UBC Faculty Research and Publications

What is this thing called organic? - How organic farming is codified in regulations Seufert, Verena; Ramankutty, Navin; Mayerhofe, Tabea 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Seufert_V_et_al_W Thing_called_organic.pdf [ 1.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0378888.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0378888-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0378888-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0378888-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0378888-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0378888-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0378888-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0378888-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0378888.ris

Full Text

What is this thing called organic? 1 - How organic farming is codified in regulations 2  3 Verena Seufert1,2,3, Navin Ramankutty1,2 and Tabea Mayerhofer4 4  5 1Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 6 429-2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada 7 2Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, 6476 NW Marine Drive, 8 Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada 9 3Department of Geography, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street W, Montreal, QC 10 H3A 0B9, Canada 11 4Department of Geography, Technische Universität, Arcisstr. 21, 80333 München, 12 Germany 13  14 Corresponding author: verena.seufert@ubc.ca 15 Other authors contact information: 16 Navin Ramankutty - navin.ramankutty@ubc.ca  17 Tabea Mayerhofer - tabea.mayerhofer@tum.de 18  19 Abstract 20 Organic farming is one of the fastest growing sectors of world agriculture. 21 Although it represents only 1% of world agricultural area, organic is one of the 22 most recognized food labels and most people in developed countries consume 23 some amount of organic food today. There is a wide range of interpretations of 24 what organic means by different actors in the sector. Here we examine eight 25 different organic regulations from across the world to understand how they have 26 codified the large diversity of ideas inherent in organic agriculture. Our analysis 27 shows that organic practices and regulations do not differ substantially between 28 countries – across the board organic regulations define organic mainly in terms of 29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.12.009Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Mayerhofer, T. (2017). What is this thing called organic?–How organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy, 68, 10-20. 2 'natural' vs. 'artificial' substances that are allowed (or not) as inputs. This 1 interpretation of organic as “chemical-free” farming, largely void of broader 2 environmental principles, does not fully incorporate the original ideas of organic 3 theoreticians who conceived it as a holistic farming system aimed primarily at 4 improving soil health, thereby leading to improved animal, human, and societal 5 health. This narrow focus of organic regulations can be explained by the interest 6 of organic consumers who predominantly buy organic because they believe it is 7 healthier and more nutritious due to the absence of harmful substances. Organic 8 regulations need to place more emphasis on environmental best practices in order 9 to ensure that organic agriculture can contribute to sustainability objectives. 10 Highlights: 11 • The meaning of organic agriculture is highly debated 12 • Regulations define organic mostly in terms of ‘natural’ vs. ‘synthetic’ inputs 13 • Environmental best practices are not well represented in regulations 14  15 Keywords: organic agriculture, organic policy, sustainability, content analysis 16  17  18  19 Acknowledgements 20 This work was supported by a grant from the Grantham Foundation, as well as a 21 Discovery Grant from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of 22 Canada to N. Ramankutty. T. Mayerhofer was supported by a RISE Worldwide 23 scholarship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). We thank 24 Sarah Turner for input to the development of ideas and analysis. We use the 25 sequence-determines-credit approach (Tscharntke et al. 2007, 26 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018) to determine authorship sequence. 27 21 1. Introduction2 Organic agriculture is often proposed as a solution for producing food with reduced 3 environmental impact (Tilman 1998; Scialabba & Hattam 2002). Even though it 4 constitutes less than 1% of global agricultural land and less than 5% of retail sales in 5 most high-income countries (Willer & Lernoud 2015), it represents one of the fastest 6 growing food sectors. In high-income countries most people consume organic at least 7 occasionally1. Organic today is the most recognized food label, whose basic meaning is 8 understood by most consumers. And organic is the only farming system whose 9 management practices are codified by law in most countries (Rigby & Cáceres 2001). 