Jeremy Grieb
Professor Lorna Zukas
GLS 499: GS Seminar and Portfolio
25 December 2015
The Evolving Organic Movement
The Organic Agriculture (OA) movement is a socially informed healthconscious directive to achieving overall wellness for the environment and society. In
essence, its aim is to restore balance with nature. OA strives to promote
sustainability, holistic nutrition, and remove pesticides and genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) that it views as a threat to world health. The OA movement is
diametrically opposed to the conventional industrial and agricultural systems that
are currently in place. While many still believe that industrial agriculture provides a
solution to World Hunger, OA believes profit is their primary motive. Today we
examine the multi-faceted Organic Movement that is centered on sustainability in
agriculture, and the interconnectivity of biology in all its forms.
There are many different perspectives on how to achieve the most efficient
model of agriculture, and today billions of dollars are being invested into various
agricultural models, focused primarily on scientific innovation. Biotechnology firms
such as Monsanto or nonprofit Global Harvest Institute would have the world
believe that despite climate change, and increasingly limited resources, that GMOs
provide the only answer. They claim GMO’s are the only way that we can feed a
global population of 9.6 billion by 2050 (Ziegler, na). The fact is there is already
enough food to feed “120 percent of the world’s population on a vegetarian diet”
2
(Robbins, 2011, p 156). However despite being the primary method for growth in
agriculture over the last 60 years, conventional agriculture has done little to
improve poverty and stimulate domestic production. Instead by focusing science on
genetically modified cash crops with expensive chemical inputs, herbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizers; industrial agriculture has promoted dependency, and
expanded its influence wherever prevailing markets would allow its introduction.
The primary problem with conventional agriculture is that it does little to enhance
the fertility in the ground and much to sap it of its essence. The fact is that we
cannot continue in this vein without increasing the amount of chemical inputs,
multiplying the degradation to the environment and continuing to destroy the soil. A
change is needed to restore the treasure in the ground, to care for the soil, and
restore its fertility for future generations.
Historically we know that wherever large populations of people were
invested in farming for a population that exceeded the carrying capacity, the soil
would eventually lose its fertility and the society would fail. We might look at the
Maya’s, the Inca’s, the Aztecs, Egypt, or Rome for examples. The concentrations of so
many people in a very little space exhausted the fertility in the soil, leading to
societal collapse as these empires eventually failed to provide food for their
societies. However, other cultures have existed on the same plots for literally
thousands of years. The differences are the methods used to maintain the health of
the soil.
T.F. King wrote a book in 1909 titled “Farmers of 40 Centuries”, discussing
the lands that he explored in the Orient, and how he was amazed by their capacity to
3
continue Agriculture on the same land for nearly four thousand years (King, 1911).
The answer lies in their methodology. Rather than allow their soil to become
impoverished, the Chinese utilized a tight system of inputs, irrigation, and crop
rotations to permit the greatest yields possible from these fields. The methods that
they used to maintain their soil fertility were exhaustive in their measures. They
combined agricultural waste, ash from fires, textile waste, natural compost material,
old clay bricks, human and animal manure, and even old textiles integrating them
into the soil. The resulting compost was then dried, pulverized, and later sprinkled
over the field to be worked in during the tilling. Additionally, the Japanese, Koreans,
and Chinese all had systematic methods to rotate their crops legumes and cloverleaf,
both well-known nitrogen-fixing plants. Nitrogen fixers enable vitamins and
minerals deep in the soil to be pulled to the surface resulting with increased fertility.
Additionally, when these green manures are rotated back into the soil, they have the
added value enhancing the microbial content, and increasing beneficial worm
activities. Schools of agricultural science based on these concepts have experienced
exceptionally high yields for centuries. This is especially remarkable when you
examine their simplicity.
