Organic Production and Food Quality E-Book

Robert Blair

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 529

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

The internet is rife with biased and unsubstantiated claims from the organic industry, and the treatment of issues such as food safety and quality by the media ("if it bleeds, it leads") tends to have a negative impact on consumer perceptions about conventional food. Until recently, more and more consumers in many countries were opting to buy organic food over conventional food, resulting in a radical shift in food retailing. This was due to concerns over chemical residues, food poisoning resulting in recalls, food scares such as "mad-cow" disease, issues like gene-modified (GM foods), antibiotics, hormones, cloning and concerns over the way plants and animals are being grown commercially as food sources. As a result there has been an expansion of the organic industry and the supply of organic foods at farmers' markets, supermarkets and specialty stores.

Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis is the first comprehensive book on how organic production methods influence the safety and quality of foods, based on an unbiased assessment of the latest scientific findings.  The title is a 'must-have' for everyone working within the food industry.

• Comprehensive explanation of organic production methods and effects on the safety and quality of foods
• Authoritative, unbiased and up-to-date examination of relevant global scientific research
• Answers the questions of whether organic food is more nutritious and/or more healthy

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Dedication

Foreword

Chapter 1: The Shift to Organic Food

Background

Organic Regulations

Consumer Perceptions

Analysis of the Topic

References

Chapter 2: The Shift to Organic Food

The Concerns

Consumer Concerns and Attitudes

Food Regulations

Justification for Consumer Attitudes About the Safety of Organic and Conventional Foods

Range of Organic Foods

References

Chapter 3: Vegetable Produce

Pest and Disease Control

Documented Findings on Pesticide Residues

Other Chemical Contaminants

Other Toxic and Antinutritional Compounds in Produce

Hormones

Can Organic Produce Cause Food Poisoning?

Nutrient Concentrations

Organoleptic Quality

Identification of Organic Produce

Food from Afar

Finally: Watch Which Salad Veg You Eat

Conclusions

References

Chapter 4: Fruit

Pesticide Residues

Other Risks with Fruit

Nutrient Concentrations

Appearance and Organoleptic Qualities

Preserves

Conclusions

References

Chapter 5: Cereal Grains

Pesticide Residues

Chemical Residues

Other Issues Relating to Grains

Mycotoxins: are Organic Grains Less Safe?

Gene-modified Crops

Nutritional and Organoleptic Qualities

Conclusions

References

Chapter 6: Meat

Chemical and Pesticide Residues

Hormones

Antibiotics

Bacterial Contamination of Meat

Cloning

Mad-cow Disease

Gene Modification

Nutritional and Organoleptic Qualities

Conclusions

References

Chapter 7: Milk and Milk Products

The Hormone Issue

Antibiotic Residues

Pesticide and Chemical Residues

Nutritional and Organoleptic Qualities

Conclusions

References

Chapter 8: Eggs

Cholesterol

Salmonella and Food-Poisoning

Contamination with Residues

Egg Quality

Conclusions

References

Chapter 9: Is Organic Food Safer?

Residues

Food Poisoning

Mycotoxins

Other Anti-nutrients

Significance of the Findings in Relation to Health

Other Research on Food and Health

Health of Farmers and Farm Workers

Other Approaches

Conclusions

References

Chapter 10: Is Organic Food More Nutritious and “Tasty”?

Reviews

Analysis by Food Group

Taste

References

Chapter 11: Psychology of Organic Food Choice

The Safety Issue

Nutritional Quality and Taste

Image

Conclusions

References

Chapter 12: Conclusions

Reference

Appendix

Index

This edition first published 2012 © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons

Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley's global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing.

Editorial offices: 2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA

The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by Blackwell Publishing, provided that the base fee is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payments has been arranged. The fee codes for users of the Transactional Reporting Service are ISBN-13: 978-0-8138-XXXX-X/2007.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Blair, Robert, 1933-

Organic production and food quality : a down to earth analysis / Robert Blair.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-13: 978-0-8138-1217-5 (hard cover : alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 0-8138-1217-8

1. Natural foods–Processing. 2. Food–Quality. 3. Consumers–Attitudes. I. Title.

TX369.B53 2011

363.19'29–dc23

2011022691

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF [9781119951858];

Wiley Online Library [9781119951889]; ePub [9781119951865]; Mobi [9781119951872]

I am very grateful to my dear wife, Moreen, for her encouragementand support in writing this book and to my late parents, Sam and Mary,who guided me to the path of learning.

Foreword

Organic, local, factory farming, pesticides, nutrition, health, food safety and environmental sustainability are some of the key buzz words surrounding our food supply today. As consumers have moved further away from an understanding of how their food supply is produced, new belief systems have sprung up that exploit the disconnect between the reality of production (and the science behind it) and the perception of consumers. As the world in general becomes more and more complex and individuals have less control over it, many people seek to control their own worlds in some of the few remaining ways that are possible. Choice of food remains one of the few options. As people move to using new information sources such as the internet, often with less “quality control” over content, the quality of the information available decreases. As people move away from communities of common religions and other older traditional values, new values and religions are needed. As people become more affluent, but have less time to spend doing things they enjoy, they look for ways to differentiate their spending patterns by creating “meaningful” expressions of their concerns.

So what is really important to food consumers, and what might provide a solution to these consumer needs, whether real or perceived? It is a challenge that the food industry has to meet. Traditionally, the food industry was also asked to do this at a reasonable cost, but that constraint seems to be loosening as people have more funds for discretionary spending. But as we are also learning, we need to evaluate which “externalities” are actually incorporated into retail pricing and how this complicates the impact of these costs. Who is subsidizing whom?