10 Organic food thus represents one of the few means through which consumers can have 11 some control and knowledge about how their food is produced (Allen & Kovach 2000).12 But what does organic agriculture actually mean? The meaning of organic is shaped by 13 the different actors involved – consumers, producers, theoreticians, and regulations (see 14 Fig. 1). Accordingly, there have been many debates about the definition of organic 15 agriculture (Rigby & Cáceres 2001), as well as the different forms in which it manifests 16 itself today (Guthman 2004). Many of the commonly cited definitions are ambiguous 17 (e.g. IFOAM 2006), and different people associate different things with it and buy 18 organic for different reasons (Hughner et al. 2007). This wealth of meanings and 19 associations is also rooted in the history of organic agriculture and in the manifold ideas 20 expressed by the original organic movement (Conford 2001; Heckman 2006). But the 21 lack of a clear vocabulary and conceptualization of organic agriculture makes a 22 discussion about its problems and benefits challenging. Indeed, debates about whether 23 organic farming could contribute to more sustainable agriculture are often highly 24 polarized (Trewavas 2001; Goklany 2002; Mäder et al. 2002).25 What distinguishes organic from ‘sustainable’ or ‘agroecological’ management is that 26 organic practices are well defined and in many countries regulated by laws. Regulation 27 and certification is central to the current concept of organic agriculture in most countries. 28 Regulations are therefore a useful place to start understanding how the views of the 1 73% of Americans, for example, consume organic food at least occasionally (Hartman Group 2006), while 58% of Canadians say they consume organic food every week (COTA 2013).31 different organic actors have been codified and what organic agriculture means today 2 (Rigby & Cáceres 2001). 3TheoryRegulationsConsumersProducers4 Figure 1. The different poles of influence defining organic agriculture today. Consumer demand is 5 considered one of the main drivers of organic agriculture (Fromartz 2007). Producers shape how organic 6 agriculture manifests itself in practice. Organic theoreticians influence the ideas about organic farming, and 7 have an important role in the history of organic agriculture. Finally, regulations legally define organic 8 practices and rules.910 In this study we examine how organic agriculture is defined and codified in organic 11 regulations today, and how organic practices and principles differ between regulations 12 across the world. To this end we (1) perform an international comparison of organic 13 practices between different regulations and standards, and (2) examine the organic 14 principles used in the discussion and codification of organic agriculture in these 15 regulatory texts. We then present some thoughts on the major influences on organic 16 regulations, through (3) an analysis of  environmental best practices represented in 17 organic regulations, a (4) brief review of the ideas of organic pioneers, as well as (5) a 18 review of the literature on motives of organic consumer. We conclude this paper with a 19 call for an increased focus of organic regulations on environmental best practices to 20 enhance the potential of organic agriculture to contribute to a sustainable food system.2141 2. The codification of organic in regulatory texts2 2.1 A brief history of organic regulations3 The original concept of organic agriculture developed as a critique of the emerging 4 industrial food system in the 1920s to 1950s (Conford 2001; Fromartz 2007; Vogt 2007). 5 But it was only in the 1980s, driven by an emerging environmentalism and health-6 concerns about exposure to pesticides, antibiotics and hormones, that organic agriculture, 7 which promised a more ‘natural’ and healthier agriculture, experienced a surge in 8 popularity (Fromartz 2007; Lockeretz 2007). As organic sales began to skyrocket, 9 organic farming organizations and consumer groups started lobbying for a legal 10 regulation of the organic label and of organic practices, resulting in the development of 11 national organic standards beginning in the 1980s (Conford 2001; Schmid 2007; Scott et 12 al. 2009).13 In the United States (US), the first state-level organic regulations emerged in the 1970s, 14 followed by the National Organic Program (NOP) nearly 30 years later (Vos 2000; 15 Friedland 2005; Fromartz 2007; Mosier & Thilmany 2016). The first European wide 16 organic regulation was established in 1991, replacing national regulations that had been 17 established in most countries since the 1980s (Lampkin et al. 1999; Padel et al. 2009). 18 Some countries, like Australia, do not yet have a legally binding national organic 19 regulation but still use widely accepted national voluntary standards defined by 20 government bodies (AUS 2009) or the organic industry (ACO 2010). In recent years 21 more and more low and middle-income countries have started implementing organic 22 regulations in order to ease trade with high-income country markets. Uganda, for 23 example, adopted a national organic standard in 2004, which was followed by a regional 24 East African organic standard in 2007 (UNCSD 2012). Similarly, after considerable 25 growth of the organic sector, Mexico introduced a national organic program in 2006 26 (Nelson et al. 2010), and a national organic standard with production guidelines in 2013. 27 Today, nearly 100 countries worldwide have implemented or are developing organic 28 standards (OTA 2016).29 At the international level, several organizations are attempting to harmonize organic 30 standards globally. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement 51 (IFOAM) (an umbrella organization founded in 1972) and the Codex Alimentarius (set up 2 by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization 3 (WHO) in 2001) aim to establish a consensus definition of organic practices across 4 different countries that facilitates free trade in nationally regulated organic food 5 (Lampkin et al. 1999; Vos 2000). Both the IFOAM and Codex Alimentarius standards 6 have been very influential in the definition of many national organic standards (Lampkin 7 et al. 1999).89 2.2 Data and methods10 We analysed organic regulations from a set of representative countries across the world. 11 To identify the most important countries, we used the most recent global organic data 12 (Willer & Lernoud 2015) to identify the top three countries according to four different 13 criteria (see Table 1). The following 11 countries were selected by this process: India, 14 Uganda, Mexico, Australia, Argentina, USA, Falkland Islands, Austria, Sweden, 15 Germany, France.16 For European countries (Falkland Islands, Austria, Sweden, Germany, France) the new 17 harmonized EU regulation was analysed. Australia does not have a legally binding 18 organic regulation. Instead, we used the National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic 19 Produce, a voluntary standard for the organic industry defined by the Australian 20 government (AUS 2009). In Argentina, organic agriculture is regulated through a large 21 number of separate laws and there is no single organic standard; we therefore excluded 22 Argentina from the analysis. Overall, we examined 8 different organic regulations 23 representing 33 different countries (28 countries part of the EU plus 5 other countries 24 plus 2 international framework texts; Table 2).25 Table 1. Countries included in the analysis. Values represent number of organic producers; total 26 area certified organic and in conversion to organic agriculture (in ha); % of total agricultural area 27 that is organic; organic sales (in Mio. €). Values are for the year 2013 if not otherwise indicated. 28 Source: (Willer & Lernoud 2015).Country 2013 valueIndia 650,000Countries with most organic producersUganda 189,610 (2012)6Mexico 169,703Australia 17,150,000 haArgentina 3,191,255 haCountries with highest total organic agricultural areaUSA 2,178,471 haFalkland Islands 36.3%; 403,212 haAustria 19.5%; 526,689 haCountries with highest share of organic agricultural land2Sweden 16.3%; 500,996 haUSA 24,347 Mio. €Germany 7,550 Mio. €Countries with the largest domestic organic marketsFrance 4,380 Mio. €12 We used several different approaches to compare how organic agriculture is discussed in 3 these selected regulations. First, we classified management practices or inputs discussed 4 in different regulations according to whether they were required, recommended, 5 authorized, discouraged, or prohibited by the regulations. The management practices 6 considered included land management (conversion, parallel production), crop production 7 (species choice, pest control, fertilization), livestock production (species choice, 8 breeding, feed, veterinary treatments, housing, transport and slaughter) and processing 9 (food additives, processing aids). This helped identify where regulations differed in the 10 types of practices discussed, as well as in the extent to which these practices were 11 regulated.12 Table 2. Organic regulations included in the analysis.Country Regulation name ReferencesInternational Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius, Organically Produced Food (2001)FAO and WHO (2001)International The IFOAM Norms for Organic Production and Processing, Version 2005IFOAM (2006)Australia National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce – Edition 3.4 (2009)AUS (2009)2 Note that Liechtenstein (despite having the second highest share of organic agricultural land) was excluded due to its small size.7European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products &Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down the rules for the implementation of EC No 834/2007EU (2007)EU (2008)India National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP), sixth edition (2005)NPOP (2005)Mexico Ley de Productos Organicos (LPO), Nueva Ley DOF 07-02-2006LPO (2006)Lineamientos para la Operación Orgánica de las actividades agropecuarias, October 2013LPO (2013)Uganda UgoCert (2005), Uganda Organic Standard (UOS) for organic production and processingUOS (2005)United States National Organic Programme, e-CRF Data as of November 1, 2013USDA (2013)181 Second, we conducted a content analysis to assess the importance of different organic 2 principles in regulations using a qualitative weighting and scoring approach (see Hsieh & 3 Shannon 2005; Krippendorff 2012)3. This allowed us to assess the extent to which 4 differences in regulated management practices might reflect differences in the 5 conceptualization of organic agriculture. To do this, we first identified management 6 practices that are typically regulated in organic regulations (see Table 3). We focused our 7 analysis on land-based crop and livestock systems, as well as on practices related to food 8 production, thus excluding sections dealing