablished the first organic certification programof a standard that defines what organic means.in 1973. Many more followed. By the late 1980s,The standard details which practices, inputs,there were quite a few agencies, both large andingredients, and so forth, are required, permit-small. Each adopted standards that were consis-ted, and prohibited in organic food productiontent on basic principles, but varied on details likeand processing. Farmers and processors submitthe permissibility of mined Chilean nitrate, theplans that explain how they will meet there q u i rements for field buffer zones, and the needstandard, and submit to an annual inspection byfor pesticide residue testing.[60]the certification agent. Those that measure up tothe standard become certified and can sell theirproducts as certified organic.10Kerr Center for Sustainable AgricultureThese differences led to complications,especially for processors making multi-ingredient

products. The certifier might insist that all ingre-Enter Federal Regulationdients be certified only by itself or a handful ofThe Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA)other agencies with which it had equivalencymandated creation of a National Organic Programagreements. It was clear that a single national(NOP) and a National Organic Standards Boardorganic standard was desirable, but not clear(NOSB). The NOP is the federal body responsi-whether that should be brought about byble for writing, interpreting and enforcing theindustry or by federal regulation.Organic Regulations, which are the NationalThat issue was settled in the late 1980swhen an unrelated matter brought things to ahead. That matter centered on a popular agricul-Organic Standard. The NOP is part of the USDAand is administered under the AgriculturalMarketing Service (AMS).tural chemical called Alar. Alar is one of severalThe NOSB is a 15-member advisory panel,trade names for daminozide, a plant growthcomprised of individuals from the organicregulator used to regulate fruit growth, makecommunity appointed by the Secretary ofh a rvest easier, and enhance color. It wasAgriculture. The NOSB advises the NOP oncommonly used on conventionally grown apples.how to interpret the National Standard. It alsoThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyhas statutory responsibility for the content of the(EPA) had noted that Alar was a potentialNational List. The National List is the part of thecarcinogen but, by 1989, had not yet taken anyStandard that catalogs the synthetic materialsaction. In February of that year, the CBS newsallowed, and the nonsynthetic (natural) productsprogram 60 Minutes broadcast a story highlight-prohibited, in organic production and processing.ing the concerns about Alar.[61] As a consequence, market demand for organic apples, andorganic products in general, soared. While this wasa brief boon for organic growers, the longer termconsequences were grim as unscrupulousmarketers slapped organic labels on just abouteverything. The credibility of “organic” was in peril.The “Alar Scare,” as it was called, finallydrove representatives of the organic communityto Washington to seek regulati

crops in rotation, but sustained soil biology and organic matter levels. Wherever synthetic fertiliz-ers and pesticides were used to cut corners on biodiversity and soil building, they were in direct opposition to the principles of humus farming. Humus farming, then, was a conscious, well-founded approach to farming and soil manage-ment.