A diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains sounds healthy, but as Susan Johnstone has found, how that food is farmed makes a big difference.

God's original diet given in Eden — fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains —is the best for our bodies. The Bible says the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, so it is vital to protect our physical health, as this impacts our mental and spiritual well-being.

Nutritionists tell us we should eat at least five servings of vegetables and two servings of fresh fruit every day, and so we strive to use this as a base­line for our diet.

However, fresh produce has Its hidden dangers. A study of 15,000 people in Hawaii revealed that the more fruit and juice people consumed over time, the greater their risk of Parkinson's disease. The culprit was not the fruit, but the pesticides on them.

Chemical agriculture emerged in the late 1800s, yet it wasn't until the 1940s that it became the dominant method of farming. Technological advances during World War II led to innovations in agricultural mechanization and pest control.

The United States government also sought to find ways to off-load surplus nitrogen from military defense projects and to provide a future for the established synthetic nitrogen industry, resulting in a ready supply of chemical fertilizer.

The chemical revolution of the past 65 years however, did not solve crop problems, but created new ones — including adverse effects on soil and plant health.

Crop losses due to insects have increased by around 20 percent since 1950 despite a 3,300 percent increase in the amount of pesticide used. In 1995 worldwide expenditures for pesticides reached $37.7 billion.

Although overall, crop yields increased with the new system of farming, the nutritional integrity of the crops greatly decreased. In the 1980s it was generally accepted that chemical agriculture had resulted in resistant weeds, diseases, and insects; a polluted ecosystem, and a poor food chain.

The mainstream adoption of integrated pest management as an alternative to intensive pesticide regimes acknowledges the need to reduce chemical usage in farming.

Many consumers peel their conventionally grown fruits and vegetables to help reduce pesticide levels, but this in turn depletes the best source of antioxidants, and a good source of vitamins and fiber found in the produce.

Maximum residue levels — "safe" levels — are set by the government for individual pesticides, but these don't take into account the "cocktail effect," in which even a few pesticides when combined at recommended levels multiply the toxicity a hundredfold.

Nutrients

It isn't only the presence of chemicals on our foods that do damage but also the absence of important nutrients. The vitamin and mineral content of produce in general has declined markedly since the widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides from the 1940s onwards.

WHEN RED IS GREEN:
Tomatoes are picked green
for transporting then
artificially ripened,
resulting in a fruit that
hasn't developed its
natural sugars, essential
for health.

[Save the cost by buying conventionally grown food...
pay later at the doctors office.]

A selection of produce in the United States contained 32 percent less iron in 1992 than in 1963 and 29 percent less calcium over the same period, and a selection of produce in Britain revealed an 81 percent reduction in copper from 1936 to 1987.

Intensive agriculture and the use of chemicals on the soil result in depletion of nutrients and trace minerals. Thirty years ago the United States Department of Agriculture reported that the highest death rate areas in the United States generally corresponded to places where agriculturalists recognized that the soil was depleted.

Clearly, conventionally grown fruit and vegetables are not as healthy as they should be, but are processed foods any better for us than the pesticide laden fresh produce? Processing of foods removes flavor and color, and so artificial food additives are routinely used.

It is estimated that the average American consumes more than two kilograms of additives each year. Many of these additives have been linked with allergic reactions, asthma, and hyperactivity in children.

Despite the health risks, children are strongly attracted to artificial flavors; during the past two decades the flavor industry's role in food production has become so influential that many children now like man-made flavors more than the real thing. But the words "artificial strawberry flavor" doesn't indicate the more than 40 different chemicals mixed to produce that taste!

Our affluent, "instant gratification" society has conditioned us to expect an abundance of exotic foods and fruits that aren't in season — and they must be cheap as well! Peaches should glow, apples should shine, and watermelon preferably should have no seeds.

This unrealistic expectation of "bigger and better" demands that farmers move from the traditional varieties and hybridize to produce the ideal specimen for the market. Breeding favors varieties that produce high yields and have a long shelf life, sacrificing flavor and nutrition.

Each year tons of fresh produce are disposed of that don't meet the aesthetic standards of the competitive wholesale markets.

Tomatoes should be rosy red, but not soft enough to be bruised in transport — so they are picked green to withstand repeated handling along the chain from grower to customer. Then they are artificially ripened, resulting in a fruit that hasn't developed its natural sugars, essential for health.

Phytonutrients are usually synthesized during maturation of the plant. Thus "green harvesting" deprives the fruit and vegetables of these. Fruit and vegetables harvested before maturity and transported long distances contain little or no vitamin C by the time they show up in the supermarket.

This nutritional depletion is the trade­off we get if we expect to have summer fruits in winter and vice versa, as these are transported across the country to meet our demands.

Farmers Health

Conventional farmers use massive amounts of chemicals on crops to prevent disease and pest predation, yet their own health is prone to chronic illness and disease.

