The discussion on organic food versus inorganic food has rented air and the media for a very long time. At present, there are substantive variations between the two. However, this debate does not appear to be coming to an end yet, as there are several pending questions in the matter. For most people, the distinction between organic and inorganic food is still a confounding problem. Health and diet researchers have, however, given a number of explanations for encouraging the use of organic products over inorganic foods. Researchers have already reported a lot of work on this issue. Back in the year 1970s, most biology experts were highly adamant about the advantages of organic foods over non-organic ones. The natural foods in question were majorly organic meats, fresh fruits, and vegetables (Reganold et al., 20). From most of the proponents of the organic foods perspective, the natural foods have two significant benefits over the nonorganic foods. They directly link these two main benefits to both, the animals and humans that eat the foods. First, the proponents indicate that the organic foods have more life-enhancing qualities, unlike the inorganic foods.
This debate about the life-enhancing qualities of organic foods came up at a time when very minimal information about vitamins and trace elements was available. The discussion came with claims that the natural foods had better and more quantities as well as a variety of the trace elements and vitamins (Hammer et al. 24). Then, these claims were still blind to science and were to some extent mystical. However, the claimed extra benefits of the organic food were assumed to be transferred to the persons and animals eating them. The transfer subsequently influenced the lives of the consumers positively.
Over time, the organic industry has risen fast due to the previous debates on the natural foods. This fast development has been significantly noted in the agricultural sector over the past ten years. Currently, about 30 million hectares are organically governed in over 118 nations globally. Biological and ecological methods of farming are applied to produce organic products. These methods of farming do not include the application of fertilizers and pesticides (Assmann 23). Notably, the natural products are linked to excellent brand images, and, therefore, they come at relatively higher costs at the retail shops. Conversely, the nonorganic products have a lot of mechanization aspects as well as excessive use of chemical compounds to reach the final product. Surprisingly, the nonorganic product industries rose as a result of advancement in technology. The development majorly took part during World War II. It is during the second world war that crucial innovations, such as the Haber Bosch, came up (Hammer et al.18).
The Haber Bosch aided the production of organic produce crucially and to some extent the developments around the same subject. From most studies, the organic industries have more advantages over the nonorganic sectors. The Journal of Applied Nutrition in their publication dated the year 2001 noted that natural foods and food products contain higher amounts of nutrients that the nonorganic foods. Similarly, they have a wide range of the nutrients as compared to the inorganic foods. This fact has alluded to the argument that the organically grown products have extra 3% calcium, 73% excess iron, 18% extra magnesium, and about 98% more zinc. Strawberry that is naturally cultured has significantly higher amounts of antioxidants – compounds that fight cancers – than the inorganically grown strawberry. The same applies to both, corn, and Marion berries (Reganold et al. 36). The same study indicates that there is a high likelihood that the application of nonorganic methods of farming, like the use of pesticides and herbicides, prevents the growth of naturally occurring protective food components, like the anti-immune, anti-cancer, and the anti-aging food components.
Some studies have proven that the amounts of nutrients in about eleven organic products double that of the nonorganic products. The benefits, thus, can be looked at from a comprehensive viewpoint. Let us take an instance of a state that decides to invest in organic industries. Its immediate financial benefit is that this nation will be low fertilizer user (Hammer et al. 41). Besides, less machinery and fuel cost will be used as compared to nonorganic industries investments. The organic methods will increase the carbon credits of the country. The carbon credits can then be traded in the carbon credit market.
Evidently, the organic practices lead to the natural economic labeling. Such simple acts increase the level of the consumer’s confidence in the products. Further, it enhances the record-keeping to keep the standards of the organic certification. Besides, it establishes a chance for both, the users and the producers, to comprehend the certification standards. As opposed to the natural products that do not have the accreditation standards, the organic certification and accreditation demand that their industries comply with the high product quality measures (Reganold et al. 13). The certification system has two main parts. That is, one, “A code of conduct, standards, criteria, and guidelines for product certification,” and two, “Monitoring mechanism which assures that inorganic product is produced by certification principles”.
