Simonson 1

Jordan Simonson

Professor Karma Chavez, Teaching Assistant John Ivens

Communication Arts 262: Theory and Practice of Argumentation and Debate

8 November 2012

Organic Benefits Unclear for School Lunches

According to the Center for Disease Control, 20 percent of children ages 6-11 are obese

in America (Childhood). Childhood obesity is a problem in America and people are beginning to

make changes, with the most sweeping reform being school lunches. Americans want children to

eat healthy and nutritious meals while at school. One proposal is to require the use of organic

food in these school lunch programs. Many consumers assume that organic food will be healthier

for children and better for the environment. The definition provided by the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) states:

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product

has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological

and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological

balance and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation

and genetic engineering may not be used. (National)

Nowhere in this definition is the word “healthy” used to define organic food, even though many

organic companies continue to use health claims to substantiate using organic food, including

advocating organic food usage in schools. Organic Valley has started a program called the

“School Lunch Lottery,” where organic food is perceived and marketed as a healthy alternative

to a traditional school lunch. Requiring organic food to be used in schools should not be allowed

because it would force undue economic hardships on schools and families for unknown health

and environmental benefits. Until organic food is proven to have significant health benefits or

the price is reduced significantly, there is no reason to convert school lunch programs to using

organic food.

Simonson 2

Some Americans advocate organic food usage in school lunches for health reasons, but

organic food has not shown any noticeable health benefits, especially not to warrant the

increased costs. According to a recent Stanford study, “published literature lacks strong

evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.

Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant

bacteria (Brandeau, 348).” Pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be controlled

with proper food handling procedures. This study also states “consumers can pay up to twice as

much for organic than conventional (Brandeau, 348).” To further illustrate this issue, a study by

CERTCOST, a research project analyzing the economics of certification systems for organic

food and farming, found “the great majority of consumers did not know that the use of the term

‘organic’ is regulated and thus they did not trust products only labeled with this term without a

logo. For almost all tested organic logos, consumers were on average willing to pay a price

premium compared to a similar organic product without a logo (Hamm, 19).” This study shows

the average consumer does not understand what organic food is, yet are still willing to pay more

money for it.

Much of the concern over traditional agriculture practices lies at a much smaller level that

what the eye can see. The use of hormones in milk and beef are of concern for the general public,

even though the estrogenic content of a 500 gram piece of white bread is 42,857 times that of a

500 gram steak implanted with hormones (Questions). The use of antibiotics in conventional

farming is a warranted concern by consumers, pointing out that antibiotics may lead to antibiotic

resistant strands of bacteria. Antibiotics are not the only disease prevention method though, as

mentioned in an overview of antibiotic usage in livestock by Scott McEwen, “Age-segregation,

all-in all-out management, biosecurity, sanitation, and vaccination are just a few examples of

Simonson 3

nonantibiotic practices that may be used in the prevention and control of many infectious

diseases of livestock (McEwen, 243).” A growing health complaint of conventional farming is

the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food production. According to an overview of

GM crops by Charles Schmidt, “despite public fears, the health risks of eating commercialized

GM foods on the market now appear to be negligible, experts say (Schmidt, A531).” GM crops

have shown the opportunity to increase yields significantly, a common criticism of organic food

production. By not allowing GM crop production, organic food producers are further reducing

abilities to increase yield. It is estimated that organic food production is 80 percent of

conventional farming, with a high standard deviation due to different crops and cropping

systems. There is evidence that as conventional yields increase, this gap becomes even larger

(De Ponti). Being able to feed the world is a huge issue for agriculture to have to face; an issue

further exacerbated with organic food production. The world can increase life expectancy faster

from reducing hunger than the possible life expectancy gain from eating organic food. Harming

the poor and hungry is no justification for our remote chance at a healthier life.