In 2004, a group of Canadian doctors published research that linked cancers, nervous system disorders, and adverse reproductive effects on farmers and their children due to occupational exposure to agricultural chemicals.

It is estimated that in the United States, work lost due to pesticide poisoning is equivalent to $ 1.76 million each year, while the annual environmental and public health costs of pesticide usage at recommended levels impacts the country by $9 billion.

Should we support a system that expects farmers to sacrifice their own health in order to provide for our needs?

The industrialization of agriculture in the Western world in the early 20th century triggered the start of "organic farming"; a reaction of agricultural scientists and farmers to the detrimental system focused on quantity rather than quality.

Conversely, the organic farming philosophy, reliant on natural processes beneficial to the farm as a whole eco­system, enabled damaged soils to renew and provide better plant nutrition. Since the 1990s, certification standards have regulated organic production.

After examining 400 scientific research documents, nutritionist Shane Heaton concluded that due to better soils and natural farming methods, organically grown fruit and vegetables have higher levels of nutrients.

The United Kingdom's Daily Mail newspaper ran an experiment with two families who exchanged their diets for a week. One family ate mostly prepackaged and processed foods, while the second ate only organic food.

The first family noticed that after a week on organic food, an eczema condition was relieved and children's behavioral problems lessened, and the family experienced more energy as well.

A report published in 1940 describes a New Zealand boarding school that began serving almost exclusively organically grown produce. Students had excellent health, much less colds and flu than previously, fewer sports injuries, clear and healthy skin, and improved dental health.

Our Responsibility

Just as Adam and Eve were placed in a garden and told to have dominion over all life, so we are to be good stewards of this earth and to preserve our environment.

The biblical admonition to take care of the land by leaving fields fallow every seven years (see Leviticus 25) was not just a symbolic Sabbath for the land, but the means to avoid over-exploitation of the soil.

A responsible approach to our diet must consider all the factors that contribute to our food production and that includes fair payment for produce and sustainable farming practices that benefit, not harm our planet.

Large freight distances add costs to the retail price of produce, as well as contributing to air pollution and depletion of our world's fuel resources. Solutions include buying from local farmers' markets instead of demanding interstate produce and buying organic food.

Organic certification bodies regulate sustainable farming practices, prohibit the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers and promote soil and water testing to monitor the health of the farm.

Avoiding mass herbicides and pesticides can mean controlling weeds and pests by mulching and weeding, labor-intensive methods that affect the prices of organic vegetables. But as most organic farmers say, organic prices are a more realistic reflection of the cost of farming than to the "quick-fix" philosophy of mass chemical agriculture.

Community supported agriculture organizations sponsor farmers' commitments to holistic farming practices through a subscriber system of customers, while providing a decent income for them.

Simple measures in backyard gardening can also reduce the impact of chemical use, such as companion planting, the encouragement of natural predators for pests, and composting to improve the fertility of the soil, which in turn improves the nutrition of the plants.

***

• Ellen White, one of the founding members of the Seventh-day Adventist movement (publishers of Signs of the Times), wrote that caring for our body through proper food was of utmost importance. "It is far better to have less expensive clothing and furniture than to stint the supply of food."

We often spend large amounts of money on good quality vehicles, furniture, or electrical appliances, yet we do not place the same priority on our diet. Quality food can cost more, but this is an investment for life.

For the sake of our health, we should adopt a simpler diet with fewer processed or packaged items and focus on nutritionally complete foods, whether they be grown in our own backyards, in a community garden, or on organic farms.

The issue of natural farming versus chemical agriculture is not about "greenie" politics; rather, it is essentially about stewardship and health — the health of consumers, the health of farmers, and the health of our planet.

From: SIGNS OF THE TIMES, February 2007 [This article was well documented... I removed the footnotes to have a cleaner format and to save space. Pete]:

***

The 12 most heavily sprayed foods:
If you choose to eat these conventional foods they should be
thoroughly washed and places where spray can collect should be cut away.

Apples
Cherries
Grapes, imported
Nectarines
Peaches
Pears
Raspberries
Strawberries
Bell peppers
Celery
Potatoes
Spinach

The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association

The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), formed in 1971, is the oldest and largest state organic organization in the country.

Mission: The purpose of the Association is to help farmers and gardeners grow organic food, protect the environment, recycle natural resources, increase local food production, support rural communities, and illuminate for consumers the connection between healthful food and environmentally sound growing practices.

Why Organic Food Is Better Food

The Organic Premise: Many people are aware that food grown according to organic principles is free from exposure to harmful herbicides and pesticides, but that is only one small aspect of organic agriculture. A larger part of organic agriculture involves the health of the soil and the ecosystem in which crops are raised.

Organic farmers recognize that healthy, vibrant, and live soils and ecosystems significantly benefit crops. Natural, undisturbed soil is alive with

organisms that exist in harmony with the native plant life and the inorganic minerals that provide the soil's substrate.

