Zach Hull

Burt Baumgaertener
October 23, 2014
Organic Food
Given that humans are moral creatures and resistant to change they will be the
most willing to adopt a food ethic that has little impact on their lives and a higher
morality. Organic farming applies little change to the general populations lives and it has
a positive or higher morality than conventional non-organic farming. This is the best
food ethic to adopt because it minimally affects the lives of the general population, while
simultaneously providing a positive impact on environmental health, human health and
animal treatmentthus resulting in a higher morality. Therefore, the best food ethic
suited for the human population would be an organic food ethic.
The Department of Agriculture established a legal, enforceable USDA Organic
standard and certification scheme so consumers could be confident their food has been
produced in accordance with their standards. These standards are not representative of the
highest possible morality in food production but they offer the buyer the opportunity to
buy a product with a higher morality than non-organically farmed products. How strict
USDA organic products are regulated is debatable, but assuming these standards are
regulated and strictly enforced, people buying USDA organic foods will know their
product is healthier for the environment, human health and animal treatment than nonorganic farming.
The science is unclear on whether or not organically produced food is healthier,
but common sense tells us organic is the better food. People buying organic food avoid
unnecessary health risks. Organic food production has fewer pesticides, no antibiotics or
growth hormones. A consumers research team found that 73% of conventional products

contained pesticides while only 23% of organic food contained them1. Intensively farmed
cattle can be fed slaughterhouse remnants. In Europe these practices have led to
outbreaks of mad cow disease. Between 1994 and 2011 the UK had reported 176 deaths
resulting from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease - a disease caused by consumption of meat
infected with mad cow disease2.
The ethical treatment of animals is improved under the USDA Organic
certification because animals are allowed access to all aspects of life that are normal and
suitable for that specific species. Organic standards requires, larger enclosure
specifications, outdoor access, and each species of animal maintain a diet specific to the
species natural consumption, which reduces discomfort. Also the pains associated with
growth hormones are avoided because Organic standards restrict the use of them.
The label USDA Organic is not a guarantee that organic farming is in perfect
harmony with its environment but because of its regulations it does add fewer pollutants
to the air, water, and soil than non-organic farming. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
concluded, after 4 days of discussion involving 140 experts from 22 different countries,
that the strong balance of evidence from research, field trials and farm experience is that
organic agriculture practices are generally more environmentally friendly than
conventional agriculture, particularly with regard to lower pesticide residues, a richer
biodiversity, and greater resilience to drought. Organic farming systems also hold the
potential to lower nutrient run-off and reduce green house gas emissions.3
1 Brian Baker et al, pesticide residue in conventional, IPM-grown and organic
foods,Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 19, No. 5, May 2002, pp.427-446.
2 Andrews,N.(2012,July1).IncidenceofvariantCreutzfeldtJakobdiseasediagnosesanddeathsinthe
UKJanuary1994December2011.RetrievedNovember23,2014,from
http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/documents/cjdq72.pdf
3 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Organic Agriculture:
sustainability, markets and policies, CABI, Paris, 2003, p.10,
www.oecd.org/publications/e-book/5103071E.pdf

The sustainably inclined practices of organic farming fallow closer to the

practices necessary to maintain a healthy biodiversity within a environment. Having a
healthy biodiversity maintains the links within the food chains and fosters a healthy
stable environment that begins with the soil at the bottom of the food chain. Use of crop
rotation, inter-cooling, organic fertilizer, and minimal tillage are all practices that
encourage natural soil building that contributes to nutrient cycling, and reduction in soil
erosion/nutrient runoff.
The easy answer to fixing the 805 million hungry people in the world (that's
about one in nine people on earth4) is to increase intensive agriculture. In 2013 the world
population was 7.2 billion and is predicted to reach 9.6 billion by 20505. The solution
seems apparent: food production needs to increase and because organic yields are
typically 5-35% lower than conventional6. One would think intensive agriculture is the
answer to this problem but in America intensive agriculture has led to many
environmental problems; the dust bowl, algae blooms, and eutrophication are just a few.
There are other ways to fix the the hunger problem other than increasing intensive
agriculture. Today roughly one third, or approximately 1.3 billion tons, of the food
produced in the world for human consumption every year is wasted7. 1/3 is wasted and
only 1/9 of the people around the world are hungry. Matching population growth with
4 HungerStatistics.(2014,January1).RetrievedDecember9,2014,from
http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