That brings us back to the first word in this foreword: “organic”. Organic foods are proliferating. Although the growth is significant (easier from a small base), it is still a niche market. And the question is whether organic actually provides a mechanism/production method for providing the benefits that consumers “believe” organic food possesses and consumers believe they want. The first attempt at a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific literature covering the comparison of organic agriculture with other forms of agriculture comes, to the best of my knowledge, in this book by Robert Blair. The news it gives will be viewed differently by different people. For some it fails to be the “slam dunk!” that they want in either direction! (Sorry, but life rarely comes out so one-sided.) Those who strongly support organic agriculture are going to attack Blair and his data for being biased in favor of conventional agriculture – a tool of big business, big farming and capitalism. Those who think organic is a “con” job are probably also going to be disappointed and say he is soft on organic because he really loves the small farmer and his urban farmer's market.

So, what do we make of his book? It sets out clearly, I believe, what we know and – just as importantly, for a scientist – what we don't know. He shows clearly that some perceived differences between different forms of agriculture are real and that these lead to some relevant consequences. He shows that many other differences are not real and that this also leads to some consequences because, in the past, people have made decisions based on the assumption that some of these differences were real. But the bottom line, which comes through clearly, is that the American and European food supplies are safe, nutritious, wholesome and healthy, regardless of production methods. The issues of flavor and freshness may in fact be key features of the current incarnation of organic, but they are actually predicated on variables that are more related to the cultivars selected and the handling and distribution of the food supply than on organic as a production system. So local may have some benefit in the hedonistic areas but these are being lost as organic becomes mainstream and large companies see an opportunity to obtain higher profit margins from organic and join the program.

In the United States, organic is controlled by the government. The rules, whether fair or not, whether consistent with what people really want from organic, whether costly or not, are the ones that organic will need to meet in the future and, as such, they probably slightly favor the larger companies that can afford the supervision charges, that have the resources to participate in the process that decides what the rules are going to be, and that can get organic products widely distributed. It may have been the case that the organic growers, processors and retailers failed to recognize and accept multiple standards that reflected at times genuine differences among the “converted” organic farmers and instead decided to ask the government to step in (as part of the 1990 Farm Bill), thus giving up their “religion” to government control. Moving forward, it is important for researchers to be more rigorous in their methodology and data presentation, and that all those involved in teaching about our food supply need to incorporate more of a balanced view of the conflict between idealism and practicality and to put more emphasis on proven facts. Consumers in the future may also need to think about whether they want to continue to support this expensive method of food production with its religious overtones, without any real “show stopper” advantages, and instead move on to “local”, focus on some other issues related to our food supply, or just buy a range of foods that are available today, relax a bit more, just enjoy life and eating, and save their money to buy electric cars, solar water heaters, and personal windmills to generate the electricity they will need in the future. And some might even take public transportation or return to riding a bike. This book suggests that some of these alternative suggestions might do more for the greater good. So whatever you eat, enjoy it.

Professor Joe M. RegensteinCornell University

Chapter 1

The Shift to Organic Food

This book is the first comprehensive text, based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific findings, on how organic production methods influence the quality of foods. In this context “quality” is taken to refer to nutrient content; freshness, taste and related aspects which are obvious to the consumer; also other attributes which are not immediately obvious to the consumer but which are perceived to be associated with organic foods. These are: relative freedom from harmful chemical and pesticide residues, and from hormonal residues; and also “healthfulness” (ability to enhance or promote health in the consumer). In some publications these latter attributes are designated “safety” aspects, but this is not a completely satisfactory designation since it implies that some foods are not safe.

Purchasers of organic foods believe that these products are superior to conventional foods in terms of quality and safety. The available data confirm that there is a growing market for organic foods, if they can be delivered at a price acceptable to the consumer.

The book addresses issues that the food industry and consumers raise about organic food in relation to conventional food, and assesses the relevant scientific findings in the international literature as well as the results of food monitoring programs in North America, Europe and Australia/New Zealand. Documented findings related to the nutritional quality and “healthfulness” of organic food are assessed, as are findings on the motivation of consumers to buy organic food.

Background

The organic system of farming was developed in Europe over 100 years ago by proponents such as Rudolph Steiner in Austria, Albert Howard in the United Kingdom, and Hans-Peter Rusch and Hans Müller who developed “biological agriculture” in Switzerland. The first use of the term “organic farming” appears to have been by Lord Northbourne in the United Kingdom. It derives from his concept of “the farm as organism”. He differentiated between what he called “chemical farming” and “organic farming”. Sir Albert Howard's concept of soil fertility was centered on building soil humus with an emphasis on a “living bridge” between the soil and the life it contained (such as fungi, mycorrhizae and bacteria), and on how this chain of life from the soil supported the health of crops, livestock and humans. Steiner went on to propose “biodynamic agriculture”, a method of organic farming that has its basis in a spiritual view of the world, using approaches such as fermented herbal and mineral preparations as compost additives and field sprays and the use of an astronomical sowing and planting calendar. This farming method became popular in Australia.

Lady Eve Balfour was influenced by the work of Sir Albert Howard and set up the Haughley Experiment on adjacent farms in England in 1939 to compare organic and conventional farming. The experiment was taken over by the Soil Association in 1947, which for the next 25 years directed and sponsored it. The work had a design flaw – no replication – which probably explains why the results were never published in any scientific journal. Based on the early findings, Balfour published a book, The Living Soil, in 1943, which did not receive a good review in the journal Soil Science: “The author is an evangelist for organic farming. She has little understanding of scientific method. If the evidence does not favor her thesis, it is ignored” (Anon., 1951).

Ideally, the organic farm is self-sufficient in terms of needs such as fertilizers, seeds, feeds, etc. In the organic system the farm is treated as a whole entity, with an interrelationship between the soil, plants and animals in a closed recycling system. The organic farm is more generalized than the conventional farm, which tends to specialize in producing crops, hogs, eggs, milk, etc.

According to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (1999), organic agriculture is:

a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agroecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs,. . . as opposed to using synthetic materials. . . . The primary goal is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people . . . the systems are based on specific and precise standards of production which aim at achieving optimal agroecosystems which are socially, ecologically and economically sustainable.

