Organic food sales have grown considerably in the United States. The 2019 NASS Organic Survey released in October finds that U.S. organic sales increased 31 percent between 2016 and 2019, although certified organic farms still account for less than 1 percent of all U.S. farms. less than 3 percent of sales. And large organic farms dominate these sales – although the largest make up just 17 percent of all organic farms, they provide an overwhelming 84 percent of total sales.
While advocates celebrate the growth of organic, the irony is that the consumers driving this growth are choosing organic for the wrong reasons.
Additionally, many practices that can give organic an environmental advantage are actually widely used on non-organic farms.
All of which erodes the usefulness of organic certification to consumers and the environment.
Surveys show that the majority of consumers who choose organic products do so for personal health reasons (90 to 95 percent to specifically avoid pesticides and 76 percent to “get healthier foods”), but this perceived benefit It is not supported by the evidence. While organic products have less pesticide residues on average, more than 99 percent of all organic and non-organic products have extremely low pesticide residues – so low that one would have to eat hundreds or thousands of servings. per day to experience negative effects. And while the opposite is often claimed, comprehensive studies show no evidence of a nutritional difference between organic and non-organic produce.
Less important to organic consumers are the environmental benefits. Only a third of organic consumers choose organic “to help the environment.” Ironically, this is where organic production has the best claim to superiority.
Specifically, research has found that organic farms have better soil health on average. This is due to the widespread use of practices that increase soil organic matter, such as cover cropping, mulching, crop rotation, and reduced tillage. Organic matter makes the soil less susceptible to erosion, better able to retain water and nutrients, and more hospitable to beneficial organisms. And while these specific practices are not required by organic certification, they are widely used on organic farms: In 2019, 46 percent of U.S. organic farms planted cover crops, 36 percent practiced no-tillage. or minimal tillage, and 35 percent used organic mulch. or compost.
However, some of these beneficial practices are also widely used on non-organic farms. Most surprisingly, non-organic farms practice reduced tillage as much or more than organic farms: in 2017, twice as many American farms reported using no-tillage or reduced tillage as intensive tillage. And more than 80 percent of U.S. crops are grown in some type of rotation (though many simply alternate corn and soybeans, while organic crop rotations tend to be more varied).
The cover crop is where we find the greatest distinction in organic farming practices. In 2019, nearly half of organic farms planted cover crops, compared to just 7 percent of all U.S. farms. But cover crops are growing on non-organic farms, with an increase of 50 percent. percent in total area between 2012 and 2017.
Unfortunately, non-organic farmers who employ soil health practices don’t get a premium like organic certification, and farmers who don’t can be swayed by the incentive.
Certifications like organic should provide consumers with useful information about how their food is produced, but the organic versus conventional or non-organic dichotomy is not as helpful as it sounds. It has created a black and white image of agricultural practices as organic and environmentally friendly or conventional and harmful to the environment, which confuses consumers and leaves out many farmers, such as “conventional” farmers who practice reduced tillage and crop rotation.
In theory, there are two ways out. The first is to create new certifications based on practices beneficial to the environment, regardless of whether they are traditionally considered organic or not. In this regard, several competing regenerative certifications are emerging, some with organic certification as a prerequisite and others without certification, giving farmers and consumers more options. However, the problem is that no agricultural practice is always beneficial; the result also depends on the context, including factors such as the type of crop and soil, and the climate.
The second, less common approach solves this problem: Results-based certifications indicate particular positive results rather than specific agricultural practices, giving farmers more flexibility with which practices to use (allowing them to experiment and innovate) and to consumers more reliable information. The difficulty lies in measuring these results, which can take a long time or face technical barriers, but certification organizations are finding ways to improve the measurement.
Overall, results-based certifications give farmers flexibility, encourage innovation, and provide clarity that would help consumers make decisions for the right reasons.
Emma kovak writes on biotechnology as a food and agriculture analyst at The Breakthrough Institute. He has a PhD in plant biology. Follow her on twitter @EmmaKovak
.