Synthetic chemicals (such as herbicides, pesticides, and/or fast acting inorganic fertilizers) applied in or around crops interrupt or destroy the microbiotic activity in the soil. Once the microbiotic activity in the soil has stopped, the soil becomes merely an anchor for plant material.

In this conventional method of agriculture (in use for only the past 75 of 10,000 years of recorded agriculture) plants can receive only air, water, and sunlight from their environment — everything else must be distributed to plants by farmers, often from inputs transported thousands of miles to reach the farm.

Plants are commonly fed only the most basic elements of plant life and so are dependent on the farmer to fight nature's challenges, e.g. pests, disease, and drought.

Eliot Coleman, in his excellent primer, The New Organic Grower (published by Chelsea Green in 1995) illustrates this very well as summarized below:

Feed The Soil

• Soil fertility is a biological process
• Only the nutrients removed from the farm as crops need to be replaced.
• Nitrogen is not purchased because it is supplied by symbiotic and
non-symbiotic processes.
• Inputs are purchased in their least processed and least expensive form.
• 75% of the nutrient value of all feed consumed by animals is returned in manure as nutrient input to the farm.
Sustainable

Feed The Plant

• Soil fertility is an imported commodity.
• All nutrients required to "create" a crop are purchased from off the farm.
• Nitrogen is a very important purchased input.
• Inputs are purchased in their most processed and expensive form.
•Solubility and availability of these inputs is considered a chemical
process performed on an industrial level.
• All feed is a pure expense; animal manure is treated as a problem rather than an asset.
Non-Sustainable

Why should a consumer care about agricultural techniques if an organically cultivated green pepper looks identical to a conventionally grown pepper?

The answer is multi-faceted, but simply stated, an organically cultivated pepper will be healthier and more nutritious than a conventionally cultivated pepper. [and will taste a lot better]

By growing in a living soil where microbiotic activity constantly breaks organic matter and solid minerals into nutrients a plant can use, an organically cultivated pepper plant always has exactly what it needs to grow, from germination to fruit set, and the plant will be healthier throughout its life span than a conventionally grown pepper plant.

As a result, the organically grown plant will be able to add more and complex components to all of its parts, including its fruit, resulting in a pepper chock-full of micro-nutrients and trace minerals that are important for human nutrition.

Flavor is another benefit of healthy plants growing in a living soil. Flavor results from a mixture of many different and complex molecules. Healthy, living soil provides a constant and more complex mixture of these molecules, which results in more flavor.

It's no surprise that chefs working in the highest caliber restaurants prefer organic ingredients to conventionally grown ingredients.

By purchasing locally-grown, organic produce, the consumer supports sustainable methods of land use that result in far less pollution and top-soil loss than does conventional agriculture.

Synthetic pesticides and herbicides not only kill soil microbes and leave toxic residues on food, they also threaten the health of farm workers and disrupt natural ecosystems around the farm. Chemical fertilizers pollute lakes, ponds, rivers, and groundwater.

The alternative to using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers usually requires more labor on a farm. With more labor, organic farmers can match or exceed the productivity and quality of chemically dependent crops. Labor, rather than synthetic inputs, typically means more support for local economies, but it can also mean higher prices.

Conventionally grown foods cost less because their hidden costs are passed on to consumers and the environment. These hidden costs include creating synthetic inputs, the resulting pollution from spreading them, and long-term health effects of pesticide residues in our food.

In the long run, organically grown food is the best bargain for us, the environment, and future generations.

MOFGA defines organic agriculture as a locally sustainable, low-input technique for raising crops. For details on the legal definition of the word "organic," which is now regulated in the United States by the US Department of Agriculture, read the USDA National Organic Program standards and rules.

The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association promotes the production of safe, high quality food in a manner that does not harm the environment and that preserves or improves soil fertility, soil structure, and farm sustainability.

Our organic certification program, MOFGA Certification Services, LLC, annually reviews the practices of farms and food processors to help assure the public that food labeled as "certified organic" (indicated either by the USDA organic logo, a MOFGA certified logo, or both) has been grown according to nationally accepted organic standards.

Organic food: facts and figures 2004
INFORMATION SHEET
Nutritional benefits of organic food.
A Soil Association Report.
England

Vitamins and Minerals

Organic food contains, on average, higher levels of vitamin C and essential
minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium.

In a review of 41 studies from around the world, organic crops were shown to have statistically significant higher levels of vitamin C, magnesium, iron and phosphorous. Spinach, lettuce, cabbage and potatoes showed particularly high levels of minerals.

Nitrate levels in organic food are on average 15% lower. Scientists from Glasgow University have found a link between the levels of nitrates in vegetables and gullet cancer, which has trebled over the last 20 years and claims more than 3000 lives a year. They believe that an increase in the use of nitrate fertilizers since World War II may be one of the main reasons for the rise in this cancer.