T. F. King estimated that these practices enabled Asian communities to
support 5 times the American population in 1900 sustainably on a significantly
smaller land area than American farmers were occupying at that time (Id.). King
went on to speculate, “the oriental farmer is a time economizer beyond any other
thing”. Based on his calculations King theorized that if American’s were to adopt
similar techniques they could yield ten times the amount on the same quantity of
4
land they were using (Id.). Other differences were significant as well, including
keeping meticulous records of the seasons, utilizing particular crops at specific
times in order to maximize each harvest.. During dry seasons alternate crops were
used, and during wet seasons they cultivated rice paddies. Vast record keeping and
history-based experience formed the core of a highly efficient system that lasted
centuries longer than any other system ever used. Rather than bending nature to
their will, they leveraged existing systems that have already proved effective, and
rather than disposing of waste, they returned almost everything back into the soil to
maintain the highest levels of nutrition. It is fascinating to see the extent to which
these cultures used labor and knowledge to sustain these tracts of land capable of
providing for large populations for so many hundreds of years with the potential to
continue for hundreds more.
The secret King learned had been called “the Law of Return” by Sir Albert
Howard, and for years, Sir Howard conducted experiments on farmland in India
throughout the 1920’s and 30’s. His investigations led him to the same conclusionssoil health creates an atmosphere for growth and vitality in agricultural products
(Conford, 2001, pp 90). Howard later joined forces with Jerome Rodale, another
agriculture enthusiast and one of the fathers of organic agriculture to inform the
world of the benefits of soil nutrition for plant production. Rodale published “Pay
Dirt” in 1945, and “Organic Front” in 1948 just after Howard’s life’s work, “War in
the Soil” was printed. (Haverson, Knox, McDonough, and Warren, 2014). They were
amongst the first agricultural scientists to link these important findings to practical
results. Sir Howards “Law of Return” has become the foundation for promoting
5
longevity, sustainability, and permanence in agriculture. For years, this knowledge
remained largely unknown and unused by farming experts. When the “green
revolution” in agriculture first started the newly bourgeoning industrial agricultural
complex leveraged the publics interest in science to supplant traditional agricultural
methods instead favoring proprietary strains of popular cereals, and encouraged
reliance on machinery and chemicals to maximize profits. High-yield varieties
became prominent around the world, and little attention was paid to the underlying
differences what has become conventional agriculture and what we now call organic
agriculture. While organic cost more for labor, there is a much lower chemical, and
environmental cost to the environment. Organic proponents realize that in order to
illustrate these benefits they needed a way to measure and display the results of
their endeavors to show the world that organic methods remain viable for growth
as well as better for the environment.
Lady Eve Balfour and a few other scientists decided to investigate organic
agriculture in depth, using their knowledge to either prove or disprove the claims
being made by Howard and Rodale. In order to do so, they ran three closed loop
farms, and named this investigation the Haughley Experiment (Balfour, 1977). One
was arable farm, and the two others were ley farms. Each farm utilized a separate
rotation of cows, poultry, and sheep. The animals were fed produce generated on
the land, with limited introduction of external feeds. Their waste was composted
and recycled into the fields. One of the two ley farms was entirely organic, while the
other was industrial and used herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, as they
considered necessary. Over the course of 25 years, their scientific investigation
6
discovered the roots of organic crops were deeper and more widely spaced.
Additionally the organic farm had a far more biologically active soil (the heat
indexed there actually increased during certain parts of the growing year in contrast
with the others which maintained steady levels throughout). Lastly, the organic
farm had a much higher quantity of milk generated by the cattle that grazed there.
Balfour learned that the mixed farm developed a sort of reliance on nitrogen
and phosphorus inputs. Speaking of the soil’s micro-flora created in biologically
active soil, Balfour proposes, “Such by-products have a far more complex and
comprehensive formula than N, P and K and moreover are living substances. Inorganic
chemicals are inert. A food chain is not only a material circuit, but also an energy circuit.
Soil fertility has been defined as the capacity of soil to receive, store and transmit energy.
A substance may be the same chemically but very different as a conductor of living
energy. The hypothesis is that the energy manifesting in birth, growth, reproduction,
death, decay and rebirth, can only flow through channels composed of living cells, and
that when the flow is interrupted by inert matter it can be short-circuited with consequent
damage to some part of the food-chain, not necessarily where the block occurred”
(Balfour, 1977). These were the first of several such experiments observing the
differences between organic and industrial systems, and provided scientific evidence for
the superior nature of organic methodology.
Rachel Carson, the author of Silent Spring in 1962, was among the first to
publish awareness regarding the undesirable effects of pesticides and herbicides.