In many European countries, organic agriculture is known as ecological agriculture, reflecting this emphasis on ecosystems management. The term for organic production and products differs within the European Union (EU). In English, the term is organic; in Danish, Swedish and Spanish, it is ecological; in German, ecological or biological; and in French, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese, it is biological. The term used in Australia is organic, bio-dynamic or ecological. So, in this context, the term “organic” has a different meaning from the one we learned in chemistry class. There we learned that “organic” was used to describe a compound containing carbon. A compound not containing carbon was called “inorganic”. But in relation to food, “organic” is used to describe food that has been produced in a special way: organically.

As described in the preceding paragraphs, organic farming is a production method that is intended to be sustainable and harmonious with the environment. It prohibits the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, products produced by gene-modification techniques, irradiation as a preserving process, sewage sludge as fertilizer, and synthetic processing aids and feed additives. When organic herds and flocks are established, the breed or strain of animal should be selected so that the animals are adapted to their environment and resistant to certain diseases. Livestock must come from holdings that comply with the rules governing organic farming, and must be reared in accordance with those rules throughout their lives.

The main differences between organic and conventional farming that emerged from these early developments were that no chemical fertilizers or chemical pesticides can be used on organic crops, and animals raised organically have to be fed on organic or natural sources of feed. Thus organic production differs from conventional production, and in many ways is close to the agriculture of Asia.

The result is that organic food has a very strong brand image in the eyes of consumers and thus should command a higher price in the marketplace than conventionally produced food. It is, however, more expensive to produce than conventional food, therefore it is more costly to the producer and consumer.

About the same time as developments in organic food production were taking place in Europe, similar developments were evident in other countries, including the US and Australia. The publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 was important in that it brought the issue of pesticides and the environment to the attention of the public. As a result, an increasing number of consumers began to seek out organic foods since these had been produced without the use of chemical pesticides.

Organic Regulations

“Organic” is a production claim and not a food safety claim. According to the USDA there are four labeling categories for organic foods:

1. “100 percent organic” foods contain only certified organic ingredients and use certified organic processing aids.

2. “Organic” foods must contain at least 95 percent certified organic ingredients.

3. Foods “made with organic” (specified ingredients) must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

4. Foods with less than 70 percent organic ingredients may not display the USDA “organic” seal on the package but may identify which ingredients are organic on the ingredient panel.

Other countries and organizations have derived their own standards for defining foods as organic. Organic production also requires certification and verification of the production system. This requires that the organic producer maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed crops and stock, and records of all inputs and all edible and non-edible organic products from the farm.

The whole organic process involves four stages:

1. Application of organic principles (standards and regulations).

2. Adherence to local organic regulations.

3. Certification by local organic regulators.

4. Verification by local certifying agencies.

Currently there is no universal standard for organic food production worldwide. As a result many countries have now established national standards. These have been derived from the standards originally developed in Europe by the Standards Committee of IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and the guidelines for organically produced food developed within the framework of the Codex Alimentarius. Within the Codex, the Organic Guidelines include Organic Livestock Production. The pertinent regulations from several countries are listed in the References (see European Commission 1991, 1999, 2005, 2007; MAFF 2001, 2006; NOP 2000).

IFOAM Basic Standards were issued in 1998 and updated in 2005. A current review to be published in 2011 is expected to define terms such as “organic” and “sustainable”. The IFOAM standard is intended as a worldwide guideline for accredited certifiers to fulfil. IFOAM works closely with certifying bodies around the world to ensure that they operate to the same standards.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is an international standards-setting body for food and food products that is run jointly by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. As such, it is recognized as a standardizing body by the World Trade Organization's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. WTO member governments are required by the Agreement to base their standards on international standards, including those of the Codex Alimentarius (www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp). The main purpose of the Codex is to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair trade practices in the food trade, and also to promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. The Codex is a worldwide guideline for state and other agencies to develop their own standards and regulations, but it does not certify products directly. The standards set out in the Codex and by IFOAM are quite general, outlining principles and criteria that have to be fulfilled. They are less detailed than the regulations developed specifically for regions such as Europe.

Although there is as yet no internationally accepted regulation on organic standards, the World Trade Organization and the global trading community are increasingly relying on the Codex, IFOAM and the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) to provide the basis for international organic production standards, as well as certification and accreditation of production systems. The ISO, which was established in 1947, is a worldwide federation of national standards for nearly 130 countries. The most important guide for organic certification is ISO Guide 65:1996, General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems, which establishes basic operating principles for certification bodies. The IFOAM Basic Standards and Criteria are registered with the ISO as international standards.

It is likely that exporting countries introducing organic legislation will target the requirements of the three large markets, i.e. the European Union, the United States (National Organic Program, NOP) and Japan (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, MAFF). Harmonization will promote world trade in organic produce. It is apparent that equivalency among the systems operating in various countries is limited. Discussions in a number of forums including FAO, IFOAM and UNCTAD (the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) have indicated that the volume of certification requirements and regulations is considered to be a major obstacle to the continuous and rapid development of the organic sector, especially for producers in developing countries. In 2001, IFOAM, FAO and UNCTAD decided to join forces to search for solutions to this problem. Together they organized the Conference on International Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture, in Nuremberg, Germany, February 18–19, 2002. This event was the first of its kind where the partnership between the private organic community and United Nations institutions offered a forum for public and private discussions. One of the key recommendations of the conference was that a multi-stakeholder task force, including representatives of governments, FAO, UNCTAD and IFOAM, should be established in order to elaborate practical proposals and solutions. In response, the International Task Force on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture (ITF) was launched on February 18, 2003, in Nuremberg, Germany. Its agreed aim is to act as an open-ended platform for dialogue between private and public institutions involved in trade and regulatory activities in the organic agriculture sector.