Organic vegetables have higher levels (between 10% and 50%) of secondary nutrients. These include antioxidants which help to mop up harmful free radicals implicated in cancer.

Deficiencies in certain vitamins and minerals can lead to a variety of symptoms including muscle cramps and depression.

Between 1940 and 1991, trace minerals in conventional UK fruit and vegetables fell by up to 76% - US figures show a similar trend (Defra and USDA)

In a survey of organic vegetable soups, researchers found that they contain almost six times as much salicylic acid as non-organic vegetable soups. The acid helps combat the hardening of the arteries and bowel cancer and is responsible for the anti-inflammatory action of aspirin. It is naturally used in plants as defense against disease.

The Food Standards Agency agree that consumers concerned about sustainability (wildlife, pollution, climate change) and pesticide residues should buy organic food.

An article published in ;Coronary and Diabetic Care in the UK 2004; by the
Association of Primary Care Groups and Trusts, concluded that a
predominantly organic diet:

reduces the amount of toxic chemicals ingested;

totally avoids GMOs [genetically modified organisms;

reduces the amount of food additives and colourings;

increases the amount of beneficial vitamins, minerals, EFAs [essential fatty
acids] and antioxidants consumed;

appears to have the potential to lower the incidence of common conditions
such as cancer, coronary heart disease, allergies and hyperactivity in
children.

Additives:

Health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and
hyperactivity have been linked to food additives whose use is banned in organic food. 297 additives are permitted in conventional food.

The following are specifically banned in organic processed food:

1. Hydrogenated fat, which is linked to heart disease, is banned under organic standards.

2. Phosphoric acid, which is a highly acidic ingredient used in cola drinks. It can leave the bones brittle and porous and lead to osteoporosis.

3. Aspartame, the most widely used artificial sweetener. Reported reactions to aspartame include headaches, nausea, diarrhea, convulsions and seizures.

4. Monosodium glutamate, which is thought to be responsible for dizziness,
headaches and asthma attacks.

5. Sulphur dioxide which can often cause problems in people who have asthma.

Pesticides

Coxs apples can be sprayed up to 16 times with 36 different pesticides many of these are hard to remove even if the fruit is washed.

350 chemicals are routinely used in conventional farming.

Government tests have shown that some spinach contains pesticide residues that exceed the safety level for toddlers. Pesticide residues were also found in three quarters of the dried fruit that was sampled, half of the bread, a third of the apples and celery, and a quarter of the chips from fish and chip shops. Six samples of baby food contained residues at high levels.

Even though cancer-causing chemicals such as lindane and DDT have been
banned, Government tests in 2000 showed that food still contains residues. Other chemicals are linked with cancer, breast cancer, decreasing male fertility, foetal abnormalities. DDT has been found in 67% of fetta cheese samples.

Little is known about the effects of multiple residues the cocktail effect. In 1999, 93% of oranges had multiple residues. There has been very little research done but all current knowledge points to there being a very distinct possibility that chemicals would react with each other.

The Government recently recognized this shortfall in knowledge and produced a report last year entitled 'Risk assessment of mixtures of pesticides and similar substances'. The report says that there is disquiet about the cocktail effect and that there is very little evidence of the occurrence and importance of such cocktails. However, the Government has been criticized for not going far enough in investigating the realities of the cocktail effect.

Antibiotics

There is growing concern about the high use of antibiotics and possible effects on human health. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology concluded in 1999 There is a continuing threat to human health from imprudent use of antibiotics in animals". The British Medical Association is concerned that "The risk to human health from
antibiotic resistance is one of the major health threats that could be faced in the 21st century.

Antimicrobial drug residues in food (including antibiotics) are suspected to cause allergies, cancer, paralysis and respiratory failure, anaphylactic shock and aplastic anaemia in either humans or animals.

Government advice maintains that these residues pose no risk to consumers. However, in a previous report the Soil Association has argued
that this may not always be the case.

Official reviews of the scientific evidence have called into question the safety of several drugs which have been widely used for many years.

GM [Genetic Modification]

Although it is claimed by the biotechnology companies that there have been no ill effects from several years of GMO consumption in the US, there have been no epidemiological studies to support this statement. The following developments indicate that negative effects may be occurring:

UK: 50% rise in soya allergies is reported since imports of GM started.

Ireland: doctors have reported an increase in child soya allergies since the start of GM soya imports.

US: coinciding with the introduction of GM ingredients, food derived illnesses are believed to have doubled over the last seven years.

Hidden costs of intensive farming

Around £120 million a year is spent removing pesticides from the UK's water supply - mainly as a result of the chemicals used in conventional farming.

Water customers who already pay around £7 a year to remove nitrates and pesticides from their water will be paying around £25 or more in the next five years.

The problem is mainly blamed on farmers using too many pesticides, fertilizers and over crowding their animals.

Organic farms avoid the use of pesticides. It has also been demonstrated that overall losses of nitrate from the organic systems studied were smaller than from the conventional systems.