After publishing Silent Spring, she effectively mobilized an ideological campaign
against the unnatural uses of pesticides. She warned that not only were we killing
7
insects, but entire ecosystems as a result of our wanton spraying. Silent Spring
portrayed clear links between the use of chemicals and the deformities in animals
and the host of interlinked species whose health was also severely effected. Carson
exposed the adverse effects of DDT and other chemicals, cautioning people around
the world about their use (Carson, 1965; Rachel Carson Council). ”For each of us, as
for the robin in Michigan or the Salmon in the Miramichi, this is a problem of ecology, of
interrelationships, of interdependence. We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the
salmon runs dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from
link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims.
We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we
sprayed the robins directly but because the poison traveled, step by step, through the now
familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of
the visible world around us. They reflect the web of life — or death — that scientists
know as ecology” (Carson, 1962, p 189). Her research illuminated the multitude of
health related issues and led to a groundswell of public support to end the use of
many of these chemicals, a movement that continues today. Rachel Carson and these
other figures have powerfully illustrated the potential consequences both positive
and negative that human beings contribute to the environment. They have
highlighted the need for caution and awareness, and a basis for viewing the
environment as a complex dynamic system of interrelated species. The
preponderance of time-tested knowledge used over millennia to provide for entire
communities while increasing the health of the environment is irrefutable. The
impact of our historical experience is tremendous and certainly threatens the
8
continued use of chemicals in industrial agriculture today. The potential for selfsufficiency and food sovereignty with organic methods threatens the status quo for
good reasons.
Organic Agriculture (OA) can be defined as “meeting the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, United
Nations, 1987). As John Bellamy Foster states in “the Vulnerable Planet”- “What we
must guard against the most as we endeavor to address our ecological crisis is the
notion that history has in some way reached its end or that there are no genuine
alternatives” (Foster, 1999, pp. 148). The history of organic agriculture in its infancy
is diametrically opposed to any end. The practice of organic farming requires
awareness of the cycle of life and co-dependence within the ecological chain. Any
development that effects the environment must be analyzed and reviewed for
positive or adverse effects. Meanwhile, the proponents of genetically modified crops
rarely take negative impacts on the soil or environment into account, instead
choosing to offset undesirable effects by artificial means. The fundamental
difference between industrial and organic production then is responsibility.
Organic proponents intend to live healthy lives, enjoy a vibrant world, and invest in
soil for a brighter future. Conventional methods are conversely directed toward
short-term profit gain.
The OA Movement’s is currently engaged in a campaign to take a larger share
of the market from companies that specialize in transgenic crops, chemical patents,
and pesticides. The system currently in place requires an inordinate amount of
9
chemical inputs and reaps the lion’s share of profits for transnational companies.
These companies have a vested interest in maintaining this dominance over the
seeds and chemicals required to make it work. Understandably there are clear
incentives to manipulate the media and information accessible to the public that
may undermine their business position. Despite a lack of transparency, a greater
awareness has emerged among the public, and they have begun lobbying for OA
with the money in their wallets. In 2013 OA sales went up 9% to over 30 billion in
the United States, contributing to nearly half of OA sales worldwide. Activists
understand the significant impact of transparency and education, and they have
begun a massive information campaign to provide accurate information.
For example, if you were to visit the site “Food Democracy Now” you would
see how over 300,000 members have been mobilized to stop the Monsanto
Protection Act, and how Food Democracy Now strives for labeling of foods on our
grocery shelves. They believe that the consumers have the right to know when
transgenic crops treated with toxic chemicals effect their food. The FDA uses
available science, but there is a huge push to lobby this governmental organization
for the industrial complex. For example, while labeling food as genetically modified
it may not be beneficial to the industry overall, it is important to inform the
consumer about what they are purchasing. The organic movement has been highly
successful using social media as well as other more organic processes to mobilize
people and communicate ideas. Many of these campaigns discredit conventional
agriculture and show the damage created by blindly pursuing Big Ag during its blind
push for profits.
