FIGHTING FOOD, INC.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOODS

Alan R. Albrecht

TC 660H
Plan II Honors Program
The University of Texas at Austin

April 29, 2015

____________________________________________________________
Nancy K. Stalker, Ph.D.
Department of Asian Studies
Supervising Professor

____________________________________________________________
Y. Sekou Bermiss, Ph.D.
Management Department
Second Reader

Albrecht 2

ABSTRACT

Author: Alan Albrecht

Title: Fighting Food, Inc: The Development and Benefits of Organic Foods
Supervising Professors: Dr. Nancy K. Stalker; Dr. Y. Sekou Bermiss

Are organic foods better than nonorganic foods? This thesis seeks to answer that
question by analyzing the development of the organic food industry from three separate
perspectives. Combining academic research with quantitative industry analysis, this thesis
argues that organic foods really are better for businesses, consumers, and the environment. After
an overview of the historical development of the organic food industry, this thesis explores its
three main viewpoints. Businesses in the organic food industry are more successful than those in
the nonorganic industry. Consumers gain freedom of choice and increasing social capital.
Organic food production does not harm the environment as much as industrial techniques.
Although the industry is not perfect, this thesis refutes food activists claims that the food
industry is a failure. Lessons learned from the development of the organic industry can be
further refined to continually improve the food industry, emphasizing sustainability, health, and
conservation.

Albrecht 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .

Chapter One: Historical Perspective

Chapter Two: Business Perspective

18

Chapter Three: Consumer Perspective

27

Chapter Four: Environmental Perspective

35

Conclusion

43

Works Cited .

46

Biography

50

Albrecht 4

Introduction

In 2006, Michael Pollan, a popular food activist, wrote a bestselling book called The
Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals which explored the American food
industry through its titular four meals. The New York Times heralded the book as one of the ten
best of the year. Two years later, Pollan narrated Food, Inc., a documentary directed by Emmywinner Robert Kenner that exposed distasteful practices in industrial agriculture and
agribusiness. Both works perfectly exemplify a recurrent thread in food activism when looking
at the food production industry a thread that claims the industrial, mass-produced, and
processed method of agriculture and food production is bad and the all-natural, organic, and
local method is the good alternative. They presuppose an organic ideal: food produced
without synthetic chemicals, with conservation and sustainability in mind, not shipped
nationwide but sold in local markets, concerned equally with human, animal, and plant health,
and produced in pursuit of quality, not profits. The organic ideal wants to be completely separate
from the industrial methods that prioritize efficiency, yield, and uniformity. Furthermore, such
influential voices lament any crossover between the two methods; Pollan even coined the phrase
Big Organic in The Omnivores Dilemma, referring to the unholy union of industrial
techniques in organic agriculture. They want to go back to a time when both practices were
wholly separate.
Why are there such divided opinions on such similar foods? Imagine two plates filled
with the same foods. You wouldnt be able to tell them apart visually. You wouldnt even be
able to tell them apart by taste or smell. Nevertheless, they are different one plate has foods all
produced organically, and the other all produced through standard industrial methods. Is one

Albrecht 5

better than the other? Should we prefer the organic plate, as food activists would suggest? Does
any crossover between the two spoil its purity?
I wanted to answer these questions about why the organic movement started and how it
has changed. I have found that organic foods are indeed better in surprising ways. Furthermore,
Big Organic should not be written off; the combination of organic and industrial methods has
improved the American food industry in ways that the organic ideal could not do alone. I will
argue that we do not need to go back to separate methods; rater, we should celebrate current
accomplishments and continually refine current techniques. Organic foods are better from three
different perspectives: business, consumer, and environmental.
Some recurring words and terms that I use throughout this thesis need definition. I will
often use the terms organic movement, organic ideal and organic industry. More precisely,
organic movement refers to the social phenomenon that began in the 1960s to create an
alternative food supply. Organic industry refers to the companies, farms, and individuals that
have adopted that movement to produce and sell organic food products to consumers. Organic
ideal refers to the ideals I outlined in the opening paragraph, indicating the values and goals of
the early organic movement, which were more strict and idealized than current USDA
regulations including greater environmental consciousness, rejection of corporate capitalist
ideals, complete avoidance of synthetic inputs, and an overall movement away from the
mainstream. In addition, I will use terms like industrial and conventional to refer to nonorganic
food products and their corresponding social and economic environments. These terms are not
meant to suggest that organic foods do not use modern industrial equipment or that industrial
agriculture is conventional in the sense of being more acceptable; rather, these terms establish
certain widespread methods that the organic movement wished to depart from.

Albrecht 6

My research covers a broad range of popular and academic writings. In the first instance
are writings that influence how we think about food. Writers like Pollan and Jane Goodall
criticize industrial and Big Organic practices and persuade us to avoid them. Pollans seminal
book in this area is The Omnivores Dilemma, as I mentioned earlier, which disapproves of
meals containing industrially produced food and presents a perfect meal that is local, all-natural,
and lives up to the organic ideal. Jane Goodall holds similar views in Harvest for Hope: A Guide
to Mindful Eating. She draws on personal experiences and values to influence western society to
embrace organic food in its purest form and shun the evils of unnatural, industrial agriculture.
More moderate writers seek to inform rather than influence, such as Marion Nestle and Warren
Belasco. Nestles What to Eat looks through the many sections in a grocery store and helps the
reader make informed decisions. Belascos Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took
on the Food Industry recounts the beginnings of the organic movement and how its idea have left
their mark on American society and industry. Countless more writings fall everywhere along the
scale telling us what we should and should not eat.
On the other hand are the writings in each of the three perspectives. Industry reports and
financial publications focus on the success of the organic industry and its companies. The
organic industry has also followed a common pattern of growth identified in population ecology
of organizations. This theory, identified by Michael Hannan and John Freeman in
Organizational Ecology, explains how the consolidation of large firms in an industry creates
space for new entrants at the periphery to carve out new niches, just as early organic producers
were able to do. Shorter academic papers such as Benjamin Gutmans Ethical Eating: Applying
the Kosher Food Regulatory Regime to Organic Food propose new ways to approach industry
regulation. Many other authors have explored the social implications of food from a human

Albrecht 7

perspective. The Taste Culture Reader: Experiencing Food and Drink, edited by Carolyn
Korsmeyer, combines discourses on food experiences across cultures and time periods. Josee
Johnston and Shyon Baumanns textbook, Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet
Foodscape, takes a closer look at foods societal implications in modern America, describing
how personal identity can be expressed through food. Finally, numerous scientific studies and
papers have examined the nutritional content of organic foods and the environmental impact of
both industrial and organic agriculture. Meta-analyses, such as Does Organic Farming Reduce
Environmental Impacts? by Tuomisto et. al., combine many of these studies together to
examine their conclusions in aggregate and provide a more definitive answer. I also rely on
other academic works to support smaller, more specific claims.
This thesis contributes to the field of writings on organic food by systematically
analyzing the benefits from three separate perspectives: a business, an individual, and the
environment. I will show how the industry was formed out of a counterculture movement and
transitioned to overlapping with a mainstream model. I will look at how companies in this
industry compete and capture value. Furthermore, I will consolidate the advantages of organic
food for the consumer and for the environment, showing how that might differ from the founding
expectations and promises of the organic movement. Discourses on organic foods are often
clouded by political agendas and personal values; my contribution will be an unbiased argument
for organic foods synthesized from different perspectives. I have approached this topic by
bringing together research in areas that have little overlap and synthesizing them to address my
central questions. Some papers analyze the environmental effects of agriculture, but not its
economic impacts. Other papers examine social connections around organic food but ignore its
historical development. I want to bring all these topics together into a cohesive whole and apply

Albrecht 8

business theories to this specific industry. By applying this method, this thesis will fully capture
the development and benefits of organic foods.