The annual cost of agriculture to the environment is £1.4bn.

The Government has paid almost £280 million in compensation to farmers
following the BSE crisis.["mad cow disease"] The Government has paid £2.7b in payments and compensation as a result of the foot-and- mouth crisis.

Food miles

Importing a kilo of Chantrelle mushrooms from Zambia results in 4505g of CO2 being emitted.

The average person is responsible for 9.63tonnes of CO2 emissions.

A weekly basket of imported food for a family of four could add 1.1 tonnes to per capita emissions.

A typical Sunday meal could travel 49,000 miles - equivalent to two journeys around the world and releasing 37kg of CO2.

Distributing products by plane results in 50 times more CO2 than sea freight. International trade in food almost doubled between 1968 and 1998.

For every 1000 fruit products bought in the UK only 6 will be grown here.
The food system accounts for up to 40 per cent of all UK road freight.

Local food

Sales of organic food through farmers markets, box schemes and farm shops reached over £90 million, showing a dynamic growth rate of nearly 30 per cent.

The most marked jump was in sales through farmers markets which more than doubled. Direct sales now account for a tenth of all organic food sold.

Environment

An annex to the English organic action plan provided an official consensus on the environmental benefits of organic farming. Compared to non-organic farming the benefits are:

greater farmland biodiversity and energy efficiency;

reduced agrochemical pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, and waste;

and reduced nitrate leaching similar to that achieved through

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones for non-organic farming.

Long term efficiency benefits were revealed by a 21-year Swiss comparison of organic and integrated farming. Though yields were 20 per cent lower in the organic system, fertilizer and energy input was 34-53 per cent lower, pesticide input was 97 per cent lower, and the recycling of resources through the system was more efficient.

The organic system also had higher soil microbial biodiversity and activity, and greater soil particle stability.

The developing world

Professor Jules Pretty, director of the Centre for Environment and Society at the University of Essex, wrote, Recent evidence from 20 countries has found more than 2 million families farming sustainably on more than 4-5 million hectares.

This is no longer marginal. It cannot be ignored. What is remarkable is not so much the numbers, but that most of this has happened in the past 5-10 years.

Moreover, many of the improvements are occurring in remote and resource-poor areas that had been assumed to be incapable of producing food surpluses.

A report by Greenpeace in 2002 found that organic and agro-ecological farming techniques are ideal for food production in the developing world, improving productivity and nutrition at low cost, sustainably and without reliance on foreign commercial interests.

Animal welfare

A review of the Soil Association organic standards and farm assurance schemes by Compassion in World Farming in 2002, found that organic standards provide by far the highest levels of animal welfare. It achieved about twice as many welfare criteria for each farm animal species as farm assurance schemes. [food safety and animal welfare standards]

Government support

In 2002/03, the UK Government spent approximately £3.1 billion on agricultural subsidies and grants. Of this, 0.7 per cent (£23 million) was spent on supporting organic conversion in the UK. This amounts to 12.7 per cent of the total £180.5 million spent on UK agri-environment schemes.

The Governments action plan to develop organic food and farming in England was launched in 2002, encompassing the following key measures:

1. Ongoing organic 'stewardship' payments acknowledging the environmental
contribution organic producers make.

2. Recognition and support for developing organic public procurement of organic food for schools, hospitals and other public institutions.

3. More research and development funding.

4. A target of 70 per cent of organic food sold in England being English produced by 2010.

Certification

All organic farms and food processors are inspected at least once a year.
Organic farms and food

The organic retail market showed positive growth between 2001/02 and 2002/03, rising 10.4 per cent from a retail sales value of £920 million to £1.015 billion.

Sales of organic food in the UK have topped £1 billion for the first time, making the UK the third biggest outlet for organic food in the world.

The number of registered organic farmers rose by 3 per cent from 3,865 in 2002 to 3,991 in 2003 (including 619 in Wales, 738 in Scotland and 139 in Northern Ireland).

By April 2003, 726,400 ha [1 hectare 2.4711 acres] of agricultural land in the UK was being managed organically. This represents approximately four per cent of UK farmland on nearly 4,000 organic farms.

There has been a 16.5 per cent increase in fully organic land,
rising from 458,650 ha in April 2002 to 534,300 ha.

The value of processed organic food has grown considerably over the last five years. In April 2003 there were 1,585 processors (up from 500 in 1998) and 7,575 different processing operation across the UK.

The year 2002/3 saw an estimated ten per cent growth in sales at food manufacturing level as well as some consolidation in the market.
[46 footnotes deleted]

Find out more
Please see the Soil Association website library, http://www.soilassociation.org/library

OREGON'S
Agricultural Progress
Fall 2005

OSU helps Oregon growers in agriculture's fastest growing sector.
by
Gail Wells

The supermarket is changing. On the shelves next to familiar brands of bread, milk, and coffee, there are new brands of organic milk, organic bread, and organic coffee. Once dismissed as a fad, “organic” has entered the nation’s consciousness and marketplace.

