The world today has grown a rather romantic image of the organic industry. Organic foods, that is to say food that is grown without excessive pesticides, in less industrialized settings and with more traditional methods, are a new trend that is sweeping the nation.

The word "organic" conjures up images of purity, freshness, and freedom of any pesticides, chemicals, or contemporary industrialized farming methods with industrialized machines and industrialized food. We instead gain an image of a small, humble farmer letting Mother Nature take her course and letting the chickens and the cows and pigs roam free, adjacent to a crisp, green paradise of crops blooming in the summer winds.

However, digging beyond the advertisements and the facade, reality slams in and shatters these illusions as soon as one takes a more speculative look. The word "organic" has more in common with "deceit" within this industry than "pure"; the truth has been twisted and molded to fit the perspective that people wish to see it in. How could one blame the industry to continue promoting the idea, considering it is nearly a 27 billion dollar industry (Smith-Spangler, Crystal)?

Those less aware of the inner-workings of the industry may fall victim to believing it is far better than the "evil" methods employed by the conventional businesses. Organic food is extremely expensive, putting a great deal of money on the line on not just the business but also on the consumer. In order to further promote this new trend, industries have put extra emphasis on the lack pesticides and greater nutrition, in order to justify the cost.  The pesticide levels in conventional food are negligible compared to organic foods; the nutritional value of organic foods is no different from conventional foods, yet their cost is significantly more. Judging from this information, organic foods are clearly no better than conventional foods.

Section 1: Pesticides

One of the main arguments constantly thrown around by supporters of organic foods is the difference in pesticide levels compared to ordinary methods. Many proponents proudly yawp over the lower amount found in organic food. A pesticide, by definition, is "[a] substance used for destroying insects or other organisms harmful to cultivated plants or to animals" (Oxford English Dictionary). Pesticides are used to exterminate harmful organisms to crops and animals; in this context, we are regarding solely crops.

To give credit, organic foods do contain less pesticide residue than conventional foods. However, "[e]ating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children -- but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits" ("Eating Organic" page 1). In other words, while the levels are technically lower, they are already so low that they do not make much of a difference. On top of that, conventional food levels' in pesticide residue were already so low that no drawbacks were found.

It is prominent to note that the pesticide level, overall, does not make any difference in whether or not one buys an organic product as opposed to an industrialized one. Pesticides do cause harm to human beings, but again, the levels are so low in both organic and nonorganic foods that it makes no difference. Our bodies are able to handle small doses of pesticides just fine; they were originally made to kill small insects, meaning even a full dose of pesticide would not kill a human being, let alone a tiny amount of residue (Verke, page 2).

Pesticides are not only synthetic; on the contrary, many are actually organic. So, are organic pesticides any better? According to an article from ZMEScience, "a 2010 study found that some organic pesticides can actually have worse environmental impacts than conventional ones" (Andrei, web). In fact, not only are they not any better, they could perhaps be worse. According to Christie Wilcox, a chef with formal training in science: "[w]hen I compared the organic chemicals copper sulfate and pyrethrum to the top synthetics, chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil, I found that not only were the organic ones more acutely toxic, studies have found that they are more chronically toxic as well, and have higher negative impacts on non-target species" (Wilcox, web). Wilcox also goes on to mention how "[i]f you don't want to listen to those people or me, listen to the toxicologists, who study this stuff for a living. When probed about the risk that different toxins pose, over 85% rejected the notion that organic or 'natural' products are safer than others. They felt that smoking, sun exposure and mercury were of much higher concern than pesticides" (Wilcox, web).

From the evidence listed above, it is safe to assume that the pesticide residue found on organic food does not make a significant difference in the overall quality or health of food. Even with organic pesticides used on food, at best, they make no difference, and, at worst, they may actually be more harmful. Now that pesticides are no longer a part of the equation, the next layer of concern for most people is the actual health of the food itself.

Section 2: Nutrition

Another fundamental point for the pro-organic movement is the improved nutritional value of naturally-grown food. Without any hormones, chemicals, and conventional methods, pro-organic supporters believe that organic food has more nutrients and health benefits, which justify the higher cost. To define improved nutrition, it is to say that there are more mineral, trace element, and vitamin content in the food.

According to a study by Dr. Susanne Bugal at the University of Copenhagen, where she and her fellow scientists attempted to grow food in three separate methods on similar soil with the same weather conditions, "results showed that there were no differences in the levels of major and trace contents in the fruit and vegetables grown using the three different methods" (Society of Chemical Industry, web). They used three different methods: in the first method, they used no pesticides and low nutrients in the soil, the second had pesticides and a low supply of nutrients in the soil, and the third had pesticides with a high nutrient input in the soil. Judging from this study, it can be seen that there does not appear to be any difference in nutrition, based on both pesticide and organic methods.