The Global Organic Market Access Project is an extension of the work of the International Task Force on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture (ITF, www.itf-organic.org). The latter documented the world situation in 2003 (UNCTAD, 2004). The group listed 37 countries with fully implemented regulations for organic agriculture and processing.

Although there is currently no universal standard for organic food production, the production process involves the same four stages in all countries (as outlined earlier in this section). The organic designation for foods is thus based on documented certification, and no test is applied to confirm that the food in question is organic. Some observers (e.g. Popoff, 2010) have viewed this aspect as a flaw in the system since cases of fraud have occurred, and it has been suggested that an objective chemical test needs to be devised to verify the authenticity of organic food. At present, organic production requires that the producer maintain records sufficient to preserve the identity of all organically managed crops and animals, all inputs of all edible and non-edible organic products produced, in order to certify that the product is indeed organic.

Organic foods are also subject to international and national standards regarding the respective food laws. For instance, in North America organic milk has to be heat-treated and fortified with vitamin D in the same way as conventional milk, and organic white flour has to be fortified in the same way as conventional flour. In time, it is expected that organic foods will be sampled in the marketplace and subjected to chemical testing as part of the foods regulations in the same way that conventional foods are monitored now.

Currently, therefore, the consumer must accept that any organic food offered for sale has been produced according to the prevailing regulations. Possible tests to prove authenticity are being researched and will be outlined in subsequent chapters. Several cases of fraud have been reported, sellers passing off regular food as the more expensive organic food. Unfortunately, there is no way of proving that food is indeed organic just by inspecting it. Authenticity has to be verified by records. As a result many consumers prefer to buy organic food directly from the grower, who is able to provide information on how the food was produced.

The difficulty in proving a product is organic has been experienced by the author of this book. Every spring my wife and I plant a few Yukon Gold potatoes in our garden because we like the texture and appearance of its flesh. Since we can never buy seed potatoes of this variety, we buy some cooking potatoes in a grocery shop and plant these. Usually we have a good crop. In 2010, however, the potatoes did not grow. When some of the potatoes were dug up to find out why, no sprouting buds or shoots could be seen. A check on the internet and a column in the local newspaper provided the answer. Table potatoes are now being sprayed with a product that prevents sprouting and makes the potatoes more attractive in the grocery store. The obvious answer was then to buy organic Yukon Golds at an organic grocery store and plant these, since no such spraying is allowed on organic produce. The potatoes we bought looked very nice and clean, each bearing an organic label and with no sign of sprouting. They cost twice as much as the regular Yukon Golds. Did they grow in our garden? Unfortunately, no. At the end of the growing season they were still not showing any shoots. When we checked back at the store the answer we got was that the store had bought them as organic produce and no, they had not been sprayed. So were the potatoes in question organic or not and had they been sprayed? These questions have to remain unanswered. We, like the average consumer, have to accept what appears on the label.

Consumer Perceptions

The growth of organic farming is a response to an increased consumer demand for food that is perceived to be fresh, wholesome and flavoursome, free of hormones, antibiotics and harmful chemicals and produced in a way that is sustainable environmentally and without the use of gene-modified (GM) crops. Purchasers of organic foods believe that these products are superior to conventional foods in terms of quality and safety. What is not clear from the published data on organic foods is the extent to which these consumer perceptions are correct. A large number of studies has been conducted on this issue, particularly in relation to nutritional quality, but no clear consensus has emerged. Several authors have claimed that organic food is nutritionally superior to conventional food but, conversely, bodies such as the UK Food Standards Agency have concluded that organic foods are nutritionally similar to conventional foods. Also, the results of food monitoring programs in several countries indicate that a growing proportion of conventional foods meets or exceeds the high standards set for pesticide and chemical residues and cannot be considered as “unsafe”.

The food industry, researchers and academics need to have an authoritative and up-to-date source of unbiased information on how organic production affects food quality. Some of these effects are positive, others negative. Documentation of these findings will allow the concerns of consumers to be adequately addressed, relevant marketing programs to be established and appropriate information to be disseminated. Organic producers with some technical training in nutrition or food science will also benefit from the treatment of the topic.

The need for food professionals to have access to accurate and unbiased information on organic foods was highlighted by a Michigan study by Schuldt and Schwarz (2010) which found that consumers infer that organic food is lower in calories and can be eaten more often than conventional food, even when the nutrition label conveys identical calorie content. A comment overheard by one of the authors in the checkout lane of a natural foods store typified the confusion. “Mom, look! Organic gummy bears!” “Yes, I see. No more sweets.” “Mom, but they're organic.” Figure 1.1 depicts how an organophile (lover of organic food) perceives organic food.

Figure 1.1 An organophile's view of organic food

The inference reported by Schuldt and Schwarz (2010) was more pronounced among consumers with a strong view on pro-environmentalism. Their results also indicated an “organic/natural”–“healthy” association that is capable of biasing everyday judgements about diet and exercise. Similar confusion about organic foods was found in results of an online survey of 1662 British consumers commissioned by website www.MyVoucherCodes.co.uk and reported by Halliday (2010) . This website features numerous discount codes for nationwide supermarket chains online, and therefore is able to collect data on actual purchases in supermarkets. The survey found that one in four people admitted confusion and one in five believed that organic food is lower in fat. Only 16 percent said they understood the term to mean “free from synthetic chemicals”. Fourteen percent said they thought it means “healthy” and 12 percent answered “expensive”. Respondents were also asked questions about their purchase of diet foods, and 72 percent claimed to buy diet food regularly, three quarters of whom claimed they did so in order to lose weight. Of these, 23 percent admitted to buying ‘low/reduced sugar’ food as a means of weight loss, whilst 15 percent claimed to buy organic produce for the same reason. Mark Pearson, managing director of MyVoucherCodes.co.uk, is reported as commenting on the findings as follows: “The organic message has clearly been misinterpreted by a large number of the British public, many of whom seem to regard it as a diet or health food” (Pearson, 2010).

