Part 1: Affirmative Argument
In recent years, organic food has become increasingly popular with American consumers.
For food to be certified organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it must be produced with
an emphasis on renewable resources and conservation, and without the use of most antibiotics,
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, or bioengineering (USDA). As these products become more
commonplace and proponents continue to claim that they have a wide range of benefits for
consumers, it is possible for government policy to support organic agriculture on a broader scale.
A proposed change to mandate that 50% of the food served in the school lunch program is
organic would help support the organic industry while also having positive effects on the health
of school children. In addition, promoting organic production would lead to numerous societal
gains and reduce some of the negative externalities associated with conventional food
production.
The most immediate benefits from switching to 50% organic food in the national school
lunch program would be increased nutrition and safer food for the children in schools across the
country. Many studies have claimed that there is a correlation between organic food and greater
nutritional value. By introducing students to healthier foods in the cafeteria and increasing
education which promotes these foods, government policy could help children make healthier
choices both at school and at home. Organic foods are also grown without synthetic fertilizers
and herbicides which means that there would be less residue of harmful chemicals on the food
served. Numerous studies have linked the chemicals used in conventional food production to
severe health concerns for children later in life. Therefore, it would be beneficial for students to
consume larger amounts of food which are produced with organic methods.
Increasing the amount of organic food served in the national school lunch program would
also lead to significant societal benefits. For example, organic production is much better for the
environment than conventional agriculture. Organic farming does not use synthetic pesticides
and fertilizers, which can runoff into water supplies, and it leads to less soil erosion. The cost of
these environmental problems is not accounted for in the price of conventional farming, and by
promoting organic food the government could reduce some of its environmental impact. Organic
farming uses less fossil fuels, which makes it more sustainable in the long term as oil supplies
continue to decrease and energy prices rise. Increased demand for organic food would also
encourage more humane treatment of animals as companies try to comply with federal
regulations for organic labeling.
Due to the fact that mandating organic food in the school lunch program would
substantially increase demand for organic products in the United States, the policy could greatly
encourage these societal benefits. Although there are studies that offer conflicting evidence on
the nutritional and safety benefits of organic food, it is clear that students would have some
health gains from consuming more organic food. The direct benefits to students as well as the
broader societal gains from promoting organic agriculture would make the policy a smart choice
for the national school lunch program even with some increase in spending due to higher food
costs.
Organic Food is More Nutritious
Argument
Although there has not been a lot of research on the topic and the United States
Department of Agriculture would love to persuade the nation differently, numerous studies have
proven the superior nutritional value of organic foods. Beyond the obvious benefits of not
constantly consuming pesticides and relying on artificial fertilizers, there is now proof that
conventional methods of farming can reduce the levels of essential vitamins and minerals in
fruits and vegetables.
According to the article “Not All Apples are Created Equal” from the Earth Island
Journal, our food is being grown too quickly for many vital nutrients to develop fully. As farmers
focus more on larger plants and higher yields faster, the nutrients do not have the same amount
of time as they did before to develop within the plant. This causes people to have to eat more in
order to receive the same amount of nutrition (Rich, 3). The article cites Charles Benbrook,
chief scientist at the Organic Center, as saying that conventionally grown food generally contains
thirty percent fewer antioxidants than organic. On his website for the Organic Center, a
presentation slideshow boasts that organically grown fruits and vegetables contain statistically
significant levels of vitamins and minerals that conventionally grown produce does not
(Benbrook, 2).
Interestingly enough, a lot of this is correlated with the amount of pesticides and
herbicides farmers use on their crops. Many of the cancer and disease-fighting flavonoids
humans have relied on for centuries stem from different plants’ natural defenses against disease
and pests. By adding artificial pesticides and herbicides, farmers are, in a sense, making plants
lazy. When the plants never encounter an insect or a disease, there is no need for them to ever
release any of the chemicals that generations of natural selection have provided them in order to
survive (Rich, 2). Unfortunately, these are the same disease-fighting chemicals that humans have
grown to depend on and gain from food.
Putting organic food in schools only makes sense. If the goal is to create nutritious
lunches not only for students who may not be receiving the same nutrition at home but also to
create healthy eating habits for the future, the best way to implement that is to give them the
healthiest food possible. The Institute of Medicine in 2009 released a report which noted that the
National School Lunch Program is not consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. The changes that were suggested include increasing the amount of whole grains
served, serving only low fat or non-fat milk, increasing servings of fruits and vegetables, and
restricting sodium levels (Institute of Medicine, 2009). Clearly there is room for increased
nutrition in school lunches, and organic food may be able to help close the gap.
Studies conducted not only by the Organic Center but also the National Institute of
Health have proven that commodities such as milk, when produced under organic guidelines,
contains slightly higher levels of protein than conventionally collected milk (Vicini, 1). It is also
interesting to note that the study that discovered this higher level of protein was actually funded
by Monsanto, a company that is typically associated with the factory farm lobby and
monopolization of agriculture. Any bias that they caused was still overtaken by the fact that
organic milk still came out nutritionally ahead.
Counter-Argument
Although organic food is almost always portrayed as healthier and more humane, many
of the arguments for it are skewed by media and advertising. A lot of the main arguments of
increased antioxidant capacity and superior nutrients are actually very small and could possibly
be explained by margin of error more than any actual increase. For every study out there that
states that, for example, organic carrots and spinach contain more beta-carotene than does
conventionally grown spinach, there is a small asterisk next to it that states that this may have
been the case in the lab, but there is no proof that it actually makes an impact on people’s
nutritional composition. The risk of food borne illness from organic fertilizers is much more
serious than the marginal benefit these children would get from organic food—and that is not
even proven as fact yet. Many of the top places to get information on the benefits of organic food
are from sources that are biased by people who prefer organic already. Finding unbiased sources
that are confident in declaring the nutrition benefits of organic food over conventional are
difficult to come by. The “Apples” article said it in its introduction—according to the United
States Department of Agriculture’s food pyramid, there is no differentiation between organic
food and conventional food. They deliver the same amount of nutrients.