10
Food Democracy Now makes the bold claim that in the last four years their
members have taken over 3 million actions with similar goals to ensure the organic
lifestyle grows in its purest form. They send out emails and updates whenever
possible to mobilize their constituents on the warpath, and they recently won a
battle in court against PepsiCo’s brand Naked. The court forced PepsiCo to change
their label after it was found to be dishonest marketing intentionally used to
mislead the consumer. As reported by the Patterson Law Firm: “While PepsiCo
labels their Naked Juice as all natural, the class action lawsuit that was filed cites
that its "boost of vitamins" actually contains synthetic fibers. In addition to settling
for $9 million, PepsiCo issued a statement that it would no longer use the phrase "all
natural" in its marketing of the juice” (Patterson, 2013). These are exactly the types
of misinformation campaigns that the organic movement has been fighting against
since its resurgence over the last 20 years. However, the OA movement has only
begun to gain steam, in part, because of new technology that preserves the food
from spoiling longer without losing its essence, and the notable investment of
organic consumers voting with their wallets.
Chain stores built on the precepts of organic and sustainability have existed
for over 50 years, but in the last decade, their profit margin has exploded. Whole
Foods is a prime example of a market focused on the informed consumer. Whole
Food had its start when a small group of friends got together to open a place to feed
their families and friends healthy food free of pesticides. The demand for natural
and organic products increased dramatically after Rachel Carson’s book was
published in 1962. They began with 19 people in Austin, Texas, after decades of
11
growth they acquired several other organizations such as the Food Circus in the
North East. Today Whole Foods is a billion dollar company (Whole Foods Market
History, na). Whole Foods uses all of the most popular social media sites, Google,
Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter linking their website to promote their consumer
base and sales in OA. As of 2011, Whole Foods had over 2.1 million members
following them on Twitter (Holmes, 2011). This trend toward OA extends far
beyond Food Democracy Now and Whole Foods. With the rise of social media, and
modern technology, the use of organic agriculture and similar terms is expanding
exponentially around the world. OA’s ties to social media are intertwined with an
organic followership, being generated from friendships, concerned citizens, and
health conscious young adults. A Google search on organic agriculture yields
125,000 results, organic farming nets 240,000, organic living 240,000, organic living
brings 342,000, and organic food provides a whopping 995,000 results. The market
for OA is remarkable. A look at the growth in OA in the last few years is shown in
these FIBL graphs below (Organic World, 2013)
12
The US and the EU have already discovered the implications of the OA market
and they decided to pursue mutual trade agreements in 2012. An article in USA
Today placed their separate earnings at $26.7 billion in the United States and $26
billion in the European Union. Cooperation and trade between Europe and the
United States has increased since the introduction of Europe’s BIOFACH fair, and as
the market expands it is easy to see why when there are over 50 billion reasons to
do so (Weise, 2012).
13
The UK Soil Association lays down their own definition for Organic on their
website, "Organic standards are the rules and regulations that define how an organic
product must be made. Organic standards for food are laid down in European Union
(EU) law. Anything labeled 'organic' that is for human consumption must meet these
standards as a minimum. The standards cover all aspects of food production, from
animal welfare and wildlife conservation, to food processing, to packaging" (Soil
Association, 2014). Organic Trade Association and Kiwi joined forces to profile their
American customer base and found, “81% of families’ report purchasing organic
products at least occasionally in 2013, meaning that the majority of Americans
either prefer the taste, or have been exposed the increasing amount of options on
the market (Organic Trade Association, 2009). Additionally, they found that onethird of organic consumers are new to the market—having purchased organic for
less than two years” (Id.). They are part of a bourgeoning market that takes into
account a holistic view of life, balancing nutrition with an active lifestyle.
14
Some consumers claim that there is almost too much information available
on organic agriculture, and science only complicates the message that the two
opposing groups Big Ag and OA maintain. Sarah Pinneo reports in the Huffington
Post, that it is the subtle aspects that make the difference. Her article “Media
Coverage of Stanford’s Organic Foods Study is Half Baked”, discusses the blind
statements mainstream media has made in citing this Stanford’s findings. Stanford
University found media coverage of OA to be overwhelmingly positive in its
depictions of nutritional value. They argue that the measurements of nutrients in
15
organic and conventional agriculture are comparable. The study finds that the level
of vitamin C is very much the same in both organic and nonorganic brands. Pinneo
goes on to say, it is not the nutrients in the produce but what is not in them that are
important. Organic foodstuffs don’t have all the pesticides and foreign damaging
substances to digest in our bodies (Pinneo, 2012). Industrial agriculture often finds
the most attractive nutrients, vitamin C for example, and is able to inject it into their
produce, unnaturally without regard to how it may effect the flavor or health of the
item. We can see then how science is often manipulated to confuse the consumer, in
order to maintain market dominance.