These findings raise another important issue: who should be responsible for informing consumers about the real facts relating to organic foods?

Analysis of the Topic

This book addresses the topic of how organic production methods affect food quality, based on published facts. Each chapter contains the references relating to the information contained in that chapter.

In this chapter I have summarized the growth of the organic food industry and explained the motivation for its growth. This chapter also outlines how organic food is produced and certified as organic.

Chapter 2, covering consumer concerns about food, notes that consumers now have more interest in the link between food and health. Some also have concerns about the quality of food from so-called “factory farms” and question the safety of the food supply. The concerns include the possible presence of chemical and pesticide residues in food, “mad-cow disease”, issues such as cloning and gene-modified (GM) foods, antibiotics, hormones, and concerns over the way plants and animals are being grown commercially as food sources and environmental sustainability.

Chapters 3 to 8 assess the documented findings related to questions concerning vegetable produce, fruit, cereal grains, meats (including fish), milk and dairy products, and eggs.

Chapter 9 asks, “Is organic food safer?” It reviews the documented evidence presented in previous chapters on the relative health aspects of organic and conventional food, based on parameters such as pesticide and chemical residues, indices of human health, and the findings of animal studies.

Chapter 10, Is organic food more nutritious and “tasty”?, discusses the documented evidence presented in previous chapters on the relative quality of organic and conventional food, including attributes such as freshness, taste and nutritional composition.

The motivation of consumers to buy organic food is explored in Chapter 11, which examines the psychology of organic food choice and presents the results of surveys. “Healthfulness” appears to be a key driver of consumer perceptions of food quality, but taste, consistency and nutritional value are also important. Of lesser importance are humane treatment of animals and environmentally sustainable production practices. Psychological issues such as the “halo effect”, which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food and which may be akin to religious experiences in some people, are additional important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food.

Chapter 12 summarizes and discusses the documented findings, and makes pertinent recommendations for the various sectors of the food industry, researchers and academics.

References

Anon. (1951). Review of The Living Soil by E.B. Balfour. The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1950, pp. 270. Soil Science71, 327.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Codex Alimentarius Commission (1999). Proposed draft guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of organic livestock and livestock products. Alinorm 99/22 A, Appendix IV. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome.

European Commission (1991). Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 of June 24, 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL 198, 1–15.

European Commission (1999). Council Regulation (EC) No. 1804/1999 of July 19, 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL 222, 1–28.

European Commission (2005). Commission Regulation EC No. 1294/2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL 205, 16–17.

European Commission (2007). Council Regulation EC No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic and repealing regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL 189205, 1–23.

Halliday, J. (2010). Survey shows confusion between organic food and low-fat. Food Navigator August 10, 2010 (www.foodnavigator.com), accessed August 11, 2010.

IFOAM (2005). IFOAM Basic Standards. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany.

MAFF (2001). The Organic Standard, Japanese Organic Rules and Implementation, May 2001. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo. http://www.maff.go.jp/soshiki/syokuhin/hinshitu/organic/eng_yuki_59.pdf, accessed January 2006.

MAFF (2006). Japanese Agricultural Standard for Organic Livestock Products, Notification No. 1608, October 27. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo. http://www.maff.go.jp/soshiki/syokuhin/hinshitu/e_label/file/SpecificJAS/Organic/JAS_OrganicLivestock.pdf, accessed October 2007.

NOP (2000). National Standards on Organic Production and Handling, 2000. United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC. http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html, accessed January 2006.

Pearson, M. (2010). http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/060810/uk___one_in_five_think_organic_means_low_fat_.aspx, accessed May 31, 2011.

Popoff, M. (2010). Is It Organic? Polyphase Communication, Osoyoos, British Columbia, Canada.

Schuldt, J.P. and Schwarz, N. (2010). The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision Making5, 144–150.

Chapter 2

Consumer Concerns About Food

After World War II there was a rapid expansion in food production, supported by advances in agricultural science. This led to an abundance of food in the developed nations.

For instance, poultry farmers learned that eggs could be produced more efficiently and cheaply if the hens were housed indoors instead of outdoors. An important feature for the farmer was that the egg production cycle could be controlled to make it even throughout the year. The bird is attuned to start producing eggs in the spring and stop laying in the winter, a hormonal response to the effects on the brain of increasing or decreasing daylight. Manipulating the light pattern in an enclosed barn allowed the farmer to simulate the natural light pattern. Consequently, egg production became a year-round system rather than a seasonal system that gave a flush of eggs in the spring and little or none in the winter.

Indoors the birds were less exposed to adverse weather, diseases and predators. As a result the farmer lost fewer birds. They also ate less because they did not have to go outside on cold days and use extra feed to keep warm.

It became common for hens to be housed in cages. This prevented losses from fighting, it being known that birds in a group develop a “pecking order” in which the bird lowest in the order suffers from bullying and is often pecked to death. Some breeds and strains of poultry are particularly aggressive.

Another benefit of cage-housing was that the birds were no longer in close contact with their droppings (urinary and fecal matter). The cages are designed to allow the droppings to fall through the cage floor into a manure pit. It is known that birds in close contact with their droppings, and especially when housed outdoors and in contact with wild birds, are more likely to be infected with salmonella. The infection can be transferred to the egg, presenting a health hazard to the human consumer. Eggs from caged birds are therefore much safer in terms of the risk of causing food poisoning. An important benefit for the consumer was that the eggs from cage-housed hens were cheaper.

That is just one example of how North American consumers have benefited from the efficiency of the modern farmer. Similar productivity improvements occurred with other commodities. As a result, the percentage of income that households spend on food is now about half what it was in the early 1990s. According to 2004 statistics from the USDA Economic Research Service, American families spent on average just 9.5 percent of their disposable income on food. That means in only 5 weeks the average American earns enough disposable income to pay for their food supply for the entire year. The situation is the same in Canada. Consumers there spend on average 10.5 percent of their personal disposable income on food. In many parts of the world, however, food expenditure is significantly higher.