Response to Counter-Argument
Primarily, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a history of siding
with the conventional farmers and supporting the commoditization and promotion of
monoculture in farming. According to the film “Food, Inc.,” the USDA is more willing to
investigate small, organic farms for infractions than large factory farms. Food, Inc. goes on to
explain a small farmer’s plight that he was investigated for slaughtering his animals in the open
air, whereas common practice was in a slaughterhouse. Further investigation proved that the
small farmer actually had lower levels of bacteria in his product than did the large
slaughterhouses—without need for irradiation or antibiotics. With this bias, naturally the USDA
will not be willing to endorse organics or concede that there may be a benefit to them. The
United States government is too preoccupied in subsidizing large farms and making sure prices
do not fluctuate to look at the merits of organics. By placing organic foods in the National
School Lunch Program, the USDA will have more access to organic food producers and, if
necessary can place any restrictions they need to on them. This does not necessarily need to be a
struggle between conventional and organic—if organic foods are integrated into school food
programs it can be the first step in collaborating grower’s efforts.
Organic Farming is Better for the Environment
Argument
Investing in children is investing in the future. Making 50 percent of school lunches
certified organic means creating a more sustainable tomorrow. There is constant discussion and
change to make school children’s lunches more nutritious, but what does that matter if at the
same time we are destroying the environment that they are going to grow up into?
A recent 22 year study by David Pimental, a Cornell University professor of ecology and
agriculture, has shown that crops such as corn and soybeans can be farmed organically to
produce equally as high yields in the long term without the damaging effects of pesticide runoff
and soil erosion. "Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30
percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain
soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does” (Pimental).
Organic farming is designed to be beneficial to the environment. Confusion often arises about
natural, humane, and organic, and people assume these words are interchangeable. They are not
though. Organic foods are those that are produced using environmentally sound methods that do
not involve modern synthetic inputs such as pesticides and chemical fertilizers, do not contain
genetically modified organisms, and are not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or
chemical food additives
The question now is what does all that mean? What does it mean that organic farming
uses less fossil energy and helps stop erosion? It is important to explain how these changes that
would come from increasing the amount of organic food being bought and sold in school lunches
are beneficial to the children.
Ten percent of the energy used every year in the United States is arguably used in the
food industry (Fossil Fuel and Energy Use). Fossil fuel is not a renewable source of energy, and
there is only so much of it in the world. Our ability to use fossil fuels has a time limit on it, since
it takes millions of years of decaying plants and animals under high heat and pressure to produce
fossil fuels that are used so liberally in our world today (Fossil Fuels). Organic farming uses an
average 30 percent less fossil fuel (Pimental). Thus, converting 50 percent of school lunches to
organic would mean using less fossil fuel, ensuring a healthier tomorrow for our students.
Soil erosion is another issue aggravated by conventional farming methods. Soil must be
rich in nutrients and moisture for successful farming. To achieve this, crops have to be rotated,
fertilized, and allowed time to rest before farming again. Soil erosion is when there is “removal
of topsoil faster than the soil forming processes can replace it, due to natural, animal, and human
activity (over grazing, over cultivation, forest clearing, mechanized farming, etc.)” (What is Soil
Erosion? Definition and Meaning). The lack of topsoil brought on by soil erosion is devastating.
Soil Erosion can lead to flooding, loss of soil fertility, and water pollution. The consequences of
soil erosion include “economic losses, lower living standards, major threats to biodiversity and
prolonged droughts” (Soil Degradation: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions).
Organic farming methods lead to far less soil erosion, thus creating a more sustainable
farm. It is an investment in our children’s futures to support organic farming, because in doing so
we are ensuring that there will still be farmable land left for them.
Counter Argument
Common arguments against organic farming include that lower yields and decreased
efficiency in organic farming require more land, and that many times buying organic does not
reduce your carbon footprint because that food still has to be shipped, plowed, and requires more
land to produce the same yields. Conventional farming is efficient. It allows a farmer to get the
most use out of the land available to them. A farmer can sell more food, use less land, and feed
more people at lower costs. “Chemical-based farming methods vastly increased crop yields and
made it possible to feed far more people than ever before. So much so that it could be argued that
the recent food crisis isn't so much about our food system failing so much as it is about the
slowdown of an unprecedented food boom that came about thanks to the methods the organic
movement decries” (Argument Against Organic Food). Pimental’s 22 year study on organic
farming concluded that although certain crops are able to yield as high as conventional farming
methods after some time, other fruits and veggies such as “grapes, apples, cherries and potatoes”
did not because of a greater vulnerability to pest problems (Pimental).
Thus, this idea of organic farming saving the earth is riddled with fallacy. In order to
sustain our current population it would require even more land, thus creating problems such as
deforestation and hurting the environment. The consequences of increasing the organic farming
market would include cutting down vital rainforests that reduce carbon in the air substantially.
Trees are what keep the air clean, and organic farming is going to mean cutting down more of
them.
Response to Counter-Argument
While in the short term, it appears that organic farming would require more land, the idea
that a shift toward more organic farming as oppose to conventional farming would lead to further
deforestation and environmental devastation is just bad science. Scientists producing this kind of
information and data are often funded through corporations and people that have a financial
interest in maintaining the status quo of conventional farming. David Avery, who started the
anti-organic movement, works for an institute funded by Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences,
Novartis, AgrEvo and Zeneca-- all of whom have a stake in conventional farming (Myths spread
by the pro-GM, anti-organic movement). As Marcus Williamson put quite well, “The real fact is
that there is already enough food to feed the world's population now and into the future. The US
and Europe waste millions of tonnes of food each year through programs which artificially
maintain the price of crops coming from farmers. Quite simply, GM food is not needed to feed
the world. What's missing are the political will and distribution mechanisms to get the existing
food supplies to the people who need them” (Myths spread by the pro-GM, anti-organic
movement). Thus, attacking a more responsible way of farming by claiming it does not yield
enough to feed the world is not a sound argument. The issues at hand are not about yields, it’s
about changing how we deal with hunger in the world and allocating resources to prevent it.
Organic Agriculture will lead to Healthier and Safer Food
Argument
The main difference between organic and non-organic food is that organic food is grown
and handled without the use of toxic chemicals. Most non-organic foods use pesticides and
herbicides on produce which are toxic to humans and can build up in the body consequently
causing disease. The herbicide glyphosphate, or more commonly known as Roundup, which is
mostly used on soy, has been scientifically linked to many health defects. Glufosinate, also
known as Basta, has been researched and concluded to cause birth defects. Many studies have
also shown that these chemicals are linked to many common allergies and even Alzheimers.
Although the use of some pesticides and herbicides have been banned in the United States, much
of the produce that is grown outside of the United States and eventually imported still is exposed
to harmful chemical (Paul). Organic food on the other hand uses natural methods to control
weeds and insects. For example, weeds are controlled naturally by crop rotation, hand weeding,
mulching and tilling rather than the use of harsh herbicides. Insects are naturally controlled by
birds, good insects, and traps (Paul). Exposure to pesticides has also been linked to various
behavioral disorders often found in children.