Monsanto takes the remarkable perspective that studies on GMO products do
not exist: “There are not currently any human clinical trials used to test the safety of
GM crops. This is not unusual; no existing food or ingredient – GM or otherwise – has
been the subject of human clinical trials. However, there is broad global agreement
among food scientists, toxicology experts and regulatory food safety officials on how to
evaluate the safety of GM foods” (Monsanto, na). This is fascinating, as it seems that
whenever scientific studies provide evidence to the contrary they react with an
immediate negative and mostly accusatory response claiming fear mongering and
inaccurate science. The chart below describes the notable work from Dr. Huber, but
Big Ag has claimed that it is without merit.
16
Honeycutt. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_versus_non_gmo
While this information is provided with a great deal of scientific analysis, the
ramifications of this study are under dispute, as Dr. Huber has been accused of
withholding his methods from other scientists and been berated from a bunch of
pro-GMO firms. The same practices occur with biotech firms when they cite privacy
and patent rights whenever they are questioned on how they obtained their studies
results. We might ask how it is possible for organic and GMO foods to generate such
17
incredible profits and have no conclusive results on food safety? Therefore while the
information above is highly interesting, and very much suggestive of the soil health
and nutrient dense crops that are produced out of well-managed organic
agriculture, we cannot claim overarching truths from it. The study itself might vary
widely from location to location or plant to plant as was inferred by Big Ag in this
case. To provide a conclusive study on either method of production it would be
necessary to review a large amount of locations around the world along with an
exhaustive review of the people, diets, soil, and plants in each test area. The lengths
that must be taken are necessary when the stakes are so high.
What we do know unequivocally is that there are up to 40 times more
earthworms present in the soil on organic no till farms, and hundreds of pollinators
(USDA, p 5). Whereas the pesticides and tilling used on conventional agriculture
often leads to the destruction of native life, a direct threat to the lives of honeybees,
and eutrophication in wet areas nearby. The conclusion of our combined knowledge
on the subject of agricultural science is that it is completely polarized on the
continued use of GMO’s. The profits involved create enormous incentives to skew
the results of any negative results against either side.
Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University
and formerly a member of the UK government’s GM Science Review Panel, said:
“The main reason some multinationals prefer GM technologies over the many
alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative ways to control intellectual property
and global supply chains. To sideline open discussion of these issues, related
18
interests are now trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific
diversity. This undermines democratic debate–and science itself” (ENSSER, 2013).
Stirling’s comment supports the view of GMO’s as a capitalistic endeavor, but when
science, technology, and profits are this closely aligned the public must remain
skeptical and concerned.
These discussions substantiate the growing importance of ecological justice
and political ecology to the consumers of organic products. Experts from different
fields have been collaborating on the various challenges and prospects of global
trade for the inter-related markets of OF and OA, performing surveys on regionally
and locally effected peoples. A social metric tool called the Special Euro barometer
has been used to measure their results. Most agree that resources ought to be
commonly shared and the detrimental effects on the environment ought to be
mitigated as much as possible for all of the planets inhabitants. An overhaul of the
industry must occur to modernize technologies with ecology and sustainability in
mind.
New processes must be similarly implemented for rural farms that would
encourage local development and limit the harsh effects of market liberalization on
local communities. Subsidies for Big Ag or farmers working in wealthier countries
often undermine the ability of third world farmers to develop domestically.
Protectionist policies generally result in a competitive advantage for those already
maintaining a position of dominance in the global market. More must be done for
the impoverished citizens around the world to grow in the organic sector and
increase transparency so they might be able to compete on an even playing field.
19
“Long-term success in the organic industry requires a consistent investment in
research and education, and promotion of certified organic that does not exist
today” (United for More Organic, 2011). These considerations must include
protections for small farmers and methods by which they can continue to compete.