There are other studies that find similar claims to the lack of any nutritional superiority in organic foods, with one study saying, "our comprehensive review of the published literature on the comparative health outcomes, nutrition, and safety of organic and conventional foods identified limited evidence for the superiority of organic foods" (Smith-Spangler, Crystal, et al., 12). This study extensively looked into over 230 separate studies of organic foods and came to this conclusion. The only two elements found more superior in organic foods were phosphorus and total phenols, elements that are not entirely all that beneficial to health. Plus, after removing less sound studies, these numbers became less and less statistically significant.

The reason conventional methods even utilize hormones or chemicals is to increase the nutrition and quality of the food. Thanks to genetic modification and hormone injections, animals such as salmon and cows are able to produce more and grow larger for consumption. It helps to grow the animals to larger sizes, thus bringing more food in grocery stores and in produce. Cows can not only produce 15% more milk but also grow 20% faster for beef. Salmon can also be grown twice as fast thanks to genetic engineering (Storrs). With the lower wait for animals to grow, more food is generated, which helps decrease the price as well in conventional foods. There is also no evidence to show any negative side-effects of consuming hormones, showing that there is little reason to not resort to this method for producing food.

As it stands, there still seems no reason to spend any more money on organic food over what you can find in most grocery stores. With no extra nutritional benefit, what reason stands as to pay extra money for food that does not have any extra content to it? Organic food has not nearly as sound nutrition as the conventional methods, and people should be aware of it in order to not be deluded by big businesses. With all of the pesticide and health inspected closer, one may start to question as to why the cost is higher in the first place considering all of the false claims found beforehand.

Section 3: Cost

Why does organic food cost so much? One would assume that, due to there being less pesticides and hormones and injections that it would be actually cheaper. The arguments made to support this extra cost have already been discussed, now it is important to ask why the cost is greater in the first place.

Pesticides and antibiotics in produce help to increase production and the yield in food. In order to produce food in more "natural" ways, it is necessary to maintain livestock and crops without as many resources as those used by conventional means. In other words, a great deal of food is lost due to the lack of pesticides and antibiotics in animals, causing more to die and therefore having to increase the price in order to compensate for the loss. According to a list by ConsumerReports, prices can vary depending on which grocery store you visit. Some can be no different, where others can be as high as 300% greater than the non-organic alternative. A handful of foods are actually lower in price if they are organic, than if they are conventional (honey, maple syrup), but most are increased to a greater extent (ConsumerReports). A difference from $1 to $4 may not sound that immense at first glance, but if people, who are not aware of the differences between organic and conventional, regularly buy organic vegetables and fruits at this cost -- including the elderly whom seem to be statistically the most likely to buy organic over conventional (Hughner) -- then the costs add up.

The food industry has also abused the label of "organic" in order to push sales. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) certifies that food may be categorized into three groups: "organic", "100% organic", or "made with organic ingredients" (Bahl, web), and every one of these labels has a different interpretation. The "100% organic" label is more accurate to what most people imagine, but the "made with organic materials" label defines that as "[the food is made with] at least 70% organic ingredients but cannot display the USDA's seal on its packaging. A point to remember with organic certification and labeling is that they give no indication of food safety or nutrition" (Bahl, web). Even strong proponents of organic food have to question the legitimacy of the label. People are led to believe that organic food is in fact completely organic, but this truth has been stretched into a lie in order to gain more profit.

Organic food also produces far less food than conventional foods. In fact, "organic farming yields 25% fewer crops on average than conventional agriculture" (Walsh). With a world having an ever growing population of more than 7 billion people, including many part of the world lacking as well industrialized farms as the United States, it will be impossible to meet the demands of people through organic farming. Conventional methods produce food at a much quicker rate, giving another reason to disregard organic food.

From this, it is undeniable that the organic food industry has taken as much advantage out of this label as possible to exploit people to pay more money for a "better" product that, in reality, lacks almost any difference with conventional foods.

Section 4: Conclusion

The organic food industry has grown to enormous proportions, making businesses want to exploit as much money out of consumers as possible. An insignificant decrease of pesticides and no improvements to health do not justify the higher cost for organic products. In a comparison on organic and non-organic food, evidence points towards organic foods lacking any true upside. The pesticide levels hold any weight on deteriorating one's health, and the nutrition holds practically no difference in comparison, yet it continues to be purchased with a higher price tag.

People who regularly rely on foods such as vegetables, fruits, and livestock -- which is to say the vast majority of people in first world nations -- must become more self-aware of what they are buying. The labels and advertisements have mislead people into buying more expensive food with less, if not any different, health and regulation. Thanks to the media and most news outlets, most people believe very firmly in the superiority and higher quality of organic foods. Despite what the news may say, it is necessary for frequent buyers of organic food to do extensive research to help identify exactly what it is that they are buying.

Consumers need to question what they are presented. People need to put more time into understanding what pesticides and hormones actually are before simply associating it as synonymous with "bad" and moving on. Those who simply believe what they are told are suckered into paying more for less, and this lie may possibly harm humanity significantly in the future when a greater population demands more food and finds that organic farm can only balance on some of the demand. Organic and non-organic is only a piece of this colossal puzzle of understanding what people are buying, but it is certainly one of the most significant pieces that should be given more attention.