Many children that have been exposed to pesticides while in the womb are more likely to
form attention disorders later in life, especially if the children are continuing to eat food that is
contaminated with pesticides. “There's also "suggestive evidence" that some children may harbor
genetic variations that make them more susceptible to the neurocognitive effects of pesticides”
(Gardner). Instating laws that only organic food can be served in schools will have a great
benefit for children especially if they were exposed to pesticides in utero. Also by eating organic
food, children will be protected from a slew of other issues such as infertility later in life, asthma,
cancer, etc (Gardner). According to the Global Hearing Center, these effects have been recorded
in the past due to pesticides, “Fetuses, (pre-birth babies), may suffer from exposure and exhibit
behavioral problems, growth issues, lower cognitive scores, fewer nerve cells and lower birth
weight, a lower resistance to the toxic effects of pesticide, a greater risk (70% increase), for
Parkinson's disease, even with low levels of pesticides” (Group). Several of these toxins can
build up in the liver and cause major issues down the line when these children mature. Some side
effects of pesticide exposure are: fatigue, headaches, skin irritations, nausea, vomiting, breathing
problems, brain disorders, blood disorders, liver and kidney damage, reproductive damage,
cancer, and death (Group). “A new study from researchers at Emory University finds that
switching children to an organic diet provides a "dramatic and immediate protective effect"
against exposures to two organophosphate pesticides that are commonly used in U.S. agricultural
production—malathion and chlorpyrifos” (Grinning Planet).
Many non-organic farms are using sewage sludge or “biosolids” to fertilize soil. The
problem lies not with the actual usages of human waste as fertilizer but the fact that the sludge is
sent to waste treatment plants. When the fertilizer is sent to waste treatment plants it is then
mixed with toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT, asbestos, and dioxins. In turn, the toxins are
grown into our food and later eaten. Organic food is grown with organic fertilizers such as
manure and compost which are proven to be much safer for consumers. Sewage sludge has also
been known to overflow into the water supply which could cause major issues for citizens. “The
greatest threats posed to water resources arise from contamination by bacteria, nitrates, metals,
trace quantities of toxic materials, and salts. Seepage overflow into drinking water sources can
cause disease from the ingestion of microorganisms such as E coli, Giardia, Cryptosporidium,
Hepatitis A, and helminths” ("Contamination of Water and Soil by Sewage and Water Treatment
Sludge") .
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are plants or animals, who’s DNA has been
altered. “Scientists have been and are currently introducing genetic material into organisms to
alter, create and affect changes in living plants and animals. These radical changes scientists are
developing create specific, desirable traits that might never evolve naturally” (Global Healing
Group). These products have undergone only short term testing to determine their effects on
humans and the environment. Organic farms are not allowed to use GMOs ("Advantages of
Organic Food"). Many GMOs can also become immune to certain herbicides which can
ultimately cause major issues since herbicides will have to be strengthened in order to protect the
plants. The long term effects of GMO have not been seen yet however there have been several
short term effects in the past. In 1989, a Japanese company was required to pay a $2 billion court
settlement after American citizens became ill due to a genetically modified derivative of
Tryptophan (which is found in turkey). In 1996, it was stated that it was severely dangerous to
consume nuts from Brazil that had been genetically modified because the nuts caused allergic
reactions that were so intense they often led to death. “In 2006, Japan suspended long grain rice
imports from the US after tests revealed that the rice contained trace amounts of GMO that were
not approved for human consumption. In the US, we still accept variations of the banned genetic
modification to the rice” (Group). In summation, genetically modified foods have an impact on
the human physiological system. Many GMOs cause people to become resistant to certain
antibiotics showing that testing has not gone far enough to protect consumers. If children
continue to eat GMOs in schools instead of switching to organic it can be potentially devastating
for their future (Group).
The differences between organic and conventional meat and dairy are much more
prominent than that of produce. Conventionally raised meat and dairy are given antibiotics and
medications to prevent livestock disease. Conventional animal feed typically contains antibiotics,
animal by products, hormones, pesticides and arsenic based drugs. All of these toxic byproducts
are by default found in all conventional meat which is consumed by the public. However,
organic livestock are fed organic feed and are only administered antibiotics if needed. Disease is
prevented with natural methods such as clean housing, rotational grazing, and healthy diet. In
addition, conventional farms may or may not allow livestock access to the outdoors. Organic
farms require that the livestock have access to the outdoors. This allows for cleaner, healthier
and less stressed livestock. The use of parasiticides in organic livestock is also strictly regulated
(Paul).
Organic certification states that the products have been grown and handled following strict
guidelines that state there must be no use of toxic chemicals. If something is Certified Organic it
is guaranteed that the farm has underwent strict investigation to assure that all practices are
organic and safe (Paul).
Counter Argument:
Organic food may actually lead to a higher risk of food borne illness. Studies show that
organic produce may contain a higher risk of fecal contamination than conventionally grown
produce. During a comparative study, it was found that organic produce was much more likely to
contain E.coli bacteria on produce compared to conventionally grown produce. This is because
the organic produce is grown with natural fertilizers and compost as opposed to synthetic
fertilizer. Manure is a large hoarder of bacteria which in turn contaminates produce. In fact,
according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, people who eat organic and natural food are
eight times more likely to be attacked by a new strain of the E.coli bacteria ("Advantages and
Disadvantages of Organic Farming").
Research has also found much higher levels of salmonella in free range chickens as
opposed to conventionally raised chickens. This is because of organic farmers’ lack of use of
antibiotics and other precautionary measures. The national outbreak of salmonella in products
with peanuts from plants in Texas and Georgia all had organic certification. These peanut
grounds and peanut products all were rodent infested and contained mold and bird droppings. In
another case, Whole Foods Market recalled raw hazelnuts in many of their stores due to a
salmonella outbreak. Once again this is because of the use of natural compost and fertilizer
amongst organic farms as opposed to synthetic fertilizer which has been proven to yield lower
rates of bacteria including salmonella and E.coli (Severson).
Higher levels of bacteria in organic foods are caused by the use of natural fertilizer and
compost. Most of the compost contains manure that is several weeks old that can harbor bacteria
unless exposed to 160 degrees of heat. However, most compost is kept at 130 degrees thus still
allowing for bacteria to survive. Although there are dangers in chemical fertilizers there are
undoubtedly major dangers with animal compost. Organic food also has a high chance of
contamination by natural toxins produced by mold and fungus. It has been stated that many of
these toxins could possibly be carcinogens (Kirby).