with bee keeping, aquaculture, mushroom 9 production, harvest of wild plants and animals, labelling, inspection & certification 10 process, accreditation of certification bodies and packaging. We then derived a list of key 11 organic principles, based on principles and objectives discussed in preambles of organic 12 regulations. Instead of defining organic principles a priori based on theory and external 13 sources (e.g. like Padel et al. 2009; Darnhofer et al. 2010), we inferred organic principles 14 from the legal texts themselves. We identified seven key organic principles discussed in 15 regulations: (1) natural, (2) local, (3) soil, (4) biodiversity, (5) water, (6) animal well-16 being, and (7) human health. We excluded the principle of ‘social’ from our analysis 17 because social aspects are barely mentioned in most organic regulations, with a few 18 exceptions4.193 Content analysis encompasses a wide variety of methods used for “making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the context of their use” Krippendorff (2012, p. 24).4 The IFOAM standard dedicates two pages to social standards, recommending some basic rights, social security systems and labour protection for organic farm workers and asking operators to have a policy for social justice, prohibiting the use of child or forced labour and declaring that production that is based on the violation of basic human rights shall not be declared as organic. The Mexican regulation does mention social standards in one sentence, while the Ugandan UOS dedicates an entire page to social justice, prescribing and recommending similar things as the IFOAM regulation.91 Table 3. Matrix of organic management practices vs. organic principles that could be used to 2 discuss each practice.Organic principlesManagement practices Natural Local Soil Water Biodiv Animal HumanConservation areas X X XIrrigation X X X XCrop rotation X X XTillage X XPest control X X XFertilization X X X X XSpecies choice X X XLivestock housing XLivestock feed X X XVeterinary treatments X X XLivestock breeding X X XLivestock transport & slaughter XAdditives & processing aids X X34 Next, we identified the organic principles that different management practices represent 5 (see Table 3). For example, a regulation might discuss fertilizer use in the context of 6 ‘natural’ by allowing only inputs from natural (i.e. plant, animal or mineral) origins and 7 prohibiting synthetic substances; or in the context of ‘local’ by requiring nutrient sources 8 to come from the farm or the region; or in the context of ‘soil’ by emphasizing concepts 9 like soil fertility and addition of soil organic matter; or in the context of ‘water’ if 10 minimizing fertilizer use to preserve water quality was discussed; or in the context of 11 ‘human’ if safe fertilizer and manure handling practices to ensure food and worker safety 12 were discussed. 13 We then assigned scores to each regulation based on how strongly the relevant principle 14 was represented in the discussion of each management practice, assigning a full point if 15 the regulation of a specific practice was strongly oriented at achieving the envisioned 16 principle, half a point if the principle was a clear influence but with considerable 17 concessions, and zero points if it appeared to have no influence. To increase the 18 reliability of the content analysis and achieve a form of analytical triangulation, two 101 independent researchers who were involved in the research project (the first and last 2 authors of this paper) separately carried out the coding of organic regulations5. We used 3 the average score assigned by the two researchers as our final score, but we also 4 examined inter-rater reliability by testing whether and how the identity of the coder 5 influenced the results inferred from our analysis. Note that this content analysis did not 6 distinguish between practices that are required versus recommended (e.g. differences in 7 the language such as “producers must adhere to” versus “producers should consider 8 that”).9 We then ranked the importance of organic principles within each country/regulation 10 based on our scores weighted by the number of words used to discuss each management 11 practice6. We decided to use this weighting approach, as the different management 12 practices were not equally important in regulations (e.g., discussion of conservation areas 13 was typically confined to a couple of sentences while fertilization practices were usually 14 discussed at length). We used a squared weighting factor as this put stronger emphasis on 15 the more objective word count, compared to the more subjective scoring.7 We conducted 16 a sensitivity analysis to examine (1) whether the identity of the researcher, (2) the scoring 17 system8, or (3) the weighting method influenced the results.1819 2.3 Organic practices in organic regulations20 Broadly speaking, the organic regulations examined are quite similar in terms of 21 management practices regulated. This is not surprising given the large amount of trade in 5 For a discussion of the role of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research see, for example, Armstrong et al. (1997).6 Relative to the total length of the text discussing all the management practices we included in our analysis. 