In spite of these benefits, criticisms began to be raised about the prevailing systems of food production. For example, according to their critics, these were factory farms; they inflicted cruelty on animals; they needed large amounts of chemicals and antibiotics to keep the animals healthy; food “did not taste like it used to”; crops were being sprayed repeatedly to keep down diseases, and residues of these chemicals were showing up in the food supply and threatening our health. There was also an emerging awareness of environmental conservation issues. There had to be a better way of producing food.

An important effect of these concerns was that attention turned to organic farming, which did not contain the objectionable elements of conventional farming. Figure 2.1 depicts how an organophile perceives conventional food.

Figure 2.1 How an organophile perceives conventional food

The Concerns

So what are these factors that are perceived to affect the quality of foods being produced by modern farming, causing consumers to turn to organic food? They fall into three main categories:

1.Safety: the possible presence of harmful chemical and pesticide residues; also the possible presence of food-poisoning organisms. Included in this category is concern that the food may have been produced from plants or animals using breeding techniques such as cloning and gene modification.

2.Nutritional quality: many consumers believe that food produced on a large-scale is inferior nutritionally. Many people would prefer to have their food produced locally on small farms and to have the food delivered fresh to market.

3.Environmental issues: many consumers believe that organic farming is better for the environment. This issue includes concerns about the way in which animals are kept on large farms, many believing that modern production methods are cruel. Other issues raised relate to greenhouse-gas production, and the interrelationships between plants, farm animals and wildlife.

These concerns and attitudes are illustrated in the results of several studies outlined in this chapter. A more detailed assessment of the justification for these concerns, based on the relevant scientific findings, is presented in subsequent chapters dealing with specific food groups.

According to the Food & Health Survey by the International Food Information Council (2010), consumer confidence in the safety of the US food supply has remained steady for the previous 3 years, with nearly half of Americans (47 percent) rating themselves as confident in the safety of the US food supply. Those not confident fell significantly (from 24 percent in 2009 down to 18 percent) and those who are neither confident nor unconfident increased from 26 percent in 2009 to 35 percent. The survey did not provide data on attitudes towards organic foods.

Researchers in Belgium (Mondelaers et al., 2009) found that health-related traits were more important than environmental traits in shaping consumer preference for organic vegetables. The presence of an organic label was important in relation to buying intensity. Undesirable traits such as pesticide residue levels triggered a stronger response than desirable traits such as environmental or health benefits.

It is clear that a main concern often voiced by consumers is the possible presence of chemical and pesticide residues in food. These include:

herbicides used to control weeds in crops;insecticides and acaricides used to control insect and mite pests in crops, to protect grain, and to control external parasites on animals;fungicides used to control fungal diseases in plants and plant products;fumigants used as grain protectants, and to sterilize soil, storage sheds, barns and beehives;antibiotics used to control diseases in animals;anthelmintics used to control internal parasites in animals;hormonal products used as veterinary medicines or to improve growth and production in livestock.

Other sources of residues include those from the unintended exposure of plants and animals to chemicals that are no longer registered for use. Such chemicals include some organochlorine (OC) pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds that can remain in the soil for long periods where livestock can accidentally ingest them or come into contact with them and become contaminated. In addition some chemicals in the natural environment may contaminate agricultural produce. These chemicals include certain metals and some naturally occurring mycotoxins (toxins produced by molds).

Consumer Concerns and Attitudes

Some of the views held by the public on chemical residues are quite startling. For instance, Williams and Hammitt (2001) surveyed over 700 purchasers of conventional and organic fresh produce in the Boston area of the United States for their perceived safety risks. This work was supported by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Results showed that these consumers thought that relatively high risks were associated with the production and consumption of conventionally grown produce compared with other public health hazards. For example, those buying conventional food estimated that the median annual fatality rate due to pesticide residues on conventionally grown food was about 50 per million and those buying organic food thought that the figure was about 200 per million. As the researchers pointed out, these figures are similar in magnitude to the annual mortality risk from motor vehicle accidents in the United States! The survey also showed that over 90 percent of respondents thought that there would be a reduction in the risk of pesticide residues by substituting organically grown produce for conventionally grown produce, and nearly 50 percent thought that there would be a reduction in risk due to natural toxins and microbial pathogens by substitution.

Such views are probably the result of food scares and how these were reported in the media. For instance, beef consumption fell in the UK when the government in 1986 admitted a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and human variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. BSE (“mad-cow disease”) appears as vCJD in humans. Another effect was that the number of vegetarians in the UK doubled in the decade 1985–1995 (led by girls and young women) following identification of the epizootic (Scholten, 2006). However, as procedures were taken by regulatory authorities to ensure that no infected meat reached the public, and as reports of the disease dwindled, many consumers returned to their usual diets.

Thus, although food is now abundant, consumers in different countries have concerns about the quality of the food available, no doubt influenced mainly by recent experiences in that country. A 2007 survey in New Zealand found that 67 percent of consumers agreed with the statement, “I find product quality labels saying things like ‘SPCA approved eggs’ and ‘free of added hormones’ useful” (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Public concerns about specific food issues.

The survey was astute enough to include the phrase “free of added hormones” in the first question since several foods such as milk contain natural hormones.

In contrast to what was found in New Zealand, a UK survey conducted by the Food Standards Agency in 2008 found that the amount of salt in food was of greatest concern (50 percent of responses, down from 54 percent in 2006: Table 2.2). The presence of hormones in meat rated 28 percent of responses, down from 30 percent in 2006.

Table 2.2 Public concerns in the UK about specific food issues.

(Source: Food Standards Agency (2008) Eighth Annual Consumer Attitudes to Food Survey. UK Food Standards Agency, London, UK. © Crown Copyright material reproduced with the permission of the Controller, HMSO.)