To be sure, organic farming still represents a tiny fraction of the agricultural pie. Organic fruits, vegetables, dairy products, represent about $18.5 million per year in Oregon’s agricultural economy, while the whole value of that economy in 2004 was about $4.1 billion.

Yet as consumers have become more sophisticated about food and more wary of pesticide residues, the market for certified organic products has grown by 20 percent or more each year since 1990.

The organic market may be a niche, but it is a profitable and growing niche that already has had a large influence on the nation’s agricultural community as a whole. The hard line between “organic” and “conventional” agriculture is getting softer.

More and more, conventional farmers are adopting practices advocated by the organic-farming community to improve the health of their soil and cut down on pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. And organic growers are developing large-scale, national marketing strategies that rival conventional food markets.

As the market for organic products has grown, so has research in organic methods, and that’s good news for all farmers, says Anita Azarenko, head of Oregon State University’s Department of Horticulture.

Azarenko is a pomologist — a scientist who studies fruit and nuts — and one of several OSU agriculture faculty who are researching ecologically based farming systems.

The goal of OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences has always been to bring rigorous research to bear on a wide variety of farming topics and problems. Azarenko and her colleagues are examining the whole spectrum of farming systems, from conventional to organic.

“What’s more important than the labels,” she says, “is that we at the university are in a great position to help different farming systems learn from one another. All farmers are looking for better ways to grow better products for the marketplace, and our organic research is bringing new tools for that purpose.”

Before the advent of modern technology, all farming was “organic.” The modern organic-farming movement grew from the work of Sir Albert Howard, a British soil scientist working in India during the 1930s.

He suggested that people who used composting extensively in their village farms grew better food and were generally healthier than those who didn’t. In the late 1940s, Howard formed a partnership with J.I. Rodale, the American founder of the magazine Organic Gardening.

The methods they promoted — reliance on composting and rejection of chemical pesticides and fertilizer — appealed to home gardeners and small market farmers, but had little effect on commercial farming practices.

This was at the beginning of the agribusiness era, when large farms, aided by petrochemical technology, were boosting agricultural output by leaps and bounds.

Then in the early 1960s, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring sparked widespread public concern about pesticide residues in food. Interest in “health foods,” including fruits and vegetables grown without pesticides, suddenly appeared, and all kinds of foods and supplements were being touted as “organic.”

However, with no agreement on what “organic” meant, the market was ripe for hucksterism. In the early 1980s, organic farmers and advocates formed the group Oregon Tilth to learn more about organic agriculture and to develop standards for certifying local organic farmers.

By the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture began developing nationwide standards for organic growers and Oregon Tilth became the main certifying agency in Oregon for the USDA’s “organic” label.

Alongside the USDA certified-organic label, other certification systems assure consumers that food is being grown sustainably, if not strictly organically. One of these is the Food Alliance certification, which considers soil and water conservation, wildlife habitat, and fair labor practices.

There is a strong and growing market for such certifications, according to Karla Chambers, co-owner of Stahlbush Island Farm in the Willamette Valley, whose land and processing plant are certified under both Oregon Tilth and the Food Alliance.

“The market is clearly differentiating between ‘conventional’ and ‘organic and sustainable’ foods,” Chambers says. “Remember that Oregon has seen closures of 22 conventional food processing plants since the early 1990s.

Publicly traded companies that fall into the ‘natural foods’ category are trading 41 percent higher in the last year, while traditional food companies are trading 4 percent higher. Reading these markets clearly is important for growers in Oregon.”

Organic dairy farming has found particular success in the marketplace. Demand for organic milk, cheese, and yogurt is rising, and Oregon is one of the top three states in organic milk production, according to the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association.

Jon Bansen and his wife, Juli, operate Double J Jerseys, an organic dairy farm near Monmouth. The Bansens received USDA certification six years ago and now belong to a nationwide marketing cooperative, Organic Valley, through which they get a premium price for their products.

The essence of organic dairy farming, says Jon Bansen, is letting the cows get most of their nutrition from grazing rather than from supplemental grain, which many conventional dairy farmers use to boost milk production. “Grazing,” says Bansen, “gives you a level of cow health that makes the rest of it a piece of cake.

When you have healthy cows, you don’t need antibiotics.” He moves his 200 cows to a different part of his 500-acre farm every 12 hours. This rotational grazing allows pastures to recover so the forage stays nutritious.

Bansen does supplement his cows’ diet with small amounts of high-protein feed, which helps the cow’s rumen bacteria digest the roughage. “But you supplement at a small level, and for her own health, not to increase milk production.” He adds: “We let our cows be cows—we don’t try to make them into milk machines.”

