Natural Acres FAQs

What exactly are 'organic foods'

Although minor variations in standards exist across countries, the term 'organic food' is usually taken to mean a food that has been produced without artificial fertilisers and that has not been subject to treatment with synthetic pesticides or growth promoters of any type, including hormones and antibiotics. Although vaccines may be used in animals grown for organic food production, the use of veterinary drugs is generally avoided or minimised except for genuine remedial care, in which case such meat animals may be withdrawn from certification.

Organic production may also require:

The composting of fresh manures for microbial safety reasons;
That animals in organic production have access to free-ranging environments; and
That animal feedstuffs are of appropriate organic quality.

For example, rendered animal protein (which may have contributed to mad-cow disease in Britain) is generally not allowed. No organic food should have been subjected to food irradiation, and the use of genetic modification (GM) is also precluded. Materials and methods allowable under organic standards are complex and involve stipulation of animal husbandry standards as well as approved processing and production inputs.

Why do organic foods usually cost more than conventional foods and why are some people prepared to pay extra?

Production yields are often, but not always, lower on organic farms because organic food production does not involve the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides and other technological aids. Also, labor intensity is greater and many organic farms are smaller than conventional farms, thus missing economies of scale. In Australia you can expect to pay at least a 20 per cent premium for organic food and sometimes much more.

On the other hand, profits on organic farms can be good because of lower costs for fertilizers and pesticides – even if yields are lower. In the UK and Europe , where organic production is higher than in Australia , supermarket prices are coming down significantly as organic production increases.

Many people are prepared to spend the extra money largely on the grounds that they believe organic foods are more nutritious and safer than foods produced by conventional methods. An additional argument used in support of organic food is that it 'tastes better'. Finally, organic food production is often claimed to be less harmful to the environment and to food producers, and many people are willing to accept the extra cost associated with such benefits.

Is there any evidence for greater nutritional value of organic foods compared to conventional foods?

Although several reviews have indicated some consistent differences in favor of organic versus conventional produce, this is difficult to interpret because some of these studies may not have been conducted in a truly scientific manner. Even so, the best of these studies show consistency in higher vitamin C, (and perhaps iron and magnesium), in organic food and consistently less unwanted and potentially toxic nitrates. A simple reason has been postulated for some of the differences observed, particularly for minerals – organic produce may have lower water content, so minerals (and some other nutrients) may be more concentrated in organic than conventional produce.

In recent years this analysis has been extended to include other food components such as antioxidants – potentially important substances in human nutrition – in addition to vitamins and minerals. Levels of antioxidants and some other ‘health-related food components have generally been reported to be higher in organic foods. This may be because these natural chemicals are produced to protect the plant against insect pests, and organic crops have less pesticide protection. Another theory is that the faster growth in artificially fertilized crops causes the plant to concentrate resources for growth rather than production of these antioxidants.

In any case, more sophisticated analysis of the nutritional quality of conventional versus organic foods is required – in animal foods as well as plant foods – before a more definitive answer is available.

While the emerging information so far does suggest higher levels of some nutritional components in organic food, the other question is: ‘does this have advantages for human health?’ Many nutritionists say that a well-formulated diet, organic or not, is all that is required for sufficient intake of health-giving nutrients. Supporters of organic food argue that with consistent consumption, even small advantages could be significant over time. This can only be answered by appropriately controlled scientific studies in human populations. This would be difficult to accomplish.

Are organic foods safer than conventional foods? That is, are people less likely to experience contaminant-related health problems by buying only organic foods; and is production of organic foods safer?

Human food consumption: Organic foods clearly have much lower levels of synthetic agricultural chemical residues such as artificial pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and veterinary drugs (eg, antibiotics and growth hormones). Yet it is important to realize that organic foods may still have some residues from incidental soil and environmental contamination, even if the concentrations of these residues are very low.

Microbiological contamination of food is recognized as the main contributor to acute food-borne illness in humans. Organic food production probably makes little difference to this, although the grass- and hay-fed cattle, required in many organic systems, seem less likely to produce the very toxic Escherichia coli O157:H7 strain than grain-fed cattle according to a United States Department of Agriculture review.

According to a survey described in the FAO report, less than one per cent of food-related illness is caused by chemical contamination of food. So even if chemical contamination of organic food is less than for conventional food, this will have only minor effects on the overall rate of acute food-borne illness. Organic proponents argue, however, that some cases of mild pesticide poisoning from pesticide contamination can mimic microbiological food poisoning.

Whether higher, but currently allowed, levels of residues of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics in conventionally produced food have any adverse effects on human health over the longer term is generally unknown. However, some scientists are concerned that antibiotic use in food animals contributes to resistance of pathogenic organisms to antibiotics important in human medicine, with potential for significant adverse effects on human health. The European Union has legislated that from 2006 on, growth-promoting antibiotics (GPA) may not be used in farms in member nations of the EU.

How about the idea that organic foods taste better than their conventional equivalents; what evidence is there for or against this?

A report by the highly respected Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concludes that organically grown (golden delicious) apples were found to be firmer and received higher taste scores than conventionally grown apples. Another study showed that organic tomatoes were sweeter and organic carrots had more "carrot taste".

It would appear that, at least for some foods, the organic form can taste better than the conventional equivalent. However, this may not be true for all foods. Higher levels of antioxidants could cause a more ‘bitter’ taste, particularly in leafy green vegetables. Whether this is offset by other taste factors in organic plant foods is not known.

How do I know if something is organic?

Many organizations independently certify farms as being organic. Recently, the United States Department of Agriculture began an organic certification program. Food with the USDA Organic label is at least 95% organic.

Isn't organic beef the same thing as natural beef?

No. The USDA's current definition of "natural" beef could apply to just about any piece of meat you'll find in your local grocery store. As long as it doesn't contain any artificial preservatives and has only been minimally processed (i.e. ground), it can carry the "natural" label. When you buy beef with the "natural" label, you could be inadvertently buying beef from huge factory feed lots that may have been given growth-promoting hormones and antibiotics. Beyond claims made on the packaging, there is no guarantee their feed is free of potentially harmful pesticides.

Organic, on the other hand, is a verifiable promise that the beef you are buying is guaranteed to be free of growth-promoting hormones and antibiotics and that the feed the cattle have been given is certified organic. In addition, organic livestock have virtually unlimited access to pasture and receive the most humane treatment possible. If it carries the USDA Organic seal on the label, you can trust the beef you are buying is 100% organic.