Albrecht 9

Chapter One
Historical Perspective

With increasing awareness about the national food supply chain and the explosion of
successful, alternative grocers like Whole Foods and Central Market, organic foods seem to be
the hot new thing. However, this view is only true from a perspective born out of the modern
industrial agriculture of the 19th and 20th centuries. Evidently true organic foods were the only
kinds of foods for the vast majority of human history; organic would have been a redundant
modifier. What happened to make that salient modifier necessary? As scientists began to
understand agriculture, farmers could harness and manufacture it. Chemical fertilizers and
artificial pesticides allowed farmers in any climate to grow nearly any crop. With bigger, more
bountiful yields and advanced preservative measures, they could stock giant grocery stores and
supermarkets which provided incredible cost savings and convenience to the growing urban
population of 20th century America. The convergence of numerous advances, such as chemical
fertilizers, refrigeration, transportation, and packaging, created a food supply chain that was
dominated by unnatural techniques until a dedicated few started a counterculture in the 1960s
that would transform into the organic industry we know today.
The transition from farming to big agriculture took great leaps in the 19th century.
Farmers had long been a mix of subsistence and commercial; if you wanted to spend your life
pursuing something other than the next meal, you had to have someone else do it for you.
However, there was a limit to what one farmer or family could produce. Certain crops did better
than others, rotating crops seemed to restore the soil, and organic plant and animal waste
improved crop health, but they were mostly at the mercy of their environment. Three letters
spelled the change of all that: NPK. During the mid-1800s, Justus von Liebig, a German chemist,

Albrecht 10

demonstrated the importance of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (whose periodic table
representations are N, P, and K, still demarked on fertilizer bags at the local garden store) to a
plants growth. These three chemicals, in addition to the usual soil, water, and sunlight, would
guarantee healthier crops and bigger yields. In addition, Liebig deduced that it was the minimum
of these components that most limited crop growth.
It seemed like a miracle. Farmers simply had to add whichever of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium was least present in their soil, sit back, and watch their fields prosper. Suddenly
areas with less than perfect land were perfectly suitable to grow all kinds of crops. In addition,
steam engines from the Industrial Revolution, and later gas engines, were finally small enough to
develop mechanical tractors, ploughs, and planters. A single farm could now expand many times
over its former boundaries. To connect the new supply with demand, farmers utilized the
dominant railroad systems of 19th century America and later the highway systems of the 20th
century. Chemicals, coal, oil, and gas were now indivisible parts of industrial agriculture.
Other advances in food retailing allowed for even more steps between cultivation and
eating. Processing techniques could alter foods to add ingredients, both natural and artificial.
Preservation techniques were refined in the 1890s and early 1900s, as commercial and consumer
refrigeration became common. Vacuum canning and plastic packaging allowed foods to sit on
shelves for extraordinary lengths of time. Chemical preservatives were added to processed foods
to eliminate bacteria and preserve freshness. Economical single- and family-sized packaging
became standard. Companies emerged to capitalize on the opportunity, and the convenience
food industry took off.
Markets welcomed the increased production capabilities. For years people would get
their produce from a farmers market, their meat from a butcher, and their dry goods from a

Albrecht 11

general store. The process was time consuming and needed to be repeated frequently.
Convenient, self-service grocery stores opened to sell the new convenience foods alongside the
normal fare. The first, tested, successful self-service grocery store was Piggly Wiggly, opened
by Clarence Saunders in 1916. Kroger and Safeway emulated and expanded upon the concept in
the 1920s. Ten years later, the first supermarkets opened their doors with slogans like pile it
high, sell it low. These giant stores could sell you both food and household needs in one, at an
affordable price. The trade-off for such offerings was diversity; supermarkets were only
profitable by selling huge quantities of relatively few selections, taking advantage of economies
of scale. To fill that demand, regional distributors arose that could buy up product from widely
dispersed farms and food producers. Such distributors quickly realized they could also benefit
from economies of scale by reducing the number of suppliers they bought from, pushing farms
and producers to get bigger, faster. The only way was to increase the use of industrial
agriculture techniques, and the cycle sustained itself. The industrial paradigm of food supply
dominated America by becoming the only food supply for most of the nation.
Even though the average consumer only had one choice, alternative ideas for food
production did not die. Instead, it was picked up by the fringes of society. Organic, as it became
known, did not mean simply replacing one link of the established food supply chain, but rather
implied an entire shift, an independent chain with its own processes. It reimagined everything
from the literal ground up. Early proponents believed in a better way of farming, a different way
of supplying and distributing, and a new way of consuming.
Some agronomists did not buy into the NPK mentality. Emulating and perfecting
natures millennia old example seemed superior to conquering and modifying it. The crown
jewel of this school of thought was Sir Albert Howards An Agricultural Testament in 1940. He

Albrecht 12

melded a wholesome approach to agriculture with rigorous scientific testing by conducting

experiments without chemical or artificial inputs. He believed his research displayed natures
self-renewing power and he urged farmers to cooperate with their lands. The most important
contribution of An Agricultural Testament was its demonstration of the benefits of composting
and soil maintenance. Howards tests proved that all the necessary nutrients for a farm could
come from organic waste, requiring no additional inputs. Furthermore, this method created
byproducts that could simply be put back into the system to sustain it. Instead of the technique
of chemists like Liebig to break down soil into a product with its elemental components, Howard
viewed soil as a process that needed tending. General farming practices and wisdom of
preindustrial agriculture had finally been scientifically proven and codified.
Despite his contributions, Howards Testament went unnoticed until counterculturalists in
late 1960s and early 1970s America picked it up. A man named Jerome Irving Rodale tried to
bring it to American farmers attention in the 1940s by publishing its advice in a periodical
called Organic Gardening and Farming (OG&F). Yet, as Warren Belasco writes in his book
Appetite for Change, he failed, however, to interest American commercial farmers, who were in
the 1940s being bombarded with government and chemical industry advice to increase, not
decrease, their reliance on artificial means.1 It wasnt until twenty years later, with the
periodical losing money each year, that OG&F began to pick up. The chief countercultural
publishing, The Whole Earth Catalog, gave it stellar reviews with the editor saying, Organic
Gardening [sic] would be the first publication Id squash, because it is the most subversive.2

Warren Belasco, Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the Food Industry, (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1989), p. 81.
2
Belasco, Appetite for Change, p. 82.

Albrecht 13

By 1971, readership of OG&F exploded to 700,000, and every disgruntled citizen that wanted
out of mainstream American culture began experimenting with organic methods.
Nevertheless, the industrial cycle was too entrenched at the time for organic practitioners
to cause any real change. Instead, truly committed devotees removed themselves from the cycle
completely by establishing their own communities. To be sure, food was not the only cause for
establishing independent communes in the 1970s, but it was the largest factor that they all
shared in common. Besides all the things communes did not want present, from politics to
clothes, people still have to eat. Belasco tells of a pseudonymous memoir from a participator,
we want to eat foodthat hasnt had all the goodness processed out of itto stand in good
relation to the soil to feed it well, so we will be fed by it.3 Despite its ideological
attractiveness, such communities found it practically hard to both survive and stick to their
ideologies. Organic communities wanted to eat pork but not raise and slaughter the hog. As the
food industry had learned long before, combining production with consumption was inefficient
and unsustainable on a large scale. Still, the demand for an alternative was clearly present, and
before long businesses stepped up to supply it.
The first market attempts to bridge the gap and bring organic foods to urban areas were in
the form of co-ops. Communes and households would buy in bulk from organic producers to
offset high startup prices. By establishing urban co-ops, they hoped to provide a middleman that
would encourage more organic farmers. In addition to selling these foods, co-ops were sources
of home-grown health information and moral support. Austin, Texas Wheatsville Co-op, for
example, opened in 1975 with a mission to create a self-reliant, self-empowering community of
people that will grow and promote a transformation of society toward cooperation, justice, and

Belasco, Appetite for Change, p. 88.

Albrecht 14

non-exploitation.4 While some, like Wheatsville, managed to remain successful even to this
day, most succumbed to the same problem as communes. How do you balance the economic
and idealistic goals, price and ideology, pure shopping and pure revolution?5 As attention grew,
so did demand, and market forces pushed the organic food supply system to grow as fast as its
industrial counterpart. Local initiatives were simply inadequate.
Cascadian Farms is the archetypal example of how the entire organic movement
responded. Founded as any other counter-industrial agriculture commune in 1971 by a young
man named Gene Kahn, Cascadian Farms found great success selling its organic produce to
regional stores. Driven by demand, Kahn became comfortable with minimal processing in his
organic products, such as freezing produce or making jams. Cascadian Farms could then ship
and sell its foods in stores across the country, increasing profits. Pretty soon, the whole notion
of a cooperative community we started with gradually began to mimic the system, Kahn
recalled in an interview in Michael Pollans The Omnivores Dilemma.6 In the 1980s, Cascadian
Farms realized it was cheaper to buy organic food products from other farms and sell them under
its brand name than grow the foods themselves. After a failed attempt to grow too big too fast on
borrowed cash in the early 1990s, Kahn had to sell a majority stake to Welchs (of Welchs
Grapes), which was in turn consumed into General Mills company. What had started out as an
organic community farm had been completely subsumed by the industrial agricultural cycle.
Soon Cascadian Farms became a branded front for General Mills to push through any and all of
its organic products, and is nothing more than, a General Mills showcase a P.R farm.7 The
Industrial Organic food supply was born.