Organic industries inhibit the movement of food over long distances. The approximate distance covered while transporting organic produces is 1800 miles, while that of nonorganic produces 2500 miles (Assmann 5). Thus, the inorganic firms take up higher levels of energy and carbon fuels. The following result of the high energy cost is the emission of the carbon dioxide into the environment. A high level of carbon dioxide in the air is toxic and makes the environment less habitable.
Conversely, it is comparatively cheaper to move organic products from one point to another. In most cases, the natural products are produced close to the users. The backing of organic produces and biological products brings about three kinds of biodiversity. That is the genetic, species, and the ecosystem diversity. The diversity has a significant positive impact on the environment. The organic industry lowers the heat, air, and gases sent out by the greenhouse by above 40% (Willer et al. 248). In other words, it decreases the adverse greenhouse effects. The low levels are directly reflected in less global warming effects.
The other reason why we need to back up the establishment of the organic industries is the food security and productivity. The organic farming poses better chances of providing sustainable food security as compared to that of chemical production. The better chances are recorded in equal measure in both, the developed and underdeveloped nations. Several objective analyses have been done on the impacts of organic industries on food security (Assmann 8). From most summaries of the investigation, it has been proven that, however the inorganic sectors can give solutions to food insecurity matters, it requires a lot of capital.
Apart from being capital intensive, the nonorganic industries rely so much on chemical inputs. The chemicals lower the biodiversity. Further, they pose other significant risks to the environment and its habitats. On the other hand, the organic firms raise the food production with no harm to the environment (Assmann 12). The nonorganic companies degrade the environment and reduce the biodiversity. The Center for Diseases Control revealed that the nonorganic firms release excessive toxic materials into the environment. Majority of these toxins contaminate water supplies. These poisonous substances have tested positive in both, the blood and urines samples of most persons. Further, CDC noted a blend of various toxins and synthetic materials in several living organisms. Peer-reviewed studies link the toxins to massive effects on the nervous and immune systems (Willer et al. 201).
The toxins can potentially damage both, the nervous and immune systems, as well as interfere with the hormone levels of an individual. Many reports prove that organically produced foods have minimal amounts of synthetic materials. These include low nitrate and veterinary drug residue (Reganold et al.17). As highlighted earlier in the introduction of this work, whatever a person or an animal is fed on directly it affects their life. Animals that are reared in organic livestock exponentially reduce the contamination of the animal origin produces.
With all this information about the organic and inorganic industries as well as their respective products, establishing sustainable organic firms will help in the prevention of certain conditions. The increasing cases of cancers, like lymphoma, leukemia, and breast cancers, can be significantly reduced by adopting the organic industries (Assmann 52). The consumption of organically produced goods provides the body with more nutrients that are essential to an individual’s development. Besides, the use of biological products and the promotion of the organic industries can prevent the rising numbers of the autoimmune diseases after the inorganic compounds from the nonorganic industries and their products.
Another advantage of establishing the organic firms is the rising diverse landscapes and the aesthetic values. This development motivates the birth of semi- natural environments through ensuring a biological connection (Willer et al. 332). Finally, the organic relationship has a broad impact on the conservation of both, nature and agriculture, without losing the economic objective. It can, thus, be deduced from the explanation that the organic industries have significant aesthetic gains as opposed to inorganic sectors.
In conclusion, it is evident that the development of the organic industries and organic products will remain steadfast in the contribution to the global problems and majorly food security issues. It is a debate we cannot afford to assume at this point. The organic products have outpaced the chemical products. The new premiums in the lucrative market among other social and environmental advantages consistently promote the growth of organic firms. With this development, the governments also encourage and back the organic companies through legislating certification, market advice, development, and studies. The government officials have started to believe that it is more cost effective to promote organic systems than to correct our issues due to nonorganic industries, for instance, the environmental degradation.
Assmann, Ernst. The principles of forest yield study: studies in the organic production, structure, increment and yield of forest stands. Elsevier, 2013.
Hammer, Benjamin, et al. “Inorganic growth strategies in private equity: Empirical evidence on add-on acquisitions.” Available at SSRN 2338115 (2014).
Reganold, John P., and Jonathan M. Wachter. “Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century.” Nature Plants 2 (2016): 15221.
Willer, Helga, and Julia Lernoud. The world of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends 2016. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL and IFOAM Organics International, 2016.