7 An example of this scoring method: the principle of ‘natural’ received a score of 0.5 for the management practice ‘pest control’ in regulation X, and was then multiplied by the square of the relative word count (e.g. 0.122) used in this same regulation to discuss pest control (relative to all management practices discussed in the regulation). All weighted scores for ‘natural’ across different management practices in regulation X were then summed and ranked relative to the scores of the other organic principles.8 i.e. a three-point scoring system of 0, 0.5 or 1 points, or a two-point scoring system only assigning either 0 (principle not discussed) or 1 point (principle discussed).111 organic products between countries (FiBL & IFOAM 2013), and that the aim of 2 international organic standards is to achieve harmonization between countries in order to 3 facilitate trade. IFOAM and Codex Alimentarius try to establish international reference 4 standards that can act as minimum guidelines, but can be complemented by additional, 5 stricter national or private standards. The influence of the IFOAM text on some of the 6 national regulations, especially India and Uganda, is noticeable. Several countries have 7 also developed bilateral agreements in order to establish equivalency in organic standards8 9. The EU has, for example, established equivalency agreements with Argentina, 9 Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tunisia 10 and United States.11 Generally, organic regulations define prohibited activities or substances (e.g. the use of 12 genetically engineered products, synthetic pest or weed control substances, or the use of 13 ionising irradiation for the treatment of food), and required activities (e.g. outdoor access 14 for livestock or crop rotations). Compliance is enforced by accredited government or 15 private certifying agents. Some regulations (e.g. the Indian NPOP) also delegate the 16 formulation of additional standards and management requirements (e.g. stocking rates or 17 the minimum percentage of farm set aside as conservation area) to the certifying agents. 18 The certifying agents are paid by producers, which, critics argue, can create a conflict of 19 interest as certifiers do not want to lose their customers through overly strict controls 20 (Friedland 2005). Many regulations require the producers to formulate a management 21 plan that details the production system and management practices used, the inputs applied 22 and sometimes a prediction of the quantities produced. The certifying agency typically 23 has to be informed of any changes to the management plan. In addition, inspections of the 24 farm are carried out, typically a minimum of once a year. Product testing is typically not 25 required, except when there is reason to suspect non-compliance with organic standards 26 or contamination of products.9 Equivalency of organic standards means that although there are minor differences between organic regulations of countries (and regulations are therefore not harmonized), the guiding principles for organic production are acknowledged to be similar and the products certified under the other countries regulation is therefore allowed to be marketed as organic without needing to undergo a second certification (Giovannucci 2006; OTA 2009). 121 Despite the large similarities between regulations, some differences in organic practices 2 are still worth noting, some of which can be explained by considering country-specific 3 context. For example, the EU standard has some unusual exceptions to the prohibition of 4 genetically modified organisms (GMO) in organic agriculture compared to other 5 regulations, allowing veterinary medicines produced from GMOs, as well as food and 6 feed additives derived from GMOs if there are no alternative GMO-free substances on the 7 market. But in the EU, GMO use in agriculture generally and its presence in food 8 products is much more strictly regulated than, for example, in the US. Conventional food 9 products in the EU are generally GMO-free or has to be labelled if it contains products 10 derived from GMOs. Avoidance of GMOs is therefore not an important consideration for 11 organic consumers in the EU (McEachern & Mcclean 2002).12 Another notable difference is that the US regulation includes a negative list of natural 13 substances that are not allowed, while it allows the use of all other natural substances not 14 listed, while other standards include positive lists of substances that are allowed and 15 prohibit any substances that are not listed. The US and Australian regulations are 16 especially strict about antibiotics, in that slaughter stock that has been given antibiotics at 17 any point cannot be sold as organic. In contrast, other regulations authorize the sale of 18 organic animals treated with therapeutic use of antibiotics after certain withdrawal 19 periods.20 Even though the general principles according to which animal management is regulated 21 are very similar in all regulations – e.g. animal housing that allows for natural behaviour 22 and movement patterns, company with other individuals of the same species, natural light 23 & ventilation – the degree to which these principles translate into specific requirements 24 differs substantially between regulations. The EU and Australian regulations are, for 25 example, the only ones that prescribe the