Over the last couple of years, several reports have been published on the effects of different farming systems which favour organic farming directly or indirectly. These provide essential evidence that was previously lacking on the scale and range of benefits to be gained from widespread organic farming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming, organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower, and energy efficiency is usually higher.
The Soil Association published this report in May 2000. It reviewed all the known studies that compared the levels of wildlife on organic and conventional farms (9 fully, 14 briefly). It found clear evidence that overall organic farms support substantially higher levels of wildlife in lowland areas, particularly of those wildlife groups which are declining. Examples include 40% more birds in a three year study of 44 farms by the British Trust for Ornithology, twice as many butterflies and five times as many wild arable plants. This backed up the observation by the organic sector that organic farming addresses the main causes that conservationists have identified as behind the current dramatic decline in farm wildlife.
This US study of April 2001 quantified for the first time the difference in nutrient levels between organic and conventional food. It reviewed all the available comparative studies on crops produced with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers (41 studies) and found in all cases that the organic crops had higher levels. The results were statistically significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).
[Four studies, including a comparison of official UK Government data, have found that mineral levels in food have fallen by substantial amounts since the adoption of non-organic farming methods of food production.]
This report of all aspects of food quality in relation to health showed that on the basis of the available evidence, organic food is healthier than non-organic food because it is safer and more nutritious. It minimises possible dietary toxins such as pesticides, artificial additives and GMOs. Comparative studies show that it contains on average more minerals and vitamin C than non-organic food. Moreover, important improvements in health have been observed in animal feeding trials, such as better fertility and growth.
[Reviews of the comparative research on nutrient levels previous to the above two had been inconclusive. They included many invalid studies and attempted to find consistency between the results, rather looking for overall differences.]
This report by Compassion in World Farming provides a comprehensive assessment and endorsement of the welfare benefits of organic farming. CIWF compared the Soil Association's standards against 15 criteria for animal welfare. They achieved 11-14 out of 15 for the five different livestock categories. In comparison, farm assurance schemes achieved only 4-7.
In December 2000, the Food Ethics Council published its report on farm animal welfare. It concluded that systems like organic farming are the ideal and certainly preferable to 'hi-tech' approaches in their impact on animal welfare.
This report on organic farming and agro-ecological approaches in the Southern hemisphere shows a range of positive outcomes: dramatic increase in yields, greater diversity of crops, reduction in pests and diseases, and improvements in general nutritional content. Examples of yield increases are: Tigray, Ethiopia (yields from composted plots 3-5 times more than chemically treated plots), Brazil (maize yields increased 20-250%); and Peru (increases of 150% for a range of upland crops).
This report also highlighted the capacity for organic farming to feed the developing world. A review of over 200 food production projects in different countries involving simple, organic type techniques showed that they resulted in major yield increases, ranging from 46-150%.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This report on the 'external' costs of farming, in September 2000, showed that the indirect costs of non-organic farming to the taxpayer are amounting to over £2.3 billion annually in the UK. This is because of the cost of addressing the negative effects on the environment and health. It indicates major potential for economic savings with widespread organic farming.
In December 2000, a study on two common agro-chemicals highlighted the fact that the safety of pesticides has not been established. The study found that brain damage similar to Parkinson's disease resulted in rats when both chemicals (maneb and paraquat) were used, while there were no effects from either chemical alone. Moreover an epidemiological study found a geographical correlation in the US between deaths from Parkinson's disease and the use of these chemicals.
[Multiple pesticides residues are found in about 14% of every day foods in the UK. While the health effects of individual pesticides are tested before approval, several agro-che micals are often used on a crop but the effects of mixtures are not tested.]
This study of ICM (Integrated Crop Management) published in February 2000 showed that the limited reductions in agro-chemical use attained though ICM may have little or no effect on wildlife. Despite reductions of pesticides and fertilisers of c. 20%, there was no significant difference in the numbers of invertebrates (beetles, spiders and earthworms) between the conventional and ICM sites after five years.
This survey of the scientific literature on GMOs found that at this time there had been only three published studies of the health effects of consuming GMOs, and none of these animal feeding trials were longer than 70 days. Other published studies that have been used as evidence of safety by the Government and biotechnology companies were in fact only tests of the health effects of the modified protein, not the whole GMO, ie. most existing 'safety' studies have not tested the side effects of the engineering process which is the main health concern.
[Tests of the health effects of the consumption of GMOs are not required before their approval. In comparison with the above findings, the Government has often stated that GMOs are 'rigorously tested'. Monsanto has stated that there have been "exhaustive safety studies, which are published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals" (Agricultural Biotechnology Myths, spring 2000).]
This United Nations report shows that GM crops are not needed to feed the world's growing population. Several forward projections to 2030 when the world' population is expected to be over 8 billion, found that, leaving aside GM crops, the potential of current agricultural resources and technological knowledge are already sufficient to ensure that total crop production "will exceed population growth".
Organic Central delivers fresh Organic vegetables, fruit and eggs weekly to your home in the Birmingham area.