Lifestyle Magazine recently printed an article from the Agence France Presse
regarding Emmanuel Giboulot a wine farmer who refused a municipal regulation to
treat his crop with pesticides that would destroy a decade of work to grow his red
and white wines organically. He was fined over 1000 euros for failing to comply
(Lichfield, 2014). The government issued a regulation requiring pesticides on their
crops to prevent flavesence doree (otherwise known as golden rot) from spreading
to other vineyards in the area. In fact, only 16 villages in the region had been
effected and Mr. Giboulot argued that since there wasn’t an “immediate threat to the
region” (id.) it was not necessary to treat his crops in such an aggressive way. He
likened this treatment of the grapes to "chemotherapy for cancer"(Lifestyle
Magazine, 2014). Greenpeace and the France Green Party mobilized over 100,000
people, and a petition with over 500,000 names gave Mr. Giboulot the support he
needed to fight (Lifestyle, 2014; Lichfield, 2014). Ultimately the court found in favor
of Mr. Giboulot and against the local agriculture board for failing to seek the
approval of the Ministry of Agriculture in Paris. Giboulot commented
"there is a social problem here – the impact of agricultural practices and the use of
pesticides on the quality of produce and therefore on human health. Burgundy,
which has vineyards of exceptional quality, should be promoting practices which
respect the environment" (Lichfield, 2014). The industrial agricultural complex
20
wields a great deal of power at the governmental level resulting in policies that
aren’t healthy for the environment, produce, and are incredibly expensive for the
farmer either to fight legally or to purchase in order to comply. This is just one of the
many examples of how the organic movement is growing and winning against the
mainstream food industry. Fortunately in this case OA was successful, but what
about the other farmers out there that don’t yet have a voice?
Dependency on the mono-cultural model that relies on chemicals that are
harmful to the environment is simply not satisfactory to a growing number of organic
believers. The organic movement is making strides to protect the consumer, the
farmer, and the environment from further harm and has set the following goals: 1)
adopt a freedom of information policy to share germoplasm regionally, 2) invest in
domestic production for the sake of human rights and world hunger, 3) provide agro
biodiversity where there are singular crops, 4) increase the consumption of non
staple foods for the health of the world, 5) end the use of chemical inputs and
transgenic foods until there is unequivocal evidence that not only are the plants
nutritious but the ground is too.
For over 100 years proponents of organic have been building their
knowledge to protect the citizens of the world, particularly those that have been left
undefended and starving. As Pope Francis recently said at the Global Nutrition
Challenge, the fight against world hunger is handicapped by “the priority of the
market and the pre-eminence of profit, which have reduced food to a thing to be bought
and sold, and subject to speculation” (FAO, 2014). The world needs organic food that is
grounded in science, provides a livelihood for the unemployed, and food for the masses.
21
When all this can be achieved by following organic principles to protect the resources
around us, all the while feeding and employing the underprivileged and hungry, why
wouldn’t we all go organic?
References:
2009 US Families Organic Attitudes and Beliefs Study. (June 2009). Organic Trade
Association. Retrieved 23 August, 2013, from
http://ota.com/organic/www.ota.com/pics/documents/01b_FinalOTAKiwiExecutiveSummary.pdf
Balfour, E. (1977). Towards a Sustainable Use of Agriculture- The Living Soil. IFOAM
Conference in Switzerland 1977. SoilandHealth.org Retrieved December 12,
2014, from
http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010116balfourspeech.html
Carson, R. (1962). The Silent Spring. First Mariner Books, Boston. Print.
Conford, P. (2001). The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris Books. Glasgow.
Print.