Percent 2007Percent 2006The amount of salt in food5054The amount of fat in food4046The amount of sugar in food3943The amount of saturated fat3744Food poisoning3642The use of additives in food3538Foods aimed at children3339The use of pesticides to grow food3234Condition in which food animals are raised2832Hormones and steroids in meat2830

This suggests that, in some countries at least, the emphasis in food buying is changing to include a more positive view (nutritional aspects) as well as a negative view (risks).

Other examples of consumer attitudes towards organic foods can be cited. Research in Ireland examined consumer perceptions of organic meat (O'Donovan and McCarthy, 2002). Purchasers of organic meat believed that it was superior to conventional meat in terms of quality, safety, labeling, production methods and value.

van Rijswijk and Frewer (2008) found regional differences in responses. German respondents defined quality primarily in terms of “freshness”, “taste”, “natural/organic”, and as a “good product” associated with a “proper production method”. French respondents linked quality with both “taste” and “appearance”. Italian respondents indicated that a “good product”, “taste” and “liking” are important definitions of quality. Spanish respondents defined quality as resulting in “good products”, with “taste” and “without risk” (i.e. safe). With respect to safety, German and Italian respondents were most concerned about “risk” and “healthiness”, whereas the Spanish respondents in particular emphasized “controls” and “guarantees” as being important determinants of safety. These associations were also expressed by French respondents, in addition to “proper handling and chain management”.

One of the challenges in conducting surveys such as these is to obtain a representative sample of consumers. Interesting data were reported by Scholten (2006), who studied local and organic food consumption and risk perceptions in Seattle (Washington, USA) and Newcastle (UK). He argued that, since firefighting is risky work and since firefighters occupy a middle position on the socio-economic ladder and food is seen as a key to morale and fitness, firefighters could be viewed as suitable consumers to be consulted on risks associated with food issues. He found that firefighters in the UK and the US were aware of organic food and that firefighters' consumption of this type of food was higher in Seattle (USA), at 64 percent, than by firefighters in Newcastle (UK), where the figure was 39 percent. This survey also suggested that consumption of organic food in northern UK would increase if availability increased and the price was lower.

Scholten et al. (2006) surveyed another group that would not normally be regarded as typical organic consumers, namely motorcyclists. They found that a greater proportion of Seattle (US) motorcyclists (69 percent) consumed organic food than of Newcastle (UK) motorcyclists (40 percent). In comparison, 88 percent of academics (teachers and students) in Seattle and 78 percent in Newcastle consumed organic food. Scholten and co-workers also suggested that the results of their surveys dispelled the notion that women are more aware of organic food than men.

This research suggests that increasing awareness of food safety and pollution issues by a wide cross-section of consumers is an important determinant in the purchase of organic meat, causing some consumers to turn away from conventional foods. Lack of availability and the higher price appear to be key deterrents to the purchase of organic foods.

It is useful in this context to consider how consumers view food quality and safety. Van Rijswijk and Frewer (2008) found that there was considerable overlap among responses when consumers were asked to define these terms. However, quality was more frequently defined in terms of “taste”, “good product”, “natural/organic” and “freshness”, whereas safety was primarily defined in terms of “absence of risk” or “harmfulness” whilst being positively associated with “health”.

These responses will therefore be used in this book as the basis for dealing with issues of quality and safety. Quality will be taken to refer to nutritional content, and to freshness, taste and appearance which are obvious to the consumer, whereas safety will refer to perceived freedom from harmful chemical and pesticide residues, hormonal residues and “healthfulness” (ability to enhance or promote health in the consumer).

An important finding with regard to consumer attitudes to food safety is that they change as consumers become better informed of the relevant issues. This was illustrated in a study conducted in the UK (Barnes et al., 2009). This study was conducted in a small Scottish town to assess consumers' perception of the term “organic” and to determine what consumers would like from an organic production system, using a “citizens' jury” approach. The procedure consisted of a small group of people, selected from the general public, who met over a number of days to deliberate on a particular question. The major advantage of this approach is its ability to provide more in-depth technical information and to offer fewer time constraints on the deliberation process. In the case of dairy farming, the jury was presented with evidence of the economic, environmental and welfare impacts of both conventional and organic systems, and asked to recommend its favored system and how it would define the term “organic”. The study found that the jury's knowledge of certain aspects of farming improved over the two-day period and its members were unanimous in favoring organic agriculture when solely considering the environment, but their views towards the animal welfare effects were mixed. Conversely, when considering the economic impacts the jury supported the conventional system. A serious omission from the study was the lack of any consideration of the nutritive quality or relative safety of the foods examined. However, the approach is preferable to the questionnaire or focus-group approach, both of which impose constraints on the dissemination of information and the time allowed to deliberate on decisions.

The issue of cloning is part of the issue of food safety, but appears to be of lesser importance to the consumer than the possible presence of pesticide and chemical residues. Cloning – at least of plant material – appears to be more acceptable to the consumer than gene modification (GM). This issue will be dealt with in more detail in succeeding chapters.

Before examining the justification for the consumer attitudes outlined above, an outline of how food safety is controlled by regulatory authorities is useful in providing a background to the situation regarding residues in food.

Food Regulations

Developed countries have government agencies which ensure that the food we buy is safe. The regulations set upper limits on the content of chemical and pesticide residues that are allowed in foods offered for sale at the retail level.

There are no specific food safety regulations that apply to organic foods. All foods are subject to the same regulations, including imported foods. It could be asked why any residues at all are allowed. The answer is that no food is entirely free of chemicals. The nutrients used by animals and plants are chemicals. Also, analytical methods are now so sensitive that residues even in very small amounts are likely to be detected whenever a test is conducted. The methods can detect compounds in amounts as low as parts per million (ppm, equivalent to milligrams per kilogram, mg/kg) and even parts per billion (ppb equivalent to micrograms per kilogram, µg/kg).