Another long-standing perception of organic food production is that it is better for the

environment, but studies have shown that there are questionable environmental benefits. While

organic farming is considered better for the environment per land unit, there is evidence to

suggest otherwise per food unit. “Organic farms tend to have higher soil organic matter content

and lower nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions)

per unit of field area. However, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide

emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems (Hodge, 309).” The amount of food

produced by organic agriculture is actually more harmful per food unit due to the differences in

food production amounts. The meta-analysis goes on to recommend “research efforts and

Simonson 4

policies should be targeted to developing farming systems that produce high yields with low

negative environmental impacts drawing on techniques from both organic and conventional

systems (Hodge, 309).” Many people point to using “no-till” farming (where you do not plow the

ground) and GM crops as possible opportunities to reduce environmental impacts by producing

higher yields and nutrient values with less fertilizers and pesticides.

Friend School Haverford is using a system I think could and should be implemented

across the U.S. Here they have hired a chef to cook a healthy meal every Wednesday during

school. The chef uses local produce that does not come from a can and is not frozen (Holmes).

As opposed to focusing on using organic food, which has shown minimal health and

environmental benefits, the school focuses on using food that is not processed; food that is cut

fresh and never frozen. According to a Stanford study, these physical factors can affect nutrient

levels: season, weather, soil type, ripeness, cultivar, or storage practices (Brandeau, 358).

Nutrient levels depend more on these physical factors than whether the food came from an

organic or conventional farming system. School lunch programs and children in poverty cannot

afford more expensive organic food choices, but there are stories, such as at the Friend School

Haverford, of cafeterias sourcing local, healthier produce and keeping their costs down. Using

these resources also pushes these cafeterias to be creative and use products that are in season in a

healthy way. For instance, the Friend School Haverford makes bread pudding with butternut

squash. Focusing on the quality of the recipes and food being used will have a greater impact on

childhood obesity in America than switching to organic food.

Requiring organic food to be used in schools should not be allowed because it would

force undue economic hardships on schools and families for unknown health and environmental

benefits. There are many unknowns surrounding the organic versus conventional farming debate.

Simonson 5

For this reason, it is hard to draw a line in the sand and say organic food should or should not be

used. However, the current potential benefits do not outweigh the costs associated with organic

food production. The gains in yield using conventional farming are superior to organic farming

and are the main reason why organic farming has its limitations. Before even considering the

proposal of using organic products in schools: more research needs to be conclusive on the

health benefits of organic farming, yields need to increase and prices need to reduce.

Works Cited

Brandeau, Margaret, Crystal Smith-Spangler, et. al. “Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than

Conventional Alternatives?” Annals of Internal Medicine 157.5 (2012): 348-366.

EBSCOhost. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.

“Childhood Obesity Facts.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. USA.gov, 7 June 2012.

Web. 8 November 2012.

De Ponti, Tomek, Bert Rijk, and Martin K. van Ittersum. “The crop yield gap between organic

and conventional agriculture.” Agricultural Systems 108 (2012): 1-9. EBSCOhost. Web.

23 Oct. 2012.

Hamm, Ulrich and Meike Janssen. “Product labeling in the market for organic food: Consumer

preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos.” Food

Quality and Preference 25.1 (2012): 9-22. EBSCOhost. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.

Hodge, I.D., D.W. Macdonald, P. Rjordan and H.L. Tuomisto. “Does organic farming reduce

environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research.” Journal of

Environmental Management 112 (2012): 309-320. EBSCOhost. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.

Simonson 6

Holmes, Kristin. “Healthy Lunches a Hit at Friends School Haverford.” The Philadelphia

Inquirer 2 November 2012: B01. Web.

McEwen, Scott. “Antibiotic Use in Animal Agriculture: What Have We Learned and Where are

We Going?” Animal Biotechnology 17 (2006) 239-250. EBSCOhost. Web. 27 Oct. 2012.

“National Organic Program.” USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. United States Department

of Agriculture, 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.

“Questions and Answers about “Hormones” in Beef.” Feedstuffs Foodlink. N.p, n.d. Web. 27

Oct. 2012.

Schmidt, Charles. “Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty.” Environmental Health

Perspectives 113.8 (2005) A526-A533. EBSCOhost. Web. 27 Oct. 2012.

School Lunch Lottery: http://www.organicvalley.coop/community/moo/school-lunch/school-

lunch-lottery-choices-for-our-children/

Is organic agriculture “affluent narcissism?”