Wheatsville Co-op, < http://wheatsville.coop/co-op/about>

Belasco, Appetite for Change, p. 101.
6
Michael Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, (New York: Penguin, 2006), p. 160.
7
Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, p. 154.
5

Albrecht 15

Industrial Organic marks the transition of organic from an ideological modifier to a

legally-defined label. Despite their original disregarding of the trend, as the organic movement
continued to expand in the 1990s, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and
Drug Administration had to address what could and could not be called organic. Consumers had
already demonstrated their desire for food separate from the industrial supply, and organic
proponents wanted to protect their processes with a label that could not be thrown onto just any
packaging. The originators and organic purists wanted to maintain the independent status of the
organic process, and wanted as narrow a definition as possible. Meanwhile, companies like
General Mills with recently acquired and quickly growing organic divisions wanted to cash in on
the craze with a widely defined, and therefore widely applicable, label. The first set of standards
in 1997 were too broad, allowing almost anything to be called organic, but consumer backlash
brought the parties back to the table. It took many years to balance consumer demands with
industrial realities and desires, resulting in regulations that seemed to favor the big industrial
players. As Pollan notes, many of the philosophical values embedded in the word organic
did not survive the federal rule-making process, the organic ideal had been tarnished.8
The formalization of the organic industry marked a departure from the ideals of An
Agricultural Testament and Organic Gardening and Farming. Instead of the wholesome
approach to soil maintenance and a completely separate food supply chain, Big Organic
producers could substitute chemical inputs for approved organic ones, bundle their products in
friendly packaging, and ship and sell them through the same channels as non-organic foods. Big
grocers, like Safeway and Kroger, found it economically feasible to provide organic offerings,
where the previous barriers of a scattered supply were eliminated.

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, p. 163.

Albrecht 16

Although this new organic food supply chain may seem to fall well short of the
ambitions of the 1970s counterculture, Pollan notes that the standards still do, an admirable job
of setting the bar for a more environmentally responsible kind of farming.9 Instead of megafarms using chemical fertilizers, mega-organic farms use mass produced compost, usually from
animal waste. Instead of toxic pesticides, organic farms use beneficial insects. Instead of
herbicides, they use propane torches and frequent tilling to kill weeds. On the one hand, this
tilling kills all sorts of organisms in the soil, leaving the land less robust than an ideally organic
farm, and uses gas-guzzling machines to do the hard work, but on the other hand, its still more
environmentally friendly than using industrial techniques. The editor of The Whole Earth
Catalog from the 1970s might look on and say organic has gotten worse; the urban consumer
might just say industrial has gotten better.
The industrial-organic hybrid is undeniably successful. The USDA shows that in the ten
year period from 2004 to 2014,
organic food sales have grown
close to 200% from $12 billion
to over $35 billion, averaging
nearly 10% growth a year
(Figure 1). Of this, the lions
share has been organically
grown fruits and vegetables.
Figure 1

The organizations organic

market overview notes that organic foods still claim a premium in the marketplace, and the

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, p. 164.

Albrecht 17

consumer profile has evolved from a dedicated minority to an occasional majority. One grocer
has emerged as the front-runner: Whole Foods.
Whole Foods Market, Inc. opened as SaferWay in 1978 by its still CEO John Mackey
and partners in Austin, Texas. Natural growth and a few mergers and acquisitions during the
1980s laid the groundwork for the grocery chain expanding nationwide. In 1992, the company
went public, trading on the NASDAQ. Today, it is the largest pure-play organic grocer in the
country, with over 350 locations. Like Cascadian Farms, Whole Foods had counterculture
origins that quickly became mainstream. Mackey, a previous member of a vegetarian co-op,
figured he could do it bigger and better, and that organic foods were ready for the supermarket.
The company realized it could not expand on its own and dropped its co-op aspirations, but not
its co-op like products, when it went public. Whole Foods has paved the way for other specialty
grocers like Central Market and Rice Epicurean, and sets the ideological example, with organic
imagery and stories behind its products scattered throughout its stores. These stores have created
a successful market, and every healthy, all-natural, or alternative food producer wants to get its
products in Whole Foods. It seems the alternative organic food chain is complete, from farm to
market. Has this system completely met consumer demand?

Albrecht 18

Chapter Two
Business Perspective

The food industry, both production and retailing, is a mature industry. Practically every
product from bread to energy drinks to bell peppers has an established landscape of competitors,
similar margins, and uniform growth prospects. An investor would hardly expect his or her
money to skyrocket in a food corporation as if it were Apple after the unveiling of the iPhone.
After all, a smartphone was something nobody had. Yet everyone buys groceries. However,
over the past decade, organic food was that smartphone. Nearly all the new growth in a mature
food industry can be attributed to the organic revolution. The following numbers quantifying
that growth will make it exceedingly obvious that organic foods were great for business, but
additional factors such as new opportunities, information transfer, better competition, and
regulation also helped make organic foods an attractive endeavor.
Growth of the organic foods market in the United States has been staggering. According
to a MarketLine Industry Profile, the industry has grown at a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of 8.4% for the five years from 2009 to 2013, with a 6.3% growth from 2013 to 2014,
as determined by retail sales10. Compared to the slow annual growth of the meat, poultry, and
fish segment (1.4%)11 and supermarket & grocer segment (1.3%, which surely includes their
organic sales)12 in the same time period, organic foods expanded rapidly. In an environment of
contested shelf space, organic foods annex more and more aisles to the benefit of both the
retailer and their organic suppliers. One major public retailer, Whole Foods, Inc., has seen its
stock grow over 300% in five years, from $18 per share to over $56, representing a market

10

Marketline Industry Profile, Organic Food in the United States, (London: Marketline, 2014), p. 7.
Marketline Industry Profile, Meat, Fish & Poultry in the United States, (London: Marketline, 2014), p. 2.
12
Will McKitterick, IBISWorld Industry Report: Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US, (IBISWorld, 2015), 3.
11

Albrecht 19

capitalization, or value, of just over 20 billion dollars13. Clearly organic foods make great
products.
In addition, forecasted growths are projected to be just as healthy. MarketLine estimates
a forward five-year CAGR of 6.0%, once again greatly surpassing most other segments of the
food industry14. Despite its outstanding growth, organic food represents only 4% of all food
sales, demonstrating almost limitless potential for the future15. As consumers desire to eat
healthy increases, this share will surely go up. In fact, IBISWorld attributes much of the growth
in the supermarket & grocer industry to organic foods, saying, industry participants have
benefitted from the sale of organic goods. In addition, as consumers demand a greater variety
of premium products, such as organic produce, industry revenue increases.16 Their Healthy
Eating Index projects consumers to be 2% more health conscious in the next five years, a
significant growth in an index that has shown a mere 7% growth in the past 30 years17. All this
growth indicates a ripe industry that rewards its participant firms.
Now, these numbers may not seem like such a great blessing to businesses in the food
industry if they are cannibalizing sales in other areas. After all, American appetites have not
grown in such extraordinary bounds, so if consumers are just substituting organics for nonorganics in their shopping carts, businesses would not expect to see much difference in their
bottom lines. However, the key benefit to organic is its large price premium over standard
competition. According to the USDA, organic foods can claim a price premium from 30% to
100% and more over non-organic substitutes18. Furthermore, for retailers, organics do not cost

13

Whole Foods, Inc. historical stock price data from February 2011 to February 2015.
Marketline Industry Profile, Organic Food in the United States, p. 11.
15
McKitterick, IBISWorld Industry Report: Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US, p. 8.
16
McKitterick, IBISWorld Industry Report: Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US, p. 5.
17
IBISWorld, IBISWorld Business Environment Report: Healthy Eating Index, (IBISWorld, 2015), p. 2.
18
USDA, Organic Market Overview, 2014. < http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resourcesenvironment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx >
14