Organic food is not necessarily healthier than conventionally controlled food. It also has
been found that up to two-thirds of organic chickens are infected with parasites, as well. Organic
and free-range chickens also are more susceptible to bird flu and have higher chances of
contracting a bacteria called Campylobacter, which causes vomiting, diarrhea and stomach
infections” (Fiorentino). It may be better for a child to consume a conventional diet as opposed
to an organic one because Studies have shown that infants and children exposed to a soy-based
diet go through puberty earlier than others. This is because the phytoestrogens in the soy act as a
hormone in the body, causing infants to have hormones like the adult body. Studies show that
depending on the feeding habits, potency of the product and age, some infants consume the
equivalent of 10 contraceptive pills in a single day. The phytoestrogens have also been linked to
thyroid disorders as well as developmental and behavior disorders” (Fiorentino)
Response to Counter-Argument:
School lunch safety rules significantly changed nine months ago in July 2010 (Weise).
These changes brought the school lunch program to same regulatory threshold as other
commercial products. The nation should analyze the effectiveness of these new changes in
regard to safety and healthfulness of school lunches before making conclusions about the health
of organic or conventional food served in school lunches.
The changes made include tougher safety standards for beef, poultry, eggs, and produce.
The safety standards have been put in place to reduce outbreaks of salmonella and E. coli
O157:H7. Beef will now be tested every 15 minutes during production, which is four times more
than old safety standards (Weise). The new requirements will ban companies from supplying
food to the school lunch program if they have poor safety records, and companies can be
suspended from the program if they recall a product commercially that is supplied to the school
lunch program (Weise).
Organic Agriculture Promotes Humane Treatment of Animals
Argument
In order to be certified organic, farmers must agree to certain animal care standards. In
addition to animals being treated in a more humane manner, the standards also minimize
transmission of disease between animals. This minimized exposure of disease will ensure less
transmission of disease to humans that consume organic products. The following is a detailed
list of those standards:
 Farms must have a plan in place to protect animals from farm accidents, natural disasters,
disease outbreak, water availability, and quality.
 There must be strict rules in place to avoid disease outbreak. Animals must be kept away
from incoming stock, visitors, trucks, equipment, and other external sources of disease.
 Animals must always have access to fresh water.
 Water must be tested for coliforms and nitrates regularly to ensure water safety. Farmers
must humanely protect crops and livestock from insects and rodents and cannot use toxins
or pesticides. All removal mechanisms must be certified organic.
 Farmers can only administer antibiotics to minimize suffering and when all other methods
have failed. Animals that are treated with antibiotics must be removed from production.
Animals must be fed foods that are within the realm of what they would ordinarily be fed.
 Animals can only be vaccinated for diseases in their geographic region.
 All hormones are prohibited.
 Livestock should never be mistreated and should always be handled calmly.
 There should be a designated pen for ill or injured animals away from the general
population of livestock.
(Animal Health Committee)
Counter-Argument
Humane handling requirements also exist for conventionally produced food in current
regulations. For example, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an agency under the
Department of Agriculture, routinely inspects food processing and slaughter establishments for
humane handling. Establishments are required to maintain pens and ramps in safe conditions to
prevent harm to animals, provide food and water, and prevent excessive force or harm against
the animals when they are being moved (FSIS, 2007).
Stricter humane handling requirements may increase costs for producers, which will be
transferred onto the consumer in terms of higher food prices. This will also impact school
budgets with higher prices. Additional humane requirements are not really necessary because
existing regulations address the issue, and it is difficult to enforce more specific requirements.
It has also been found that humane handling is not always significantly better at organic
farms. Michael Pollan describes factory farms which produce organic milk using feed lots with
organic grain and cows that never are put on pasture (Pollan, 2006, p. 139). The idealized
picture of organic farms with happy, pasture fed animals may not be a reality as organic
agriculture is pursued on a wider scale. Many companies will pursue the bare minimum humane
handling requirements for certification while still charging higher prices.
Response to Counter Argument:
Although there is no way to ensure perfect compliance with humane handling
requirements, national policy can help encourage private businesses to adhere to stricter
standards. Due to the fact that mandating 50% of the school lunch program be composed of
organics would represent such a significant shift in demand, the policy could have a significant
impact on treatment of animals across the country. Documentaries such as Food, Inc. have
shown chickens which are packed together without room to move, live in complete darkness, and
are not able to develop for proper movement. The film also showed cows which are confined in
industrial feedlots without free space, a clean environment, or healthy food to consume (Kenner
et al, 2009). As a modernized society, we should not allow poor treatment of animals simply for
the sake of a lower food bill. If government policy can help promote more ethical and humane
treatment of animals, while also providing other health and nutritional benefits to children, it
should be pursued. Organic production would enhance the humane treatment guidelines which
already exist for conventional food.
Part 2: Negative Argument
Aware of the chemicals and other man made materials that resided in industrially
produced food, the Organic movement started in the 1970’s and 80’s with a small group of
farmers who wanted to choose an alternative, natural method to grow their food in order to
escape the industrial methods for agricultural production. These new age farmers, disillusioned
with modern agricultural practices, called for a change to environmentally friendly and all
natural practices in order to produce foods that are healthy. However, despite the eco-friendly
and natural health musings of this agricultural movement, is it actually feasible in the modern
era? Should 50% of all school lunches be comprised of entirely organic meals? Unfortunately,
the organic movement isn’t sustainable for an ever increasing world population and contrary to
popular belief, these foods may not be more nutritional than conventionally produced foods.
Also, the environmental demands for agricultural practices of the organic ideology contradicts its
environmentally friendly mantra. Therefore, it isn’t reasonable to mandate 50% of school
lunches to be comprised of organic foods.
In the modern era where the population of the world is ever increasing, the agricultural
practices of the organic movement aren’t realistically feasible because organic agricultural
practices yield fewer crops than standard modern industrial methods. Although a change in
demand for organic products would increase the production of organic goods due to an increased
shift in agricultural practices, it would alter the national markets from their most efficient levels
of production. The consequences could be dire as it can influence a net decrease in food
availability and can increase food prices for the average consumer. Nations across the world
shouldn’t pursue agricultural or food policies that decrease food production and increase costs
because it isn‘t reasonable nor efficient. If similar policies were to be implemented towards
conventional means of agricultural production, it would increase the availability of food for
school lunch programs and will protect domestic food security in general because it will lower
food prices. Therefore, implementing organic policies into schools as well as onto national levels
is not reasonable.