ENSSER. (2013, October, 21). No Scientific Consensus on safety of genetically
modified organisms. Scientists release statement as World Food Prize goes to
Monsanto and Syngenta Press Release. Retrieved 20 December, 2014, from
http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/EN_PR_no_consensus_ENSSE
R_LV.pdf
Food Democracy Now. (2013, August 22). Food Democracy Now website. Retrieved
22 August, 2013 from http://fooddemocracynow.org/
Haverson, Knox, McDonough, & Warren (2014). An Overview of the Philospohy and
History of Organic Agriculture. University of Illinois. YouTube. Retrieved 25
April 2014 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvErhdcpSkU
22
Halibeg, N., Alroc, H., Knudsen, M., Kristensen, E. (2006). Global Development of
Organic Agriculture Challenges and Prospects. Cambridge, MA: CABL
Publishing
Holmes, E. (2011, December 9). Tweeting Without Fear: How Three Companies
Have Built Their Twitter Strategies. The Wall Street Journal, US Ed. Retrieved
22 August, 2013, from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702043190045770861408
65075800.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews
IFOAM (27 March, 2013). Proposed EU Regulation on Organic Agriculture
Undermines Integrity and Credibility of the System. Retrieved 22 August,
2013, from http://classic.ifoam.org/press/press/2006/EU_Regulation.php
King, F. (1911). Farmers of Forty Centuries or Permanent Agriculture in China,
Korea, and Japan. SoilAndHealth.Org. Retrieved 20 December, 2014, from
http://soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010122king/ffc.html
Monsanto (na). Commonly Asked Questions about the Food Safety of GMOs.
Retrieved 20 December, 2014, from
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/food-safety.aspx#q7
Honeycutt, Z. (2013). Stunning Corn Comparisons: GMO versus Non-GMO
http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stunning_corn_comparison_gmo_vers
us_non_gmo
Organic Consumers Association. (2013, August 22). The Organic Consumers
Association Website. Retrieved 22 August, 2013, from
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
Organic Winemaker fined for refusing to use pesticides. Agence France Presse. April
08, 2014. Lifestyle Magazine. Accessed 08 April, 2014, from
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/lifestyle/2014/04/08/organic-winemakerfined-for-refusing-to-use-pesticides/
Organic World. Graphs and Maps “World of Organic Agriculture 2013”. FiBL.
23
Retrieved 16 August, 2013, from http://www.organic-world.net/2419.html
PepsiCo Settles Lawsuit over Naked Juice (30 July, 2013). The Business Litigation
Blog. The Patterson Law Firm. Retrieved 22 August, 2013, from
http://www.pattersonlawfirm.com/blog/2013/7/30/pepsico-settleslawsuit-over-naked-juice.aspx
Pineo, S (2012, September 4). Media Coverage of Stanford’s Organic Foods Study is
Half Baked. Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 August, 2013, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-pinneo/media-coverage-organicfood-study_b_1854358.html?utm_hp_ref=food
Pope Francis urges concrete action in global nutrition challenge. November 20,
2014. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved
December 12, 2014, from
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/266831/icode/
Rachel Carson Council. Home Page. Retrieved December 12, 2014, from
http://www.rachelcarsoncouncil.org/index.php?page=mission
Site Popula. (2013, August 22). Site Popula a webmasters tool website. Retrieved 22
August, 2013 from http://sitepopula.com.sitetool.org/
Soil Association. (2013, August 22). The Soil Association website. Retrieved 22
August, 2013 from http://www.soilassociation.org/
The Common Agricultural Policy Report (May 2011) Retrieved 22 August, 2013,
from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_368_en.pdf
UN World Report. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, United Nations, 1987. Transmitted to the General Assembly as
an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development and International Cooperation: Environment Retrieved 22 August, 2013, from http://www.undocuments.net/wced-ocf.htm
USDA. Agricultural Management: Effects on Earthworm Populations. Soil qualityAgronomy Technical Note. No. 11. Retrieved 20 December, 2014, from
24
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053291.
pdf
Weise, E. (2012). USA, EU get on the same page for organic farms. USA TODAY.
Retrieved 16 August, 2013 from
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-0214/organic-food-agreement/53096434/1
Whole Foods Market History. (n.a.). Whole Foods. Retrieved 20 April 2014 from
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company-info/whole-foods-markethistory
WTFISONLINE.com. (2013, August 22). Strategic, organic, social media growth in
higher education. WTISONLINE. Retrieved 22 August 2013, from
http://wtfisonline.com/blogs/strategic-organic-social-media-growth-inhigher-education/
Zeigler, M. (na). Climate Change is Another Obstacle to Global Food Security. Global
Harvest Initiative. Monsanto. Washington, D.C. Retrieved December 12, 2014,
from http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/pages/climatechange-an-obstacle.html