Albrecht 20

nearly as much as their premiums would indicate. As IBISWorld notes, organic foods are,
sourced at similar prices as nonorganic foods and then priced at a premium.19 These margins
definitely translate to the bottom line, explaining the meteoric rise seen earlier of Whole Foods
stock price. A clearer example comes from one of the largest national grocery retailers,
Safeway, Inc. While revenues
over the five years from 20092013 have stayed flat, and even
dipped in 2013, their profit
margins skyrocketed from 2% to
11%, pulling net income up over
Figure 2

the time period (Figure 2).20 A

primary contributor to this growth was their internal organic brand, O Organics. As companies
adopt more organic products, their profits rise.
Such growth and attractive margins encourage new participants to enter the market.
Organic food represents only 4% of all food sales, indicating a landscape not yet saturated like
that for nonorganic foods. Smaller firms have taken this opportunity to gain market share,
increasing competition and dividing the profits into more hands. Small companies are also better
suited to this market because of a unique characteristic not present in the traditional model
information transfer. Price used to be the only information a consumer could pass up the supply
chain to the producer; there was no story behind the product on the supermarket shelf.
Organic foods allow the producer to tell their story of a free-range chicken or an herbicide free
carrot. Consumers can pass value judgments on these stories, indicating their preferences.

19
20

McKitterick, IBISWorld Industry Report: Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US, p. 6.
Marketline Industry Profile, Organic Food in the United States, p. 19.

Albrecht 21

Michael Pollan defines this idea as the supermarket pastoral.21 Whole Foods exemplifies the
phenomenon with agricultural murals on the walls and small signs describing certain products on
the shelves. In fact, the premiums discussed earlier derive their magnitude from these value
judgments. Small companies can adjust accordingly to better meet customer demand, capturing
more value the more efficiently they adjust.
There are two ways to improve a companys performance, either cutting costs in relation
to the competition, or increasing consumers willingness to pay. The first holds prices steady,
the second raises them in relation to the added product value. Food producers, especially for
perishable items such as meat and produce, have long focused on the first approach. By
developing better and better methods, farmers could boost the yield of their fields for the same
cost. Agricultural corporations could plant, harvest, and sell in bulk quantities, reducing
production costs. Economies
of scale practically demanded
producers get bigger and
bigger. The dynamics of
organic foods allowed new
players to focus on the second
approach. They saw the
Figure 3

increase in consumers

willingness to pay reflected in the premiums discussed earlier. Costs were not quite so important
anymore. Now firms could compete on two dimensions, cost and the organic ideal (Figure 3).

21

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma.

Albrecht 22

The previous one dimensional line allowed for very little differentiation, but the new two
dimensional graph creates a frontier of possibilities for competitors.
The changing landscape opened new doors for the small time farmer. By switching to an
organic standard, they could resist the downward pressure of large-scale producers. For
example, Pollan discusses his visit to Polyface Farm, a small operation run by the Salatin family.
This farm is the embodiment of the organic ideal, raising, chicken, beef, turkeys, eggs, rabbits,
and pigs, plus tomatoes, sweet corn, and berries on 100 acres of pasture patchworked into
another 450 acres of forest.22 The farm is self-sufficient and sustainable, running off only the
familys hard work and what nature provides. Polyfaces reputation for its adherence to organic
standards has increased its popularity to the point that Salatin can bypass the traditional food
supply chain and sell directly to consumers. The farm feels almost no pricing pressure, as
customers will come from all over to buy its products. While most other small, organic
producers do not enjoy this degree of freedom, they do escape much of the cost competition that
nonorganic producers cannot.
Large-scale producers, used to their dominance, were not about to miss out on the new
opportunity either. In fact, the most successful ones were able to bring the cost cutting
economies of scale to organic production as well, playing both sides by capturing the price
premium cheaply. For example, Cascadian Farm began with aspirations similar to Polyface
Farm. As it grew in popularity, its founder Gene Kahn continued to scale up his operation to
meet demand and grow profits. While still organic, the farm began to incorporate industrial
methods like processing and nationwide shipping.23 The farm went through a number of

22
23

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, p. 134.

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, p. 155.

Albrecht 23

acquisitions, and now serves, as a PR farm for General Mills.24 Industrial producers with an
organic arm will cultivate acres of organic produce right next to their acres of nonorganic
produce. The only difference will be substituting certain approved inputs in the organic fields.
The underlying philosophy remains unchanged, however; produce as much food per acre as
possible for the lowest cost.
The major benefit to the new paradigm was that both small players like Polyface Farm,
and large players like General Mills, could coexist. The creation of the supermarket pastoral
allows for a wide range of consumer value judgments. One organic consumer may place greater
emphasis on small farm, free range chicken and not as much on lettuce, while another will be
just the opposite. Firms all along the curve can capture value. Nonorganic foods only have the
one dimension of price, with slight variations in brand. Anyone who could find a way to drive
this price down had a distinct advantage over their competitors. With two dimensions, however,
firms can achieve better differentiation and approach efficient equilibrium.
As discussed in the historical section, the label organic is a regulated, defined term that
was shaped by the more powerful companies in the industry. The current standards span dozens
of pages in the USDAs handbook, incorporating features expected of organic, such as absence
of genetic modification, as well as decidedly inorganic substances and manmade additives that
help preserve freshness, providing a beneficial edge to companies that want to ship their product
nationwide. However, a broad definition for what counts as organic, such as the current
regulations provide, benefits all producers in the organic industry. Fewer rules means more
options for the firm, and more ways to achieve the organic standard that clearly provides
monetary benefits. Clearly the national food companies that bought into organic early on and

24

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, p. 155.

Albrecht 24

helped shaped the regulations, like General Mills, wanted this advantage. This selfdetermination was a boon to producers that did not want to completely overhaul their practices.
The single largest shortcoming of the organic food industry also represents its greatest
opportunity. The organic movement started as consumers demanded an alternative to the
industrial food supply. They chose a set of values and ethical considerations. Businesses that
provided products that best aligned with those values captured larger profits over those that did
not. However, as Gutman notes, organic refers to a set of philosophical beliefs about our
relationship to the environment, not merely to the characteristics of a product.25 Government
regulation ensured uniformity in the characteristics of organic products, but falls short of
capturing the value judgments and beliefs of the organic movement. For this reason, the
distance between organic and conventional agriculture has closed because the stellar market
performance of organic foods has attracted producers who are organic only by virtue of
minimal compliance with standards that no longer embody the original visions of organic
agriculture.26 Pollan and other critics use the term Big Organic negatively to refer to those
producers that meet only the minimum requirements. Nevertheless, such firms can still enjoy the
benefits of marketing to consumers as a truly organic product. Consumers are left with less than
perfect information on a product and may end up rewarding certain producers that they would
have otherwise avoided with more transparency.
Reducing the information asymmetry between what a producer can claim it is doing
versus what it is actually doing, in relation to customers organic values, can boost profits and
further clarify the competitive landscape. In regards to profits, the market already exhibits price

Benjamin Gutman, Ethical Eating: Applying the Kosher Food Regulatory Regime to Organic Food, (New
Haven: The Yale Law Journal Vol. 108, 1999), p. 2352.
26
David and Rebecca Nowacek, The Organic Foods System: Its Discursive Achievements and Prospects,
(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: College English Vol. 70 No. 4, 2008), p. 403.
25

Albrecht 25

premiums and growing profits despite the uncertainty of information. Without the uncertainty,
consumers would be more willing to pay those premiums over nonorganic substitutes. In regards
to the competitive landscape, the competitive frontier would be solidified if each producers
adherence to the organic ideal was more clearly defined. Low cost operations meeting the
minimum standards could no longer claim the same level of fidelity as other producers.
A couple options exist to reduce the information asymmetry. Regulations could tighten,
using government oversight to ensure certain standards. However, given the potential losses to
incumbent firms in the industry from tighter regulations, and the power these firms exhibit in the
regulatory process, such a change is highly unlikely. Instead of pure government regulation,
Gutman proposes a combination of regulation and private oversight exemplified by the American
Kosher food industry. Like organic, kosher foods represent both philosophical beliefs and
specific characteristics of products. Also like the organic label, certain regulations govern the
kosher label, and producers are motivated to keep those regulations as broad as possible.
However, the kosher food industry has an additional layer of private oversight by the Jewish
community, to alert consumers to the kosher status of food.27 Organic purists could emulate
the practice with private organizations to verify the organic status of food. The Non-GMO
Project is a related example which certifies products free of genetic modifications with a clear
label. Certain producers actively seek out their certification to improve their performance in the
market. If the distance between organic and conventional methods continues to shrink, such an
organization may be necessary on top of government regulation of the organic label.
Critics of business practices in the organic industry too often focus on the negative
aspects and see all companies as trying to get away with as many industrial methods as legally

27

Gutman, Ethical Eating, p. 2353

Albrecht 26

possible without regard to the organic ideal. However, a complete examination of the organic
market reveals the opposite; firms benefit from adopting organic methods and approaching that
ideal. Firms that can best satisfy the large demand for organic foods capture the most profits, but
not to the consumers detriment. The general movement of the food industry to these methods
has actually improved the industry in more than just profits by allowing companies to compete
on organic standards and deliver more value to the customer. Greater transparency through
tighter regulation or watchdog groups will further improve the market and weed out producers
that dont deliver on their message. Big and small organic operations will continue to improve
the food industry.

