Organic Vs Conventional Foods - Research Paper Example

Module Organic Vs Conventional Foods Organic foods are outsourced from organic farming that involves the application of minimal off-farm inputs. The mechanical methods involved in their production involve management systems that promote biodiversity and restore ecological harmony. Most of the foods available to consumers in the U.S are produced through processes that are not fully organic. These processes produce conventional foods. Conventional foods are products of utilization of science and technology processes. The conventional methods utilize chemical fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms. Conflicting ideas have emanated on the use of organic foods over conventional leading to a heated debate between organo-skeptics and those in favor of organic technology. The debate emanates from those who say that its worth to spend more money on Organic Foods because of their overall health benefits, and those who urge people to save money and buy conventional food products. My choice of organic versus conventional foods debate is related to the fact that I live New York City that is characterized by Health revolution. I have lately witnessed the closure of old restaurants in order to give way to the new ones offering organic foods. Additionally, supermarkets that offer all-organic experience have been popularized more compared to those trading on conventional food products. The New York Times reports a new study from researchers at Stanford University that suggests that there is minute nutritional variation between organic fruits or vegetables over their more expensive counterparts. This has sparked the debate on the superiority of the two forms of food products in related to nutritional as well as non-nutritional factors. THE DEBATE The debate surrounding organic versus conventional foods revolves around three issues namely productivity, benefits and costs. The recent trend in the increased popularity of organic products among Americans has nothing to do with the perceived nutritional superiority. The Stanford study focused more on nutrients that contribute minimally to the reasons leading to the debate. According to the American Prospect (2008), many people perceive that organic food products are healthier than conventionally produced food products. However, organo-skeptics portend that it is not worthy spending more money buying organic foods when one can purchase cheaper conventionally produced products. The opinion of the organic lobbyists is based on the fact that organic production is devoid of fertilizers or pesticides use. This leads to the assumption that pesticides residues cannot be deposited in the foods products. The absence of pesticides implies that the products develop a natural defense mechanism. Scientists suppose that the defense factor occurs in the form of natural chemicals called phenols. The supporters claim that the chemicals act as antioxidants. Organic fruits and vegetables are becoming popular in the supermarkets because of the notion that the antioxidants they possess protect the body from cancers and heart disease. However, organo-skeptics portends that the natural pesticides may possess negative impacts on the body health. They insist that there is no proof for any health gains from organic foods. According to organic lobbyists, this is disputable because lack of such evidence can be attributed to the absence of appropriate research studies on the topic. Organo-skeptics claim that the use of manure in production of organic fruits and vegetables has led to contamination of food products with bacteria E. Coli. Critics associate the presence of these harmful pathogens with food poisoning. However, research has shown that composting the manure for a precise period of time and maintaining it at an exact temperature reduces bacterial composition (Lester, Manthey and Buslig 4474-80). Supporters of organic farming argue that safety strategies are already in place to ensure that the risk of food poisoning is minimized. Supporters of the use of organic foods would rather apply these safety strategies than purchase pesticides and artificial chemicals whose contact with the environment is harmful. Assurance that application of safety production measures negates food poisoning has promoted the sale of organic foods such as fruits in the market. Organo-skeptics claim that most organic products are contaminated by toxic substances produced by moulds of mycotoxins. Contamination occur when fruits or vegetables are damaged by weather; making them vulnerable to moulds. Those lobbying for organic farming portends that even though the process applies less effective fungicides, organic products are less prone to fungal attack (Dangour 680-5). This is because organic products are supplied with fewer nitrates that enhance the formation of moulds. Organic lobbyists claim that organic products are superior to products originating from conventional farming because they are deviant of any genetic modifications. They argue that even though most scientists have confirmed the safety of genetically modified products; the real truth is still at large because issues related to the impacts of genetic modifications are difficult to ascertain. They argue that changes in the genetic make-ups are still untested and no one can tell the long-term implications of the genetically modified food products. They argue that the remedy to the anticipated risks can only be found in organic farming. Organo-skeptics argue that genetically modified products are safe as they have been confirmed safe for consumption by scientists. Conventional lobbyists asserts that consumption of genetically modified products promotes the body defense mechanism as the same happens in the genetically modified plants Supporters of the organic products claim that their preference to the organic products is based on their nature of possessing more nutrients. Another crucial reason relates to pesticide-free growth. Research has proven that pesticides can be absorbed in fruits and vegetables leaving trace residues which when absorbed in the body can have detrimental impacts to the body. Numerous experiments have confirmed the presence of trace elements in conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. The 2007 study in the Newcastle University found out that organic products contained 40% more nutrients compared to conventionally produced feedstuff (Amodio, Colelli and Hasey 1228-36). In 2008, a study by Givens found 58% more polyphenols and 52% higher levels of vitamins in organic fruits compared the conventional ones. The research findings on the presence of pesticides, antibiotics and growth in conventional foods have been related to the rise in the rates of cancer, diabetes and other societal ailments (Lu 69-78). The health specialists have advised people to consume foods with few chemicals; improve the consumption of organic