Despite popular beliefs about organic foods, the absence of synthetic chemicals and
genetic modifications doesn’t make it anymore nutritional than conventionally produced foods.
According to medical sources such as the Mayo clinic, organic foods contain a higher dosage of
phosphorous and acids which may define a “better” taste but it doesn’t necessarily mean better
nutritional value. In fact, these medical reports conclude very little evidence for the superiority
of organic foods in terms of nutrition compared to conventionally produced foods. Hence,
schools will be wasting funds if they are to follow a policy that mandates 50% of school lunches
to be organic because there will be little or no nutritional difference.
Additionally to the unfeasibility of the organic movement, agricultural practices that
pertain to the organic ideology may actually harm the environment rather than do good because
they must adapt to an ever growing population. Organic agricultural practices will eventually call
for the use of more land due to low crop yields from utilizing all natural growing methods.
Organic agricultural practices must use more land to sustain a large growing population.
Therefore, the consequences of these agricultural practices will be the destruction of the
environment for more farmland and the increased privatization of land for agricultural practices.
Should 50% of school lunches be mandated to be organic? The answer is no because
organic agricultural practices in the food industry isn’t practically reasonable to use in order to
sustain a large growing population because it decreases crop yields and increases food price so
there may not be enough food to make any school lunches organic at all. Also, there isn’t much
nutritional difference between conventionally produced foods with organic foods other than
biased assumptions for “better” tastes which doesn’t provide conclusive evidence towards better
nutrition. And environmentally, these practices are destructive because they call for more land
usage towards agriculture.
The Cost of Organic Food is Too High
Argument
One of the main arguments against organic food is the high cost relative to
conventionally produced food. Organic production is more expensive for several reasons.
Organic farming is more labor intensive, due to the fact that not using pesticides and herbicides
requires more hand-weeding and personal attention to crops and animals. The inputs for organic
farming are also more expensive than conventional industrial farming because crops are rotated,
requiring more use of land and less crop output, more expensive animal feed is used, and other
necessary steps to comply with regulations for organic certification. All of these costs will be
transferred onto the consumer in terms of higher food prices. In this case, if the school lunch
program were to start using 50% organic foods, there would be an increasing price burden for
school administrators and the taxpayers who fund local schools.
The chart below shows price differences between several varieties of USDA organic and
conventional foods. While some of the price differentials are modest (50 cents increase for a
pound of organic broccoli), others are quite significant. Organic eggs are more than double the
price of conventional eggs, and organic potatoes cost two dollars more than conventional for a
five pound bag. The overall point drawn from this graphic is that all of the organic items are
more expensive than the conventional items, and so increasing organic food in the national
school lunch program would lead to a definite price increase.
The National School Lunch Program cost 9.8 billion dollars in 2009, and these costs will
continue to rise without any change in policy (FNS). School budgets are already overburdened
as state and local governments face decreases in revenue and rising administrative costs. States
across the country are all facing similar fiscal challenges as they struggle to recover from the
recent recession. In New Jersey, Governor Christie has proposed reducing school aid by 7.4%,
while cities such as Detroit and Kansas City are closing dozens of schools because they cannot
afford to operate them anymore (Chivvis 2010). If the decision to purchase 50% organic foods
for the school lunch program were enacted as an unfunded mandate, most states would have a
difficult time complying because the funding is simply not there.
An organic food mandate could lead to higher school taxes, cuts to other school
programs, or even staff reductions. These cuts would be in addition to the recent cuts which
have been necessary due to the recession, and could cripple school districts which are already
operating at reduced capacity. Another consideration is that if food prices are higher for the
school lunch program, schools may cut down on the quantity of food offered, particularly for the
more expensive and nutrient rich items such as fruits and vegetables. The policy could lead to
smaller food portions being fed to students with less nutritional food overall even if it complies
with the 50% requirement from organic sources. Even if the policy was funded at the federal
level, with more money given to school districts to help with compliance, this would still strain
the federal budget and increase the deficit. Adding more financial burden to any level of
government would be politically unpopular and potentially lead to cuts in other essential
programs and employment budgets.
Counter-Argument:
Although immediate prices would be higher, purchasing organic food would promote a
large amount of positive societal benefits. Due to the fact that the school system represents such
a large purchaser of food, increasing to 50% organic food would have a substantial effect on
positive and politically popular outcomes such as reduced pollution, reduced use of fossil fuels,
healthier food, and potentially more nutritious food for the students. All of these goals would
benefit the majority of the population and encourage more sustainable trends in agriculture. In
addition, if the cost of conventional food is considered along with negative externalities, there
may not be much difference. An externality is a market failure where the cost or benefit of a
transaction is not accounted for in the price. In this example, conventional farming produces
significant costs such as pollution which are not included in typical cost measures. Although the
costs of organic food may be more direct and noticeable, conventional food still carries some
cost burdens for any level of government.
Another important point is that mandating organic foods for 50% of school lunches
would dramatically increase the demand for organic food because of the sheer number of school
lunches consumed every day. While this might create a short term jump in price, the increased
demand for organic products will stimulate production and incentivize more businesses to shift
production to organic sectors. As a result, in the long run prices should drop as the market
becomes more competitive and supply increases to meet the growing demand. This large shift in
the economics of the current organic market means that current prices will not dictate future
costs associated with the policy, and it may not be as difficult for schools as predicted.
Response to Counter-Argument:
Although the societal gains mentioned above would have numerous benefits for society,
this does not mean that limited school budget money should be spent to pursue them. If the
government wanted to limit agricultural pollution, for example, then direct regulation on
agricultural producers would be a more effective means rather than promoting organic food
which would in turn reduce pollution in a more indirect way. Fiscal policy makers should
consider direct and predictable costs first, such as the increase in spending that would be
necessary for purchasing organic food, rather than speculating about long term costs associated
with pollution or healthier food.
In light of the current financial difficulties faced by state and federal governments, the
short term increase in spending would be a severe burden. Even if costs eventually come down
in the long term, the initial spending increase would not be a responsible choice for policy
makers. If the increased food costs led to cuts in other school programs or employee reductions,
the benefit of more nutritional food may not be worth it for school systems. Finally, it is still
possible for schools to offer nutritional and affordable meals with conventional food until
revenue and deficits improve and alternative policies could be considered.