Albrecht 27

Chapter Three
Consumer Perspective

From a human perspective, the viewpoint of the individual consumer, organic foods are
superior to conventional alternatives on multiple dimensions. When discussing food, better
usually means better in the physical and nutritional sense our lives are inundated with advice
on foods good or bad to eat. However, while organic foods derive some value from their
nutritional benefits, a purely nutritional argument for organic foods popularity, cost,
proliferation, and superiority would be unsatisfying. Rather, most of what sets organic foods
apart as better for the individual is the freedom of choice that they represent. Organic food
allows people to express their personal values through food choice. Individuals create new
social ties and increase their social capital in unique ways. Furthermore, the social dimensions
of the organic movement create an entertainment value unseen in nonorganic counterparts.
Some or all of these benefits help explain why organic foods have become so popular and why
so many people are switching to organic.
As soon as organic alternatives appeared in the market, both critics and supporters
wanted to know if the new foods were healthier. After all, if there were no tangible,
physiological benefits to them, why bother with their demanding production and, more
importantly, expensive consumption? The evidence seemed to be a victory for the skeptics.
Suddenly switching to an all-organic diet was no miracle weight-loss program. Organic chicken
has just as many calories as nonorganic birds. However, organic supporters appealed to the
underlying logic of organic production. Organic food inherently and by regulation were free of
certain chemicals, pesticides, and other non-food inputs used in the conventional food supply,
and therefore must be less risky and less prone to contamination. In fact, recent studies support

Albrecht 28

this logic. An analysis published in the British Journal of Nutrition in 2014 found that organic
foods have statistically significant, higher concentrations of antioxidants (which dampen the
harmful effects of free radicals), lower amounts of pesticides, and lower concentrations of heavy
metals like cadmium (a known carcinogen above certain levels)28. Skeptics point to further
studies that question the significance of these differences, noting that both organic and
nonorganic foods exhibit levels of chemicals that are well below acceptable limits29. However,
health conscious customers look to accumulate all the nutritional benefits possible, regardless of
their magnitude. Even skeptics do not try to argue that organic foods are nutritionally worse.
Even if organic foods are nutritionally no different for the average consumer, the
exceptional customer can benefit from organic regulation. A 2014 study published in the Annals
of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology by the American College of Allergy, Asthma and
Immunology found a link between food allergies and traces of antibiotic pesticides found in
blueberries30. Eliminating the presence of these foods in their diet lowers the risk of allergic
reactions for sensitive individuals. Furthermore, pregnant women and parents of young children
are commonly more conscious of their food choices. Many trust organic foods as a way to lower
risks that may be at acceptable levels for adults but unknown for children. An article in Time
magazine sums up these fears, saying, infants and children are particularly vulnerable to
chemicals and that, organic food reduces the risk of exposure to toxic pesticides31.

Marcin Baranski et al., Higher Antioxidant and Lower Cadmium Concentrations and Lower Incidence
Literature Review and Meta-analysis, (Cambridge: British Journal of Medicine, 2014), p. 2.
29
Faidon Magkos et al., Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind?, (London: Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, 2006), p. 23.
30
Anne Des Roches, (Arlington: ACAAI, Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, 2014),
< http://acaai.org/news/you-may-have-watch-what-your-fruits-and-veggies-eat>
31
Alan Greene and Anna Lappe, Why Organic is the Right Choice for Parents, (New York: Time, 2014).
<http://time.com/2914155/organic-food-children-health/>
28

Albrecht 29

Consumers wishing to control non-food substances in their diet choose organic for the additional
safety promised by regulations on what can be used in organic food production.
More important than the limited nutritional benefits, organic foods provide consumers
with freedom of choice. Eating is a rich personal and social experience because we are, literally,
what we eat. Numerous authors have remarked on the importance of choice, such as Elisabeth
and Paul Rozin saying, Of all behavior, eating is surely the most intimate because it involves
the irrevocable incorporation of things into the body.32 Paul Freedman further notes that,
gastronomy expresses an outlook, an aesthetic.33 It is only natural that individuals would
prefer to consume foods that reflect their personal identity and ethical values. Organic foods
provide more variety and more opportunity to better reflect those choices. They are inherently
environmentally-friendly. In addition, the organic movements foundation in the 1960s and
1970s carried with it some of the cultural values of that generation, such as personal expression,
civil rights, and self-determination. In fact, a study published in the Journal of Consumer
Behavior found that ethical values and political motivations had the most influence over how
favorably consumers viewed organic foods.34
Choosing organic food, similar to ethnic, local, and haute cuisine, becomes a way for
individuals to distinguish themselves or join new social circles. Johnston and Baumanns
textbook, Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet Foodscape, takes a sociological
view of food consumption, examining how self-proclaimed and self-denying foodies
individuals that place more value on the role of food in their lives than the average person

Elisabeth and Paul Rozin, Culinary Themes and Variations, (New York: Berg, The Taste Culture Reader), p.
38.
33
Paul Freedman, Food: The History of Taste, (Los Angeles: University of California Press), p. 21.
34
Pirjo Honkanen, Bas Verplanken, and Svein Olsen, Ethical Values and Motives Driving Organic Food Choice,
(Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2006).
32

Albrecht 30

create, exchange, and maintain social status through food. They say, knowledge of foodie
phenomena can be cultural capital, even in recessionary times.35 Organic foods are an
integral part of this system and certainly the most widespread of these phenomena. Just as
literary critics or moviegoers keep up to date on recent trends and place value on the best works,
foodies show their sophistication through appreciation of a variety of foods. In an opinion piece
in the New York Times, 2012, William Deresiewicz realizes that food, has developed, of late, an
elaborate cultural apparatus that parallels the one that exists for art, a whole literature of
criticism, journalism, appreciation, memoir and theoretical debate.36 Purchasing and consuming
organic foods is a way for the discriminating foodie to express his or her personal stance on
issues beyond the food itself. These choices are tangible representations of underlying values
which are then consumed in the body. The more widespread these values are, the more
important organic foods become to the individual.
Furthermore, buying organic foods is an easy way to express political views on
environmental issues and industrial agriculture. Consumers can send a message to the market
and to individual producers with their spending. By making value judgments on what the
producer is promising in the foods, customers reward the companies they believe to be delivering
what is most important. For example, animals rights sympathizers can choose to buy meat from
only the most humane sources, or biotechnology skeptics can purchase their organic produce
trusting it to be free of genetic modification. This is a motivating factor for foodies as, it is
often easier to express ones politics through a food purchase than it is to...participate in social

35

Josee Johnston and Shyon Baumann, Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet Foodscape, (New
York: Routledge, 2010), p. XV.
36
William Deresiewicz, A Matter of Taste?, (New York: New York Times, 2012), <
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-high-culture.html>

Albrecht 31

movement politics.37 The organic movement was started in a climate of political upheaval in
the 1960s and, although tamed by popularity and time, buying into the alternative, organic food
chain still carries a message of nonconformity. On an individual level, Benjamin Wurgaft writes
that, consumers are willing to pay a little more for their products, not just because they want the
highest quality, but because they want assurance that they are doing no wrong.38 In aggregate,
these actions can influence change. Wurgaft sums up the effects, saying,
The United States, the worlds greatest consumer, has significant
effect on the countries that produce our goods: my coffee habit, when
combined with my neighbors coffee habits, bears upon all the
plantation workers growing the stuff.39
Belasco argues in Appetite for Change that these were the primary motivations for the crusaders
in the 1960s. In a chapter titled Radical Consumerism, he notes how citizens that were put off
by the Frankensteins monster of industrialism and disenchanted with the lethargic political
system could, instead, embrace ecology and an organic lifestyle. In electoral politics, you had
to wait four years to make changes at the top. In ecology, however, you could act right away,
in your own household.40 Of all the changes you could make, dietary change was one of the
more substantial household reforms, because it required greater discipline.41 Anyone could
profess their agreements with the cause; it was much more difficult to physically consume it.
Similarly, Foodies describes similar motivations for current consumers,

37

Johnston and Baumann, Foodies, p. XVIII.