Even in small amounts, organically grown supplemental feed is expensive, because much of it comes from the Midwest or even South America. Mike Gamroth, OSU’s Extension dairy specialist, and researchers Steven Machado and Clint Shock are growing white lupine, soybeans, and field peas organically on plots at OSU’s branch experiment stations in Ontario and Pendleton. Gamroth hopes these high-protein legumes will help Oregon’s organic dairy farmers supplement their cows’ feed more economically.

Gamroth moved into the organic world in parallel with the Bansens. “I consulted with them when they were starting their operation, before they got certified as organic. Organic farming has taken off so quickly and has continued to grow, it became clear that we had to get research projects going and develop our Extension services.”

Many of the methods used by organic growers are also used by conventional growers, according to Dan McGrath, chair of the Linn County office of OSU Extension and a specialist in the management of plant pests and diseases and soil fertility.

“Progressive farmers across the spectrum have a common interest in maintaining soil health.” McGrath adds, “They know the benefits of reducing tillage, increasing organic matter in the soil, using winter cover crops, managing irrigation appropriately, and rotating crops.” OSU’s role, according to McGrath, is to test the effectiveness of these methods, as scientific inquiry not advocacy.

Because research into organic farming methods requires looking at the whole plant-soil-environment complex, it poses some challenges, according to Azarenko. “Organic farming methods can be tested by scientific inquiry,” she says, “but you have to consider the whole agro-ecosystem.

Ever-improving computing technology and statistical methods are making such systems-focused research more practical and more reliable. And to support more rigorous study, there is more federal funding for organic-farming research than ever before.

The research at OSU does not set out to compare organic farming with conventional farming, says Azarenko. “We don’t try to address the question: which is better and which is worse? because that’s not useful. Rather, we’re asking ourselves and the farmers we’re working with: whatever system you choose to use, how can we help you move forward?”

In addition to developing sustainable farming methods shared by progressive farmers of all stripes, OSU researchers are developing new varieties of fruits and vegetables that lend themselves to organic methods. While varieties bred for conventional agriculture may produce adequately with organic methods, they often lack disease resistance or resilience against insect pests.

OSU vegetable breeder Jim Myers is breeding vegetables for organic production systems, including late-blight-resistant tomatoes, a resilient summer squash, and an open-pollinated broccoli, all through methods of traditional plant breeding in organically managed plots.

What will agriculture look like in another decade or two? “There are organic principles that you can use as a conventional farmer or as an organic farmer,” Eveland says, “and either way, you’re a wise steward of the land.

Many of us organic farmers have grown from two acres, and two old hippies out pulling weeds, to more sophisticated operations. The knowledge we’ve gained of conventional farming—equipment needs, economies of scale—has been useful to us. It’s helping us all move toward being better farmers,” he says.

Think globally and plant locally

Walking into Oregon State University’s Life Sciences Building on a Friday morning, you may be surrounded by the aromas of fresh basil, tomatoes, and garlic. Each week during the growing season, OSU’s Organic Growers Club displays an artful arrangement of fresh, organic vegetables for sale here on the OSU campus.

“The club was started in 2001 by a small group of students concerned with the impact of food production on our health and environment,” said James Cassidy, an OSU soil science instructor and faculty advisor for the club.

“Thanks to a lot of generous community members, the Organic Growers Club has been able to propagate vegetable starts in the greenhouse and experiment with varieties and plot design to grow food better.”

The club has three acres under cultivation at OSU’s research farm east of the Corvallis campus. There students gain practical experience preparing the ground, growing, harvesting, and marketing vegetables and flowers.

“How do we do it?” Cassidy laughs. “The hard way! By tilling, hoeing, and harvesting by hand. Members of the club come together at the farm to work and share a common interest in growing food organically.”

Fruit Market in Barcelona Spain

Switch to organic crops could help poor:
By NICOLE WINFIELD, APAssociated Press Writer

Organic food has long been considered a niche market, a luxury for wealthy consumers. But researchers told a U.N. conference Saturday that a large-scale shift to organic agriculture could help fight world hunger while improving the environment.

Crop yields initially can drop as much as 50 percent when industrialized, conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizers and pesticides is converted to organic. While such decreases often even out over time, the figures have kept the organic movement largely on the sidelines of discussions about feeding the hungry.

Researchers in Denmark found, however, that food security for sub-Saharan Africa would not be seriously harmed if 50 percent of agricultural land in the food exporting regions of Europe and North America were converted to organic by 2020.

While total food production would fall, the amount per crop would be much smaller than previously assumed, and the resulting rise in world food prices could be mitigated by improvements in the land and other benefits, the study found.

A similar conversion to organic farming in sub-Saharan Africa could help the region's hungry because it could reduce their need to import food, Niels Halberg, a senior scientist at the Danish Research Center for Organic Food and Farming, told the U.N. conference on "Organic Agriculture and Food Security."