Organic Production is Inefficient
Argument
The school lunch program should not promote mandate 50% organic food because
organic production is inefficient in terms of crop yields. Such a significant shift in demand for
organic food would increase organic production, and distort the national food market away from
its most efficient levels of production. The result could be a net decrease in available food across
the country and increased prices for regular consumers. The country should pursue policies that
increase food output and cost efficiency. If the same level of resources were put into
conventional production, more food would be available for the school lunch program and to
ensure domestic food security in general. Therefore, investing in organic food is not a rational
policy decision on a broader level.
A Swiss study which was published in 2002 found that organic farming could be
economically viable but that crop yields were significantly lower than conventional farming.
The average was 20% lower yields, with that number ranging from around 40% less for potatoes
and only 10% less for wheat (Green 2002). These numbers indicate that if more farmers
switched to organic production in order to make profit off the new demand from the school lunch
program, we would see noticeable decreases in the total output of food produced by American
farmers. Conventional food prices might rise, straining the budgets of low income families and
other social programs or charities that depend on cheap surplus food.
The purchasing power of the national school system is much greater than that of an
individual who decides to purchase organic food. As a result, the move to 50% organic would
greatly impact production decisions across the country. As more farmers started to use organic
methods, we would expect to see a net decrease in food production. This would negate many of
the productivity gains which have been made in recent years with technological advances. It
could also indirectly lead to higher food costs for conventional foods in school cafeterias due to
less supply, and an overall societal loss from inefficient production. This loss, which can be
understood as a deadweight loss, occurs in economic systems because production and
consumption are not at optimal levels and the market is distorted. Prices would be lower and
supply would be higher if the schools purchased food based on the lowest cost, which would be
conventionally produced foods.
Counter-Argument
Not all studies have proven that organic farming produces substantially less yield.
Research from Cornell University in 2005 found that organic corn and soybeans had similar
yields compared to conventionally farmed corn and soybeans. Although the first few years saw
fewer yields, over time the organic systems began to produce comparable yields, and even higher
yields than conventional during drought years (Lang 2005). It is possible that these types of
crops could still be productive using organic methods. If the production yields are similar but
less pesticides and fossil fuels are used in the process, organic farming could be more efficient
under some circumstances. Organic farming even uses soil and natural resources more
efficiently, as it relies on crop rotation and natural fertilizers rather than synthetic fertilizers.
A 2007 study found that “organic agriculture has the potential to produce as much, or
even more food, than is being produced today with conventional methods” (Perfecto and
Badgely, 2007, p.17). Although the production gains were more significant for developing
countries that begin to use organic food, developed countries could still have comparable yields.
The crop yield was worse for root legumes in this study, such as potatoes, but fairly similar for
wheat and grains. If there was potential for similar production but with less negative externalities
such as pesticide pollution and energy use, then increased demand for organic food could have
positive net benefits across the world.
It is also possible that in the long-run, organic production will become more efficient. As
more and more producers shift to organic, they will gain more experience and develop
technology and methods which lead to more production. This illustrates the economic principle
of economies of scale, where the cost per unit decreases as the output increases. As larger
companies become involved in organic production, and others gain more expertise, the overall
cost should decrease and farms should become more productive.
Response to Counter-Argument:
Government policy makers should not focus on potential production values and future
prices. The mixed results from studies on organic production indicate that in many cases,
organic farming leads to less crop yield. The best results from organic farming were in
developing countries, so the positive studies may not be applicable to the United States. Without
substantial money to invest in organic farming, we need to consider current production levels to
be the most important factor. The distinction between crops such as corn and wheat which can
be grown at similar levels with organic farming, and crops that do not fare as well, such as
potatoes, is an important point however. It may be worthwhile for school districts to pursue
organic foods with lower relative costs and better production ratios when compared to
conventional foods.
Organic Food is Dominated by Corporate Interests
Argument
In the age of the global commercial economy, corporations should have influence over
the organic movement because the sheer amount of resources held by these corporations can
expand organic products from their niche markets to the general public thus increasing demand
and availability of organic products to more people:
In 2001, individual companies that sold organic products only represented two percent of
the produce market, but corporate backing enabled that statistic to increase to 10 percent (Harris,
2001). However, that statistic was in 2001, and the numbers have substantially increased since
then. “U.S. sales of organic food and beverages have grown from $1 billion in 1990 to $24.8
billion in 2009. Sales in 2009 represented 5.1 percent growth over 2008 sales. Experiencing the
highest growth in sales during 2009 were organic fruits and vegetables, up 11.4 percent over
2008 sales” (Organic Trade Association’s 2010 Organic Industry Survey).
Also, the nature of the modern capitalist economy enables the market to adapt to the
demands of the consumers. Therefore the capitalist structure of the market will contribute to the
rise in the availability of organic products. “Mass market retailers (mainstream supermarkets,
club/warehouse stores, and mass merchandisers) in 2009 sold 54 percent of organic food. Natural
retailers were next, selling 38 percent of total organic food sales” (Organic Trade Association’s
2010 Organic Industry Survey). Therefore, corporation influence will be beneficial for the
organic food industry and it will become increasingly dominated by corporate interests.
However, despite the resourcefulness of the corporations to increase the availability of
organic foods, corporations may eventually hold monopolies over organic products and oust fair
competition as well as eliminate entrepreneurial diversity. The inevitability of corporate
influence on the organic food industry eliminates fair competition because these corporations can
simply buy out smaller competition. “Many organic brands marketed as if they are small,
independent, benevolent firms are actually owned by transnationals. They include… Back to
Nature, held since 2003 by Kraft (a subsidiary of Altria, which owns tobacco giant Phillip
Morris)” (Irving, 2006).
It has been noted that “small and medium producers are being squeezed out because it
becomes financially unviable for them to sell to supermarkets that are pushing down prices and
cutting margins” (Irving, 2006). A study by Michigan State University found that the organic
industry is becoming increasingly consolidated with large firms buying out organic producers.
In 1995 they listed 81 independent organic brands, yet in 2007 most of these brands were bought
out by large corporations (Howard, 2009). The graphs associated with this study show how
these giant corporations are all interconnected with each organic brand and there is no room for
entrepreneurship.
Also, the elimination of competition will derail many of the existing ideologies of the
organic movement due to ideological clashes with corporate philosophies as corporations may
sacrifice organic standards in order to maintain the practical efficiency in order to make profit.
(Harris, 2001). “More specifically, there’s a fear that the corporate parent, whose loyalty as to its
stockbrokers, will support the broader social and environmental philosophies of the organics
cause - like the importance of paying farmers a living wage or selling produce locally - only as
long as they square with the bottom” (Harris, 2001).