Benjamin Wurgaft, East of Eden: Sin and Redemption at the Whole Foods Market, (Los Angeles, University of
California Press, Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture Vol. 2, No. 3, 2002), p. 87.
39
Wurgaft, East of Eden, p. 88.
40
Belasco, Appetite for Change, p. 30.
41
Belasco, Appetite for Change, p. 31.
38

Albrecht 32

As the environmental and health risks associated with industrial

agriculture become more apparent in the public sphere, making
different kinds of food choices becomes a way for foodies to protest
environmental degradation and injustice, as well as a way to protect
their health.42
In aggregate, these consumer choices send a big message to producers and politicians beyond
what any one person could change.
At the same time that the organic movement tries to break away from the mainstream, it
has created new class distinctions based on both social consciousness and wealth. The
convergence of the counterculture with widespread acceptance of organic foods has brought
organic to new social circles. Shopping at places like Whole Foods and Central Market are
reserved for either the most organically dedicated urbanites or upper-middle class shoppers that
are not affected by the higher prices. Some of the original spirit of the organic movement may
be lost on such consumers that just want to class up their Sunday dinner. Furthermore,
companies that label their products organic only have to follow the regulatory requirements;
whether or not they embody the intentions of the organic movement is not required. Therefore,
consumers may mistakenly misplace their trust in certain products, intending to deliver a
message that goes unheard. The distinctions consumers try to gain by choosing organic products
must be actively displayed, lending a snob appeal to places like Whole Foods. Not every
customer considers all these issues, however.
Even consumers that pay no attention to or actively put aside the social and political
aspects derive benefits from the simple entertainment value of organic foods. As discussed in

42

Johnston and Baumann, Foodies, p. XVIII.

Albrecht 33

the previous chapter, businesses invest heavily in establishing the supermarket pastoral, the
stories and images behind the organic product. The descriptive signs and murals make a trip to
Whole Foods more than a basic grocery run. They play on a sense of adventure and exoticism.
Along with the experience, you will find communal gathering spots in these stores. Cafes and
bars are common places to meet like-minded individuals. Farmers markets, which consumers
enjoy as an alternative to the conventional grocery store, have grown in popularity. The USDA
estimates that the number of active farmers markets in the U.S. has grown by over 30% in the
past five years.43 In a country where three quarters of the population live in urban areas, organic
foods provide a chance to experience the rural without going too far.
The motivations for buying organic foods are as varied as their benefits. More health
conscious customers like parents look for the marginal improvement in nutrition. Many want to
avoid the chemical fertilizers and pesticides that can be sensationalized in the media, and know
more precisely what can and cannot be present in their organic foods. However, the vast
majority of customers buy organic foods for the benefits of choice and personal values. Organic
foods can play an integral role in lifestyle choices for politically and environmentally minded
individuals, just as it did for readers and followers of Organic Gardening & Farming over 50
years ago. The clear link between buying organic foods and embodying a whole lifestyle of
related choices has declined since then, as the label has become regulated and widespread in
national supermarket chains, but not everyone tries to establish that link in the first place. An
adventurous disposition and simple appreciation of quality foods leads many into the extensively

USDA, Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing:, <

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&leftNav=WholesaleandFarm
ersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&description=Farmers+Market+Growth>
43

Albrecht 34

decorated aisles at Whole Foods and farmers markets. However you slice it, organic foods
offers significant benefits for anyone that takes the bite.

Albrecht 35

Chapter Four
Environmental Perspective

Besides the advantages of organic foods for humans that I have discussed, whether
producing and selling or buying and consuming, organics also benefit the environment. With the
explosion of concern in America over humanitys environmental impact, including pollution,
sustainability, and global warming, this section alone would be enough to convince some people
about the superiority of organic foods to nonorganic alternatives. Both industrial and organic
agriculture try to cut down on their environmental footprint, for reasons of both genuine concern
and regulatory requirements. Organic agriculture takes these attempts further than mandated,
however, as one of its central and founding pillars rests on environmental sustainability,
cooperation, and preservation. For the first organic farmers, the less human, artificial
interference, the better. The whole purpose was to be as natural as possible. While organic
requirements for todays organic agriculture are not as strict, the organic method of production
still preserves the land, air, and water it uses much more efficiently than industrial agriculture.
First and foremost, organic agriculture must follow extensive regulations laid out by the
USDA that ensures that, irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides,
and genetically modified organisms were not used.44 Most of the regulations are directed at
limiting pesticides and herbicides used in industrial agriculture. Industrial agriculture does not
have free license to use any chemicals, as some like DDT are so harmful that they have been
banned nationwide, but in general it has access to chemical pesticides that can control insects,

USDA, National Organic Program, <

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&navID=OrgStandardsLinkN
OPAboutUs&rightNav1=OrgStandardsLinkNOPAboutUs&topNav=&leftNav=&page=NOPOrganicStandards&resu
ltType=&acct=nopgeninfo>
44

Albrecht 36

crop disease, weeds, and any other invasive species that would limit yield. Organic farmers
instead rely on natural solutions to such problems. In Pollans visit to many farms, he noted the
use of organic substitutes to accomplish the desired effect of preventing insects and weeds. For
example, many farms spread out lacewing eggs, an insect that, once hatched, feeds on the very
pests that devour crops. Furthermore, farmers till their soil more often than nonorganic farms a
process of turning over the soil that destroys invasive plant roots.45 Large organic operations,
being unable to regulate potential crop disease with chemicals, segregate and frequently monitor
their fields for signs of disease. Required periodic residue testing by the USDA for organically
certified farms ensures the lower levels of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. Furthermore, the
avoidance of the synthetic in organic agriculture limits the use of fertilizers to boost phosphorus
and nitrogen levels in the soil two of the three letters in NPK that is so crucial to industrial
agriculture.
These synthetic limitations produce two environmentally beneficial effects. The first is a
decrease in pollution and an improvement in water quality and air purity. Runoff water is the
primary method that agricultural byproducts escape into the surrounding environment. Nitrogen
rich wastewater can cause algal blooms that disrupt the ecosystem in numerous ways, such as
blocking sunlight to underwater plants, choking out wildlife, and even increasing toxins secreted
by the algae themselves.46 By reducing the amounts of pesticides and nitrogen and phosphorus
rich chemicals in this water, the impact of runoff water is greatly reduced. Furthermore,
agricultural studies have shown that organically handled soil retains water better than
synthetically fertilized alternatives. The chemicals strip the soils ability to hold the water,
resulting in both a greater quantity and a greater degree of contamination to the runoff water.

45
46

Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma

Nancy Diersing, Phytoplankton Blooms: The Basics, (Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2009).