products. This has led to increased popularity of the supermarkets supplying organic products. The positive intention that accompanies the promotion in the consumption of organic products has been bedeviled by commercial opportunism. The certification requirements have locked honest financially unstable farmers out of the bandwagon even though they might be genuinely producing organic products. Although the supply of the organic foods in the market has been embraced by a growing number of the population, most people are not comfortable with the high cost of these products compared to the conventionally produced. According to Walters, the enormous and expensive process of production of these foods undergo justifies their cost in the market. Farmers are required to follow strict guidelines set by United States Department of Agriculture. The supporters of organic production claim that conventionally produced farm products are cheap due to the farming subsidies offered by the government. However, most of them read a sinister move in the government move. They claim that the government’s intention is to legalize the use of farm inputs and fertilizers and promote unsafe technology of genetic engineering. Therefore, while the conventional products carries the burden of containing synthetic and controversial additives such as fertilizer traces, the organic ones possess the burden of undertaking expensive tests geared towards proving that they are safe. Conventional lobbyists argue that the practice is favorable to those farmers who cannot afford costs associated with the requirements of organic agriculture. Reference is paid to developing countries such as Africa where conventional farming has an upper hand in preventing famine. Organo-Skeptics argue that organic agriculture may be favorable for environmental conservation but not sustainable for feeding human beings. Critics of organic agriculture question its potential to improve public health. They associate the interest of the government in promoting this practice on the need to promote commercial farming in urban dwellings. Supporters of organic farming argue that the government holds the key to enhancing the consumption and use of organic foods. This is achievable through subsidizing the products to make them cheaper, affordable and accessible. Otherwise, the present prices will only make people continue consuming food hopped with antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones. Many Americans value environmental health. Organic products have become popular with many households due to their mode of production values that maintains environmental health compared to conventional farming. The organic farming community applies less chemical inputs that impact negatively on the environment; thus promoting biodiversity (Magkos, Arvaniti and Zampelas 357-71). Intensive conventional farming destroys the fertility of the soil. However, it is public knowledge that organic farming applies practices geared towards maintaining soils fertility such as crop rotations. Skeptics cite the mechanical weed control as the main weaknesses facing organic farming. The mechanical methods are associated with disruption of the soil structure, release of carbon to the atmosphere and promotion of soil erosion. Research Perspective. Amid all the debates on the nutritional benefits or organic foods over conventional food products, the recent research studies have confirmed the absence of significant differences in the health benefits. A study carried out by Smith-Spangler et al (2012: 348-366), proves that organic products are not nutritionally superior to the foods of conventional origin. Additionally, the study downplayed the claims that organic products are safer regarding the risk of bacterial contamination. There was no consistent variation in the mineral levels between organic and conventional foods. The same case applied to the tests conducted on minerals although an exception was noted in the phosphorus test that showed higher levels in organically produced fruits. The pesticide contamination levels in both conventional and organic foods fell at allowable limits although the pesticide contamination of conventional foods is 30% higher than organic foods (Carbonaro et al 5458–5462). CONCLUSION Most of the reasons why Americans buy organic foods have nothing to do with their superior nutritional content. One of the factors that lead to preference of organic products includes the perception that organic foods are more delicious than the conventional counterparts. Additionally the products are popular because they are grown more naturally with fewer pesticides. Most people fear the negative impacts of chemicals to their childrens’ health. Organic farming is also popular because it supports independent farming and provides better and healthier conditions for workers. The nagging question characterizing the organic debate is; now that the organic foods cost more due to the amount of hand labor applied during their production, are they worth it? Works Cited "Organic debate" The American Prospect 21.7 (2010): Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Sep. 2012. Amodio, Maya., Colelli G & Hasey JK,. A comparative study of composition and postharvest performance of organically and conventionally grown kiwifruits. J Sci Food Agric. 2007; 87: 1228-36. Carbonaro, Marina., Mattera, Maria., Nicoli, Stefano, et al. Modulation of Antioxidant Compounds in Organic vs Conventional Fruit (Peach, Prunus persica L., and Pear, Pyrus communis L.). J. Agric. Food Chem., 2002, 50 (19), pp 5458–5462. Dangour, Alan., Dodhia, Sakhi., Hayter, Arabella, Allen, Elizabeth, Lock, Karen, Uauy, Ricardo. Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009; 90: 680-5. Givens, Ian. Health benefits of organic food effects of the environment. Wallingford, UK: CABI, 2008. Print. Lester, Gene., Manthey, John, Buslig Bela. Organic vs conventionally grown Rio Red whole grapefruit and juice: comparison of production inputs, market quality, consumer acceptance, and human health-bioactive compounds. J Agric Food Chem. 2007; 55: 4474-80. Lu, Chensheng., Barr, Dana., Pearson Melanie, Walker Lance., Bravo R. The attribution of urban and suburban children’s exposure to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides: a longitudinal assessment. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2009; 19: 69-78. Magkos, Faidon, Arvaniti, Fatini., Zampelas, Antonis. Organic food: nutritious food or food for thought? A review of the evidence. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 54; 2003: 357-71. Smith-Spangler, Crystal., Brandeau, Margaret., Hunter Grace, Bavinger, Clay., et al. Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, Sept. 4, 2012; 157(5): 348-366. Walters, Terry. Clean food: a seasonal guide to eating close to the source, with more than 200 recipes for a healthy and sustainable you. New York: Sterling, 2009. Print. Read More