Organic foods or products unfortunately may act as a red herring on a moral level. It will
shift attention away from the past transgressions such as environmental damages, human rights
violations, and etc; by these corporations. Sarah Irving writes that “despite being infamous for
pollution, land rights abuses and genetically modified crops, the corporations which already
control much of the globe’s food supply, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, are
increasingly buying up organic companies.” (Irving, 2006).
Counter-Argument:
Just because the national organic market will be dominated by the corporations doesn’t
mean that the small organic farmer will necessarily be rendered obsolete. Luanne Lohr noted
that “The [organics] industry is going to be split’… ‘Larger organic growers are going to look for
national markets [like super markets], while smaller growers will be left to local markets like
farmer markets, community based agriculture and local restaurants’ where buyers will be willing
to spend more for the cause” (Harris, 2001). The market won’t be limited to only one type of
organic market rather there will be two markets; one for the average consumer and the other for
the organically conscious consumer. This way organic food will be widely available but will
keep some of the integrity of the organic movement.
Contrary to popular belief, the organic food industry doesn’t completely benefit the
environment because it is not realistically sustainable in the sense that sacrificing many synthetic
chemicals or genetic enhancements in favor of all natural growing methods will eventually call
for the use of more land in order to sustain an ever growing population. Therefore, the
corporatization of the organic food industry may enable more environmental damage and the
privatization of more land regardless of the level of corporate control.
Response to Counter-Argument:
The Organic movement under corporate supervision will provide environmental benefits
because commercial Farmers will use less pesticides and chemicals for agricultural purposes.
Corporate backing on the organic revolution can dampen the environment damage caused by
industrial farmers because the pesticides and other harmful chemicals currently used by farmers
will no longer be necessary to grow organic plants.
In the past, industrial farmers were heavily reliant on pesticides and other chemicals
“According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the total U.S. pesticide usage in 1992
(excluding wood preservatives and disinfectants) was 1.1 billion pounds of active ingredients”
(Union of Concerned Scientists).
“U.S. agriculture also consumes enormous amounts of fertilizer. Total consumption of
nitrogen, phosphate, and potash increased dramatically between 1960 and 1980, reaching a high
of 23.7 million nutrient tons in 1981. Fertilizer use has fallen somewhat since then, amounting to
20.7 million tons in 1992” (Union of Concerned Scientists). And unfortunately, they are still
reliant on pesticides and herbicides. In addition, “Every year, conventional farmers dump 1
billion pounds of pesticides and herbicides and 22 million tons of chemicals onto their crops”
(Harris, 2001).
However, corporate control of organic production may reduce some of the benefits we
typically associate with organic food. For instance, Michael Pollan notes that the organic
industry successfully fought to allow synthetic additives for production of organic TV dinners,
and that large organic producers are allowed to run industrial feed lots as long as they use
organic grain (Pollan, 2006, p. 156). As more processed foods become organic, and large
producers and retailers attempt to take a share of the profit from the organic sector, we may see
less of the benefits associated with organic products. Even if the school lunch program were to
include more organic food, the benefits may be minimal while corporations made larger profits
at the expense of school budgets.
Organic Food Does Not Have Nutritional Benefits
Argument
The organic food market, although well-intentioned, has been marketed as a cure-all for
society’s food supply woes. Unfortunately, that is all that it appears to be: marketing. According
to the Mayo Clinic’s website, “A recent study examined the past 50 years' worth of scientific
articles about the nutrient content of organic and conventional foods. The researchers concluded
that organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs are comparable in their nutrient
content.” (Mayo, 2) Many of the advertised health benefits of organic foods appear to be scoured
from a lot of studies where organic foods came out with statistically significant, but still minute,
increases in antioxidants and nutrients. The Sunday Times from the United Kingdom also ran an
article in 2009 which explained that the Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom found
that although organic foods had higher levels of phosphorous and acidity, neither component was
vital to health. Although there is still technically a health benefit, people already receive
sufficient phosphorous in their diet and acidity is related more to taste than to nutritional value.
That the food tastes better cannot be argued in the same category as improved nutrition. The
article goes on to discuss that although people choose to eat organic food, their rationale is rarely
that it has better nutritional value than does conventional food. Most of the time, people went
organic for ethical treatment of animals, fewer pesticides, or environmental safety, not nutritional
value. (Elliot, 1)
Also, a lot of the information available promoting consumption of organic foods for
improved nutrition is from organic websites. It is easy to believe that a lot of bias from funding
through organic corporations is influencing what these organizations put on their websites. It is
impossible to take any sort of unbiased view when the only real information about whether
organics are more nutritious is typically on a website with a name “organics.net” or something to
that effect. Many such websites make statements about flavonoid levels in tomatoes or increased
antioxidants in blueberries, although there is no definitive research showing such. Even if
different fruits and vegetables have different levels and such, which is no rationale to integrate
them into the National School Food program. There does not appear to be any conclusive
evidence that organic food is any more nutritious, and School Food programs do not have the
money to spend on something that is not a definite. There has not been a high enough level of
consensus in unbiased sources to say that adding organic food to the National School Food
Program would have a significant nutritional benefit for schoolchildren, or that teaching them to
choose organic will make a significant impact on their nutritional wellbeing for the rest of their
lives.
Counter-Argument
One of the main reasons that there has not been a lot of unbiased consensus about
whether or not organic food is more nutritious is because there simply have not been enough
studies or funding for studies. The United States government is much more willing to spend
money to research different ways to save money on food and increase the commoditization of
products such as corn and soybeans rather than change gears. If a research organization is going
to receive money to fund a study, chances are it is going to be from someone in the organics
field. Many websites promoting organics and organic food are the only ones that are vouching
for its nutritional value because they are working to spread awareness.
By adding organic food to the National School Lunch Program, there will be a larger
clientele and thus, the potential for more studies on how much merit the studies prior have. As
for the cost, there are many other benefits to having organics in the Lunch Program besides
nutritional value to make it worthwhile if people are skeptical about its nutritional value. Either
way, there is consensus on both sides that organic foods are not worse for you than
conventionally grown foods.
Response to Counter-Argument
Although there are many other benefits to organic food in school food programs,
nutritional value is not one of them. An unbiased source, Science Daily, made a statement:
“No systematic differences between cultivation systems representing organic and
conventional production methods were found across the five crops so the
study does not support the belief that organically grown foodstuffs generally contain
more major and trace elements than conventionally grown foodstuffs.” (Society, 1)
The trace elements he is referring to are the same nutrients that are being claimed to be
significantly higher in organic food. The study that produced these results is from the
International Center for Research in Organic Food, which operates out of Denmark. They have
found plenty of other positives to support organic farming and distribution of food, nutrition is
not one of them.