Albrecht 37

Because the soil retains more water over time, organic farms require slightly less irrigation,
further reducing water runoff concerns. Similarly, lower amounts of nitrogen rich chemicals
lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions from nitrous oxide. This gas escapes from overfertilized soil that cannot retain the high concentrations of nitrogen and contributes to
degradation of the ozone layer. A study on over 50 organic and industrial farms found that
emissions of nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and ammonia, three greenhouse gasses, were lower
per unit area on organic farms. This was a direct result of avoiding chemical fertilizers; lower
nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions from organic farming per unit of area were mainly due to
lower overall nitrogen inputs in organic than in conventional systems.47 Overall, both water and
air quality are better on organic farms than industrial counterparts.
The second major benefit results in an increase in the biodiversity in the area, one of the
strongest indicators of environmental health. Biodiversity simply refers to both the amount and
variety of species, animals and plants, in either a given ecosystem or the world as a whole.
Greater biodiversity indicates a richer ecosystem that can sustain many different kinds of life,
and impacts human health as well.48 Organic farming promotes biodiversity in both small
organisms like fungi in the soil and larger, visible organisms like birds and insects that would die
from pesticides. One study focused on the levels of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AMF), an important
fungus that forms symbiotic relationships with crops to fix nutrients such as phosphorus in the
soil of organic and nonorganic farms. The authors concluded, AMF diversity is higher under
organic farming, and AFM richness increases significantly with time since conversion to organic

H. L. Tuomisto et al., Does Organic Farming Reduce Environmental Impacts?, (Elsevier: The Journal of
Environmental Management, 2012), p.310.
48
Eric Chivian and Aaron Bernstein, How Our Health Depends on Biodiversity, (Cambridge: Harvard Press,
2010).
47

Albrecht 38

farming.49 A further meta-analysis of numerous studies showed similar benefits for birds and
insects, noting that these organisms responded positively to organic farming systems, showing
increases of as much as 50% over nonorganic farming systems.50 Furthermore, organic farming
provides both richness and evenness of local species as well as natural pest control.51 Finally,
organic farms typically rely on greater crop rotation to restore nutrients to the soil, which more
closely resembles how the environment would have developed naturally.52 The avoidance of
chemical pesticides and reliance on natural fertilizers and soil management on organic farms
result in increased biodiversity and environmental health.
Improvements in biodiversity also act to mitigate risk to both the farm itself and the
overall food supply. Monocrop fields on industrial farms that rely on a single product growing
over a large area may benefit from efficient use of resources, but they are also more susceptible
to environmental changes that could eliminate the entire yield. A slight change in soil
composition or climate could render that specific species infertile; a diversified field would lose
only a small fraction of its usefulness in such a situation. Furthermore, diversification allows
organic farms to adapt more quickly and precisely to climate change. As global climate change
continues to be a major concern in agricultural production, adaptability may be crucial to
maintaining the global food supply.53 The lessening of these risks can offset the corresponding
decline in yield from less efficiency.

Verbruggen et al., Positive Effects of Organic Farming on Below-Ground Mutualists, (New Phytologist, 2010),
p. 977.
50
Janne Bengtsson et al., The Effects of Organic Agriculture on Biodiversity and Abundance, (London: Journal of
Applied Ecology, 2005), p. 262.
51
David Crowder et al., Organic Agriculture Promotes Evenness and Natural Pest Control, (Macmillan
Publishers, Nature Vol. 466, 2010), P. 108.
52
Bengtsson et al., The Effects of Organic Agriculture on Biodiversity and Abundance, p. 262.
53
Radu Criveanu et al., Organic Agriculture, Climate Change, and Food Security, (Craiova: Economics,
Management, and Financial Markets Vol. 9.1, 2014), p. 118-124.
49

Albrecht 39

The improvements in water quality and biodiversity positively impact the sustainability
of organic farms as well. Such operations can deliver high yields consistently over a greater
number of years than nonorganic farms that need to give certain fields a break or restore their
fertility through more artificial means. Extensive research has shown the unsustainability of
modern industrial agriculture. A short paper from the Geographical Association summarizes the
key problems:
The loss of biodiversity (e.g. wetland, moorland and forest); the nitrification
(pollution) of groundwater and eutrophication of watercourses from the use
of inorganic fertilizers; rising levels of soil erosion and salinity; the lower
of water tables from the draining of wetlands; the increased incidence of
soil compaction; the discharge of pesticides into rivers; pollution of ground
water by wastes from intensive livestock units; and overgrazing of pasture
land.54
Organic agriculture reduces or completely eliminates these problems. Refusing to utilize
synthetic fertilizers increases biodiversity and lowers nitrification, having a ripple effect that
improves water and soil quality, and decreases pollution from pesticides. Even the effects of
livestock production are mitigated. Waste is reused in compost and as a natural fertilizer for
crops. Overgrazing can still become a problem. However, the USDA requires organic livestock
producers to have a minimum amount of space to raise the animals and they have on average
more room than nonorganically raised livestock.55 Both organic crop production and livestock
production represent a more sustainable model than the industrial standard.

Ian Bowler, Developing Sustainable Agriculture, (Geographical Association, Geography Vol. 87 No. 3, 2002),
p. 206).
55
USDA Organic Livestock Requirements
<http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102526>
54

Albrecht 40

Moreover, organic production considers animal ethical implications to a greater degree

than industrial techniques. While any producer that handles livestock must meet criteria
regarding the animals health and well-being, animals raised for consumption under the organic
model are even more protected. For example, organic meats like chicken and beef are free from
antibiotics and growth hormones that permeate industrial livestock production. Furthermore,
organic animals and birds are often free range, a term that indicates the animal had space to
roam. This space may vary from a superficial and small yard to acres of pasture, but either way
is more than the typical cage space on an industrial farm. The impacts on the quality of the
organic food procured may be negligible, but the ethical implications of organic livestock
production are important to many who disagree with the industrial model.
Despite the numerous environmental advantages of organic farming over industrial
farming, there are still some issues. Primarily, organic farms are not as efficient and require
more resources per unit of yield than industrial farms. Although the environmental impact of
individual organic farms is less than what an industrial farm would be, the organic farm also
outputs less product. In a meta-analysis of research on the environmental impacts of organic
farming, Tuomisto et al summarized by saying, organic farming practices generally have
positive impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product unit.56
Because each product unit requires more inputs, organic farms must ensure those inputs are not
harmful in order to capture the generally positive impacts on the environment. However, the
USDA only monitors the inputs, not the extent to which the inputs are used (or misused).
Continuous improvements in farming techniques and efficiency will be required to sustain the
environmental advantages of organic farming.

56

H. L. Tuomisto et al., Does Organic Farming Reduce Environmental Impacts?,), p.318.

Albrecht 41

The regulations surrounding organic production and the economic incentive through
higher premiums have led some to question whether organic farming has completely abandoned
its roots. Big Organic, the term used disparagingly by Pollan and others, indicates those
producers that meet the minimum requirements for organic without regard to the environmental
impact for the economic gains. Some of these large players were able to shape some of the
original regulation to include things that could be considered contrary to the organic spirit, such
as synthetic additives to prolong shelf life. They also wanted to incorporate some industrial
techniques to boost yields and make up for the loss of pesticides and fertilizers, such as excessive
tilling. As noted earlier, this process breaks up invasive weeds roots, but too much tilling can
destroy the small and microscopic organisms in the soil that promote biodiversity. Nevertheless,
organic farms that fall short of the original organic ideal still offer environmental benefits that
overshadow industrial methods. Furthermore, paragons such as Polyface Farms set an example
for many environmentally conscious producers to follow.
A transition to an organic model of agriculture is also costly, and will require extensive
investment. Nevertheless, as environmental management becomes more important and
environmental neglect becomes more costly, investment in organic farming will be necessary
and pay off. In fact, the agricultural industry alone contributes between 10 and 15 percent of
climate changing emissions in the United States.57 Lowering this percentage will be a crucial
step in protecting the environment. Organic farms must follow USDA regulations that lead to
greater conservation and numerous benefits. By avoiding synthetic, chemical fertilizers and
relying on natural alternatives, pollution decreases dramatically on organic farms. Soil and water

Environmental Protection Agency, Sources of Greenhouse Gasses and World Future Council, How Does
Agriculture Contribute to Climate Change < http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/industry.html>
and < http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>.
57

Albrecht 42

quality improve, in turn lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The impact of an organic farm on
its surrounding environment is lower than industrial operations that diminish wildlife such as
bird and fish populations. Organic farms benefit from the diversification in biodiversity,
lowering risk from unexpected climate change. This in turn makes organic agriculture a more
sustainable approach, as the farm can utilize its resources over a longer period of time without
exhausting the local environment. Finally, animal livestock raised for consumption are treated
more humanely in the organic model, which is a cause many would like to see required in all
livestock production. These numerous benefits outweigh the high costs. Even so, organic
farming is not a perfect utopian solution to every issue, and operations and methods can still be
refined to further lessen its environmental impact and better approach the organic ideal.