Farmers who go back to traditional agricultural methods would not have to spend money on expensive chemicals and would grow more diverse and sustainable crops, the report said. In addition, if their food is certified as organic, farmers could export any surpluses at premium prices.

The researchers plugged in data on projected crop yields and commodity prices until 2020 to create models for the most optimistic and conservative outlooks.

Alexander Mueller, assistant director-general of the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, praised the report and noted that projections indicate the number of hungry people in sub-Saharan Africa was expected to grow.

Considering that the effects of climate change are expected to hurt the world's poorest, "a shift to organic agriculture could be beneficial," he said.

Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, an FAO official who organized the conference, pointed to other studies she said indicated that organic agriculture could produce enough food per capita to feed the world's current population.

One such study, by the University of Michigan, found that a global shift to organic agriculture would yield at least 2,641 kilocalories per person per day, just under the world's current production of 2,786, and as many as 4,381 kilocalories per person per day, researchers reported. A kilocalorie is one "large" calorie and is known as the "nutritionist's calorie."

"These models suggest that organic agriculture has the potential to secure a global food supply, just as conventional agriculture today, but with reduced environmental impacts," Scialabba said in a paper presented to the conference.

However, she stressed that the studies were only economic models.

The United Nations defines organic agriculture as a "holistic" food system that avoids the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, minimizes pollution and optimizes the health of plants, animals and people. It is commercially practiced in 120 countries and represented a $40 billion market last year, Scialabba said.
__

On the Net:

FAO conference is at http://www.fao.org/organicag/ofs/index_en.htm

The Musts and Myths of Organic and Locally Grown
YAHOO! FOOD Posted Tue, Jun 26, 2007, 10:01 am PDT

by Maggie Nemser

So you've been known to occasionally spend extra on organic milk, mosey over to the free-range meat section, and make an effort to support your local farms by buying berries from a roadside fruit stand.

Still, I'm betting the farm that if you're confused about when to go local, when you should go organic, and when it's all just baloney, you're not alone.

I reached out to two experts in the field for some solid answers. Joy Bauer, nutritionist extraordinaire, breaks down the musts and myths of organic and local, while Ryan Hardy, the fresh-market-obsessed chef at The Montagna in Aspen, provides five easy ways to include the best of both into our diets. I hope this helps you figure out the best ways to bring farm-fresh food closer to your home.

WHAT IS LOCALLY GROWN?
Locally grown means seasonal food from small farms. Some say it applies only to foods grown within a 100-mile radius; others stretch it to 250 miles.

MUSTS: Seasonal fruits, seasonal vegetables, milk and dairy. WHY? Local crops harvested at their peak of freshness and flavor offer superior nutrient density, and buying produce from local growers reduces the environmental impact and costs of transporting product.

MYTHS: Local food is not necessarily organically grown. However, there is truth to many local farmers' claims that they do not use pesticides. WHY? They just can't advertise themselves as certified organic unless they've gone through the certification process, which is lengthy and expensive.

WHAT'S ORGANIC?
For plants, organic means grown on certified organic land without synthetic fertilizers or chemicals (like pesticides). Genetic modification and irradiation are also off-limits. For animals, organic means access to the outdoors, only organic feed for at least a year, and no antibiotics or growth hormones.

MUSTS: Apples, cherries, grapes (especially if they're imported), nectarines, peaches, pears, raspberries, strawberries, bell peppers, celery, potatoes, and spinach.

WHY? Because these fruits and veggies have been found to contain the most pesticide residue, even after being washed. IF YOU WANT TO GO THE EXTRA MILE...also buy your beef, poultry, and dairy organic. Organic meats and dairy are much more expensive than nonorganic, but they'll also reduce your exposure to toxins.

MYTHS: You don't need to worry about buying these organic: bananas, kiwi, mangoes, papaya, pineapple, asparagus, avocado, broccoli, cauliflower, corn, onion, sweet peas, and seafood.

WHY? Because these fruits and veggies tend not to carry pesticide residue, and seafood has no USDA organic certification standards (so "organic seafood" doesn't mean much).

Now that you've got the dirt on organic and local, check out Chef Ryan Hardy's 5 easy ways to bring the benefits of both to your table:

1. Go to farmer's markets. The farmer's market may not always easily fit into your busy schedule, but taking 30 minutes to buy good foods for your family is worth the time.

2. Demand it at your local store. Ask your local grocer to get in products you want -- be specific and follow up.

3. Talk with local chefs who use local, organic ingredients. Chefs are notoriously picky about finding the right product. Ask about the ingredients they use.... You'll probably find out that most are easily obtainable.

4. Buy what's in season. Food is at its cheapest when it's at its best -- so take
advantage and eat fresh fruits and vegetables when they're at their peak.

5. Eat more greens. Farm-fresh salad greens are exciting additions to all kinds of dishes, not just salads. Try adding them to pasta, serving them under a steak, or simply sandwiching them with goat cheese between bread.

I am not a food product,
I am my own animal being.