In most cases a maximum tolerance level is set for a chemical residue, i.e. the concentration below which no deleterious effects have been found. In other cases, however, when the residue in question is considered dangerous, no amount of residue is accepted. Controlling the food safety program requires extensive inspection, monitoring and review.

In the US the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) governs the setting of chemical pesticide tolerances for food and feed products. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are responsible for administering the Act. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) which was passed in 1996 set a higher standard for pesticides used on food. In addition to food, the US safety standard takes into account the total risk from all sources of exposure to chemicals, such as drinking water and residential lawn use. Under the law, EPA may only establish a tolerance if there is “a reasonable certainty” that no harm will result from all combined sources of exposure to pesticides.

Prior to the registration of a pesticide, the EPA requires testing to determine safe levels in food. Testing involves feeding high doses of each pesticide to laboratory animals to determine adverse effects (including cancer) from both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposures. From these studies a reference dose is determined, the EPA estimate of what constitutes a safe level of exposure in the diet. Based on this information and estimates of food consumption patterns for the US population, the EPA then establishes a residue level for each pesticide in foodstuffs. This safe level is called a food tolerance. Foodstuffs found to have a higher residue level than the tolerance level are in violation of the law. It is the responsibility of the FDA to test for the presence of pesticide and related residues in food and to ensure that tolerances are not exceeded.

It needs to be recognized, however, that not all decisions on food and related issues are reached on the basis of the scientific evidence alone. Decisions by committees and regulatory authorities can be swayed by interpretation of safety thresholds, trade and political considerations and lobbying. This explains, for instance, how regulations in North America, Europe and Asia on the use of implant hormones in cattle can differ even though those making the decisions have access to the same scientific data.

Justification for Consumer Attitudes About the Safety of Organic and Conventional Foods

Several authors have reviewed the scientific findings related to this issue. For instance, Magkos et al. (2006) dealt with the question of whether purchasing organic food was really buying more safety or just peace of mind. They concluded that there was an urgent need for scientific information related to health benefits and/or hazards of both organic and conventional foods, but that generalized conclusions had to be tentative because of the scarcity of adequate comparative data. Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventional products, but the significance of this difference is questionable since the determined levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional products, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins. With respect to other food hazards, such as endogenous plant toxins, biological pesticides and pathogenic microorganisms, the available evidence is extremely limited and prevents generalized statements being made. Also, results for mycotoxin contamination in cereal crops are variable and inconclusive; hence, no clear picture emerges. It is difficult, therefore, to weigh the risks, but what should be made clear is that “organic” does not automatically equal “safe”. Additional studies in this area of research are warranted. This issue will be examined in detail in the succeeding chapters of this book.

Range of Organic Foods

In response to consumer demand, organic farming is now practiced in about 150 countries throughout the world. The regions with the largest areas of organically managed agricultural land are Australia/Oceania, Europe and Latin America. There are more than 600 000 organic farms worldwide, almost half of these in Africa.

A whole range of organic foodstuffs is now available in many countries, including vegetable produce, fruit, milk, meat and eggs. An interesting case is that of organic fish. Yes, there is such a product. Much to the chagrin of some organic purists it appears that it is farmed fish that are “organic”, not wild fish harvested from the sea! This is because farmed fish can be fed and reared in such a way that they meet the standards for organic designation. Since fishermen have no control over the rearing or feeding of wild fish it is impossible to grant the organic designation to their catches. This explains the labeling of fish in food stores as “wild” or “farmed”.

How about some fine wine to accompany that delicious meal? Organic wines are now available, welcome, no doubt, since many conventional wines are “no better than a sort of alcoholic cola” according to Malcolm Gluck, author of The Great Wine Swindle. “You get artificial yeasts, enzymes, sugar, extracts, tannins, all sorts of things added.” Apparently some cheap wines have oak chips added to create the impression that they have been fermented in a traditional barrel. Organic Scotch whisky is also now available, for that organic, pre-meal cocktail! One brand was good enough to win the Supreme title in the 2007 Scottish Food and Drink Excellence Awards competition. The award-winning Benromach Organic Speyside Single Malt Whisky is aged in new American casks made from oak harvested from environmentally managed forests, since regular casks cannot be certified as organic. This organic whisky is certified by the Soil Association.

References

Barnes, A.P., Vergunsts, P. and Topp, K. (2009). Assessing the consumer perception of the term “organic”: a citizens' jury approach. British Food Journal111, 155–164.

Food Quality Protection Act (1996). US Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/, accessed October 10, 2010

Food Safety Authority (2007). Food Safety and the New Zealand Public 2007 Survey. New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Wellington, New Zealand.

Food Standards Agency (2008). Eighth Annual Consumer Attitudes to Food Survey. UK Food Standards Agency, London.

Gluck, M., (2008). The Great Wine Swindle. Gibson Square Books, London.

International Food Information Council (2010). 2010 Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes Towards Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health. International Food Information Council Foundation, Washington, DC.

Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F. and Zampelas, A. (2006). Organic food: buying more safety or just peace of mind? A critical review of the literature. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition46, 23–56.

Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, M. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Importance of health and environment as quality traits in the buying decision of organic products. British Food Journal111, 1120–1139.

O'Donovan, P. and McCarthy, M. (2002). Irish consumer preference for organic meat. British Food Journal104, 353–370.

Scholten, B.A. (2006). Firefighters in the UK and the US: risk perception of local and organic foods. Scottish Geographical Journal122, 130–148.

Scholten, B.A., Holt, G. and Reed, M. (eds) (2006). Motorcyclists in the USA and the UK: risk perception of local and organic food. In Sociological Perspectives of Organic Agriculture: From Pioneer to Policy, pp. 107–125. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI), Wallingford, UK.

van Rijswijk, W. and Frewer, L.J. (2008). Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability. British Food Journal110, 1034–1046.

Williams, P.R.D. and Hammitt, J.K. (2001). Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce: pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk Analysis21, 319–330.