Albrecht 43

Conclusion

How important are the many benefits of organic foods? To some, maybe not so much.
Gene Kahn, the founder of Cascadian Farms and the primary example of counterculture organic
converging with mainstream industry, says, This is just lunch for most people. Just lunch. We
can call it sacred, we can talk about communion, but its just lunch. Surely, to those crusaders
who adopted the organic model early on, it was way more than lunch. Over 50 years have
passed since The Whole Earth Catalog published its review of Organic Gardening and Farming,
bringing its message and methods out of obscurity. Adopted by the subversive counterculture of
1960s America, the organic movement set out to become an alternative food supply and lifestyle
that rejected everything that characterized the existing model. Undoubtedly, organic food has
changed over the last half century changes that some food activists see as failure to live up to
the organic ideal. After all, the organic industry has fallen short of perfection. The regulations
laid out for organic foods were shaped by the very government and companies they set out to
defy. Some cynical producers are out to get rich off organic popularity where cooperatives,
public farms, and food sharing had once existed. Organic foods are on the shelves of the biggest
supermarkets right next to their nonorganic cousins. Is this what organic was supposed to mean?
However, taking a step back and analyzing organic foods from multiple perspectives
reveals its great successes. After all, more customers across the United States are switching to
organic foods every year. The astounding success of markets like Whole Foods and producers
like Polyface Farms proves how well Americans have responded to organic. Furthermore,
companies that have embodied organic values can compete and thrive just as well as their

Albrecht 44

conventional competitors. The organic industry will continue to grow in its success, and the
organic label clearly transmits value to the food that consumers demand.
Organic is still a lifestyle choice as well. While organic consumerism may not be as
radical as it once was, the choices nevertheless reflect important values. Consumers want to
have choices that mean something. Supporting organic foods is an effective and efficient way to
proclaim a stance on a variety of topics, such as environmental consciousness, animal rights, and
even political leanings. Furthermore, individuals can enter new social circles and gain social
capital from understanding and appreciation of organic foods as much as certain foodies do for
any gourmet cuisine. Organic food companies also invest time and money into the production
value of their foods and marketplaces. Whole Foods offers a level of decoration and detail
unseen in conventional grocery stores, making the shopping experience exploratory and exciting.
Overall, organic foods transfer numerous benefits to consumers.
More lasting and perhaps more important than the profits for business or the choice for
consumers is the environmental benefits of the organic model over industrial agriculture. In a
high-energy, high-impact industry, the improvements in conservation and preservation of the
environment have profound effects. Organic farming avoids synthetic chemicals for fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides, leading to a reduction in harmful byproducts and pollution. Ground
water and its runoff remains cleaner which mitigates much of an operations environmental
effects. The soil is likewise more pure and can sustain crops longer. The reduction in pollution
promotes greater biodiversity in the area, a clear indicator of environmental health. As climate
change increases, organic methods may not only be beneficial but necessary to avoid widespread
crop failure and food shortages. These methods and regulations surrounding them should be
continually refined further improve the environmental advantages of organic farming.

Albrecht 45

As more people come to recognize all the benefits, organic foods will become even more
popular. The industry will grow much as it has in the past decade, driving expansion in
companies nationwide. There will continue to be a tension between companies after these profits
and the meaning of the organic ideals originally put forth. The deciding factor will be in the
hands of the consumers. Organic foods must continue to meet the demands for a better food
supply to keep its success.

Albrecht 46

WORKS CITED

Baranski, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G.,
Benbrook, C., Biavati, B., Markellou, E., Giotis, C., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J.,
Rembialkowska, E., Skwarlo-Sonta, K., Tahvonen, R., Janovska, D., Niggli, U., Nicot,
P., Leifert, C. Higher Antioxidant and Lower Cadmium Concentrations and Lower
Incidence of Pesticide Residues in Organically Grown Crops: A Systematic Literature
Review and Meta-analysis, (Cambridge: British Journal of Medicine, 2014).

Belasco, Warren. Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the Food Industry,
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).

Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J., Weibull, A. The Effects of Organic Agriculture on Biodiversity
and Abundance, (London: Journal of Applied Ecology, 2005).
Bowler, Ian. Developing Sustainable Agriculture, (Geographical Association, Geography Vol.
87 No. 3, 2002).
Chivian, Eric., Bernstein, Aaron. How Our Health Depends on Biodiversity, (Cambridge:
Harvard Press, 2010).

Criveanu, Radu., Sperdea, Natalita. Organic Agriculture, Climate Change, and Food Security,
(Craiova: Economics, Management, and Financial Markets Vol. 9.1, 2014).

Crowder, D., Northfield, T., Strand, M., Snyder, W. Organic Agriculture Promotes Evenness
and Natural Pest Control, (Macmillan Publishers, Nature Vol. 466, 2010).

Albrecht 47

Deresiewicz, William. A Matter of Taste?, (New York: New York Times, 2012), <
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/how-food-replaced-art-as-highculture.html>.

Des Roches, Anne. (Arlington: ACAAI, Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, 2014),
< http://acaai.org/news/you-may-have-watch-what-your-fruits-and-veggies-eat>.
Diersing, Nancy. Phytoplankton Blooms: The Basics, (Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, 2009).
Environmental Protection Agency, Sources of Greenhouse Gasses
<http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/industry.html>.

Freedman, Paul. Food: The History of Taste, (Los Angeles: University of California Press).

Gutman, Benjamin. Ethical Eating: Applying the Kosher Food Regulatory Regime to Organic
Food, (New Haven: The Yale Law Journal Vol. 108, 1999).
Greene, Alan., Lappe, Anne. Why Organic is the Right Choice for Parents, (New York: Time,
2014). <http://time.com/2914155/organic-food-children-health/>.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., Olsen, S. Ethical Values and Motives Driving Organic Food
Choice, (Journal of Consumer Behavior, 2006).

IBISWorld, IBISWorld Business Environment Report: Healthy Eating Index, (IBISWorld, 2015).

Johnston, Josee., Baumann, Shyon. Foodies: Democracy and Distinction in the Gourmet
Foodscape, (New York: Routledge, 2010).

Albrecht 48

Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., Zampelas, A. Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of
Mind?, (London: Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2006).

Marketline Industry Profile, Organic Food in the United States, (London: Marketline, 2014).

Marketline Industry Profile, Meat, Fish & Poultry in the United States, (London: Marketline,
2014).

McKitterick, Will. IBISWorld Industry Report: Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US,
(IBISWorld, 2015).
Nowacek, David., Nowacek, Rebecca. The Organic Foods System: Its Discursive
Achievements and Prospects, (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: College
English Vol. 70 No. 4, 2008).
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, (New York:
Penguin, 2006).

Rozin, Elizabeth., Rozin, Paul. Culinary Themes and Variations, (New York: Berg, The Taste
Culture Reader).
Tuomisto, H., Hodge, I., Riordan, P., Macdonald, D. Does Organic Farming Reduce
Environmental Impacts?, (Elsevier: The Journal of Environmental Management, 2012).

United States Department of Agriculture, Organic Market Overview, 2014. <

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organicagriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx >.
USDA, Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing:, <
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&le

Albrecht 49

ftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&description=
Farmers+Market+Growth>.
USDA, National Organic Program, <
http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateN&n
avID=OrgStandardsLinkNOPAboutUs&rightNav1=OrgStandardsLinkNOPAboutUs&to
pNav=&leftNav=&page=NOPOrganicStandards&resultType=&acct=nopgeninfo>.

USDA Organic Livestock Requirements

<http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102526>.

Verbruggen, E., Roling, W., Gamper, H., Kowalchuk, G., Verhoef, H., Heijden, M. Positive
Effects of Organic Farming on Below-Ground Mutualists, (New Phytologist, 2010).
Wurgaft, Benjamin. East of Eden: Sin and Redemption at the Whole Foods Market, (Los
Angeles, University of California Press, Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture
Vol. 2, No. 3, 2002).

Wheatsville Co-op, < http://wheatsville.coop/co-op/about>.

World Future Council. How Does Agriculture Contribute to Climate Change?,
<http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/2326.html>.

Albrecht 50

BIOGRAPHY

Alan Raymond Albrecht was born in Houston, Texas in 1992. He enrolled in the Plan II
Honors program at The University of Texas at Austin in 2011, while also pursuing a Bachelor of
Business Administration in Business Honors. During college, he was a member of the fraternity
Lambda Chi Alpha, holding the office of treasurer for two semesters. In addition, he enjoys
soccer and playing piano. He will move back to Houston after graduation in 2015 to join The
BVA Group as a financial analyst.