Also, with the heavy bias of the organics lobby, many parents may be skeptical of the
organic food grower’s credibility. If parents are against the National School Food Program, then
there is no way that it will be successful in this country. If only organics farmers are stating that
their food have more nutritional value, they will not appear credible to the rest of the country.
There is not enough evidence at this time to make the case for organic food in schools appeal to
the general public.
Works Cited
"Advantages and Disadvantages of Organic Farming." Advantages and Disadvantages of
Organic Farming. Buzzle, Web. 27 Mar 2011. Available online at:
<http://www.buzzle.com/articles/advantages- and-disadvantages-of-organicfarming.html>.
"Advantages of Organic Food." Advantages of Organic Food. Organic Food for Everyone,
Web. 27 Mar 2011. <http://www.organic-food-for-everyone.com/advantages-of-organicfood.html>.
"Animal Health Committee Report." CROPP Cooperative Animal Care Program. Available
online at <httwp://www.farmers.coop/resources.animal-care-program>
"Contamination of Water and Soil by Sewage and Water Treatment Sludge." Contamination of
Water and Soil by Sewage and Water Treatment Sludge. ExtoxNet, Web. 27 Mar 2011.
<http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/safedrink/sewage.htm>.
"Don't believe the hypermarket." New Internationalist 395 (2006): 10-11. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.
"Erosion." Agri-Science Resources for High School Sciences. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
<www.edu.pe.ca/agriculture/erosion.pdf>.
Fiorentino, Catherine. "Negatives of Organic Meat in Baby Food." Negatives of Organic Meat in
Baby Food. EHow, n.d. Web. 27 Mar 2011.
<http://www.ehow.com/list_6667072_negatives-organic-meat-baby-food.html>.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). “National School Lunch Program: Fact Sheet.” Available
online at < http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf>
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). “Humane Handling of Livestock.” February 27,
2008. Available online at
<http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Humane_Handling_of_Livestock.pdf>
"Fossil Fuel and Energy Use - The Issues." Sustainable Table. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/>.
"Fossil Fuels." The Environmental Literacy Council. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory.php/21.html>.
Gardner, Amanda. "Prenatal Pesticide Exposure May Raise Risk of Attention Issues in Kids."
HealthDay 19 Aug. 2010: n. pag. Web. 27 Mar 2011.
<http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/642281.html>.
Green, Emily. “Organic Farms Viable Despite Lower Yields, Study Finds.” Los Angeles Times,
March 31st 2002.
Greene, Alan. "Top 10 Reasons to Support Organic in the 21st Century." Top 10 Reasons to
Support Organic in the 21st Century. Organic.org, n.d. Web. 27 Mar 2011.
<http://www.organic.org/articles/showarticle/article-206>.
Group, Edward. "The Effects of Genetically Modified Food." The Effects of Genetically
Modified Food. Global Healing Center, n.d. Web. 27 Mar 2011.
<http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/genetically-modified-foods.html>.
Harris, Mark. "Organic FUTURES." Vegetarian Times 283 (2001): 74. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.
Howard, Philip. “Consolidation in the North American Organic Food Processing Sector, 1997 to
2007.” International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food. Volume 16, Issue 1
(2009): pp. 13-30.
"Industrial Agriculture: Features and Policy." Union of Concerned Scientists. 17 May 2007.
Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_a
griculture/industrial-agriculture-features.html>.
Institute of Medicine. “School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children.” Report Brief,
October 2009. Available online at < http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/School-MealsBuilding-Blocks-for-Healthy-Children.aspx>
Kenner, Robert, Richard Pearce, Eric Schlosser, Melissa Robledo, William Pohlad, Jeff Skoll,
Robin Schorr, Diane Weyermann, Elise Pearlstein, Kim Roberts, Michael Pollan, Gary
Hirshberg, Joel Salatin, and Mark Adler. Food, Inc. Los Angeles, CA: Magnolia, 2009.
Kirby, Sharon. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Organic Vegetables." Organic Vegetables.
Livestrong, Web. 27 Mar 2011. <http://www.livestrong.com/article/204750- advantagesdisadvantages-of-organic-vegetables/>.
Lang, Susan S. "Organic Farming Success." Cornell Chronicle Online. 13 July 2005. Web. 24
Mar. 2011. <http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html>.
Miller. "The Organic Myth." National Review 56.2 (2004): 35-37. Academic Search Complete.
EBSCO. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.
"Organic Food Advantages." Organic Food Advantages. Food Safety and You, n.d. Web. 27
Mar 2011. <http://www.food-safety-and-you.com/organic-food-advantages.html>.
"Soil Degradation: Causes, Consequences, and Solutions | BLOG OF IECYCLE." Ieclycle.org -
Environmental Solutions. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.iecycle.org/blog/index.php/2009/12/soil-degradation-causes-consequencesand-solutions/>.
Paul, Maya. "Organic Foods." Organic Foods: Understanding Organic Food Labels. HelpGuide,
Web. 27 Mar 2011. <http://www.helpguide.org/life/organic_foods_pesticides_gmo.htm>.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The Penguin Group: New York, NY. 2006.
Perfecto, Ivette and Catherine Badgley. “Can Organic Agriculture Feed the World?” Pesticide
News, Volume 78, pp. 17-19. December 2007.
Severson, Kim. "It;s Organic, but Does That Mean That Food is Safer?." New York Times 03
Mar. 2009: n. pag. Web. 27 Mar 2011.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/dining/04cert.html>.
Sohn, Emily. "ADHD Linked To Pesticide Exposure." ADHD Linked to Pesticide Exposure.
Discovery, n.d. Web. 27 Mar 2011. <http://news.discovery.com/human/adhd-pesticideschildren-behavior.html>.
"The Argument Against Organic Food - AgricultureInformation.com."
AgricultureInformation.com. Web. 25 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/organic-farming/27780-argumentagainst-organic-food.html>.
"THE 'BIG' QUESTION." Ecologist 37.7 (2007): 10. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web.
26 Mar. 2011.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Library. “Organic
Production/Organic Food: Information Access Tools.” June 2007. Available online at
<http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml>
Weise, Elizabeth, Peter Eisler, and Blake Morrison. “New Safety Rules for School Lunches Due
by July,” USA Today, February 10, 2010.
"What "Organically Grown" Means | Pesticides | US EPA." US Environmental Protection
Agency. Organic Trade Association, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Mar. 2011.
<http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/food/organics.htm>.