5 orldpopulationprojectedtoreach9.6billionby2050UNreport.(2013,June13).RetrievedDecember
9,2014,fromhttp://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45165#.VJIpv75bRSU
6 Seufert,Ramankutty,Foley,V.(2012,April25).Comparingtheyieldsoforganicandconventional
agriculture.RetrievedDecember9,2014,from
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7397/full/nature11069.html
7 Food Waste Facts. (2009, January 1). Retrieved December 9, 2014, from
http://www.unep.org/wed/2013/quickfacts/

unsustainable production methods is not a viable option. With more intensive agriculture
brings more problems environmentally and can leave land so degraded that no food can
be produced on it. If food production tries to match population in an unsustainable way
we could have from nutrient displacement and have a chance that even more people will
go hungry.
Fixing the worlds hunger problem could also be fixed by improving the
agricultural education of developing countries "Around half of the small farmers in the
developing world are either self-sufficient, just eating what they produce, or they are net
food buyers rather than net food sellers. The first priority should be to teach them how to
grow healthier, more nutritious food to feed themselves. They need to stop producing
only rice and coffee. They need a more diversified production8. Increasing
agricultural education in developed countries combined with the
reduction of food waste in developed countries would reduce or fix the
worlds hunger problems with out having to increasing intensive factory
farming methods.
The most moral of all food ethics is organic veganism. It completely eliminates
amoral treatment of animals in food production, protects the environment because it is
organic and arguably provides optimal health benefits to humans. When presented with
this information people will want to adopt a vegan food ethic because of its moral
improvements, but when presented with the amount of change that is necessary to adhere
to this food ethic people will refuse to adopt it. In America eating meat is imbedded in
our culture through religion, holidays, family celebrations and more. Most people have
8 Handwork, B. (n.d.). Sustainable Earth: Food. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/sustainable-earth/food/

grown up on it and become addicted to the taste. Organic veganism does not only
constitute changes necessary for eating organic but also outlaws the consumption of meat,
which people will not adopt because of the amount of change that must be adhered to.
Organic food is not expensive; it is representative of what we ought to be paying
for food. The problem is we compare an organic price tag to non-organic price tag only
seeing the difference in price but usually we do not know we are already paying for the
externalities of non-organic food production. Many of the non-organic crops are heavily
subsidized using taxes. Corn is good example this. Corn may seem cheap but that is only
because it is subsidized by taxes. The government fixes environmental damages made by
intensive agriculture with taxes. Non-organic Farming uses unnatural addictives that
increase growth rates. When growth hormones and/or GMOs are removed, an organism
can resume its natural growth rate. The true price of factory farming is hidden in
environmental damages it causes, which will be eventually paid for with our lives or by
our taxes. If the externalities of conventional farming were added in to its price, the price
gap between conventional farming and organic farming would be truthfully represented
and the gap would be smaller.
The obligations a person has to performing a particular action is related to the cost
of the action to that particular individual, and the predicted outcome of the action. It is for
this reason a rich person has a much higher obligation to buy organic food than a poor
person does. The amount of obligation a person has to eat organic food is correlated with
current income and price difference between organic and not. The range in prices
between organic and non-organic varies depending upon location. Most people think
organic food is expensive. Most people have a vague idea of the moral improvements

that an organic food ethic offers and would adhere to it if there wasnt the large price
difference. I currently eat around 50% organically grown food, only consuming organic
food with a small price difference from its non-organic counterpart. I have found that the
moral benefits significantly outweigh the prices, because an organic food ethic ultimately
provides a positive impact on environmental, human, and animal health.
In every aspect of life there are always people cutting corners and abusing the
systems to their advantage. Look at our government. We dont just say it is broken. It has
cracks and cracks can be fixed. Organic food, even with its faults, is still a large
improvement and is a step in the right direction to making food production more moral,
sustainable and environmentally friendly. One could say that switching to an organic food
ethic is too big of a change, costs too much money and not everyone will adopt it. This
statement may be truenot everyone may adopt an organic food ethic, but there is no
food ethic that you can convince everyone to adopt. An organic food ethic improves the
three areas of moral importance with minimal change to a humans daily life.
Environmental, human, and animal health would see an exponential and positive increase
resulting from more people adopting an organic food lifestyle.