minimum amount of indoor (and in the case of 26 EU also outdoor) area required per head of livestock. Also, while all regulations require 27 access to the outdoors for livestock, only the US regulation requires a minimum 28 proportion of livestock feed for ruminants to come directly from grazing. All other 29 regulations recommend access to pasture when conditions allow, but do not require it.131 There are also some differences in how practices like crop rotations are regulated: In 2 some cases (e.g. Mexico), they are strictly required; mostly, however, crop rotations are 3 only recommended and typically discussed as part of a larger set of practices that can be 4 chosen from. 5 Overall, there are more similarities than differences in how management practices are 6 regulated in different organic regulations. Differences between regulations are often in 7 the emphasis given to certain management practices rather than in concrete management 8 requirements.910 2.4 Organic principles in organic regulations11 The comparison between principles yielded remarkably similar results independent of 12 researcher, scoring or weighting method used (Table A3, Appendix A). Absence of 13 synthetic inputs is the single most important principle in almost every one of the 14 regulations examined (Table 4), ranked first by a wide margin in aggregate, receiving 15 almost double the score as the second ranked principle. Animal welfare and human health 16 receive similar scores, and their scores are again more than double that of the next 17 principle (soil). The organic principles associated most with environmental sustainability, 18 i.e. soil, water and biodiversity, are not very prominent in organic regulations. This 19 picture does not differ much between different regulations (Table 4) or when different 20 methods are used (Table A3, Appendix A).2122 Table 4. Ranking of importance of organic principles within each regulation. See Table 2 for an 23 overview of the different regulatory texts examined, and see Table A1 in Appendix A for a colour 24 version of this table.Natural Animal Human Soil Local Biodiv WaterMexico 2 1 4 5 3 7 6IFOAM 1 7 2 3 6 5 4Australia 1 6 3 4 7 5 2Uganda 1 2 5 4 3 6 7India 1 6 2 4 5 3 7EU 1 2 3 5 4 7 6USA 1 2 3 4 7 6 5FAO 2 1 3 4 7 6 5Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 714Score 77 46 42 21 17 16 13123 There are, however, some notable exceptions to this general picture. The Indian 4 regulation stands apart in strongly emphasizing biodiversity, while the Australian 5 regulation emphasizes water issues much more than other regulations (not surprising 6 given the dry climate of Australia). Mexico and Uganda emphasize local issues more than 7 other regulations. And the IFOAM, Indian and Australian regulations emphasize animal 8 issues far less than other regulations. IFOAM, the most holistic but also least specific of 9 the regulations, shows the highest rank for soil issues – a core idea of the original organic 10 pioneers. 1112 3. The definition of organic according to regulations13 Our examination of organic regulations highlights that there are no major differences in 14 the regulation of organic practices between different national and international organic 15 regulatory texts. International trade in organic food has contributed greatly to a 16 harmonization of organic regulations between different countries. Although there are 17 some differences, discourse about organic as well as the specific practices prescribed in 18 different organic regulations are very similar. As global trade in organic produce 19 continues to increase, the need for equivalency or harmonization of organic regulations 20 will become more important. This is reflected in the on-going negotiations of equivalency 21 agreements10 as well as in the on-going work of the International Task Force on 22 Harmonization and Equivalency in Organic Agriculture convened by IFOAM, FAO and 23 UNCTAD (Giovannucci 2006). Given the degree of consistency between different 24 regulations analysed, we can arrive at some broad conclusions about how organic is 25 defined by these regulations.10 The EU for example just signed an equivalency agreement with the US in 2012.1512 3.1 Organic regulations are about ‘natural’ versus ‘synthetic’ inputs3 Despite the broader definitions used in preambles of organic regulatory texts (Padel et al. 4 2009), organic regulations are, in practice, defining organic agriculture as a chemical-free 5 management system, based on avoiding synthetic inputs, and relying on natural 6 substances instead. In all regulations the majority of the text is devoted to a discussion of 7 allowed and prohibited inputs, typically discussed in the context of ‘natural’ versus 8 ‘synthetic’ substances. ‘Natural’ substances are typically defined as those of animal or 9 plant origin, as well as mined substances of low solubility, while ‘synthetic’ substances 10 are “manufactured by chemical and industrial processes” and may “include products not 11 found in nature, or simulation of products from natural sources” (IFOAM 2006, p. 13).12 The organic principle of ‘natural’ does not, however, only relate to non-synthetic inputs. 13 The idea of using natural processes to manage an organic system is also prominent in 14 regulations; for example, the recommendation to use crop and animal species with high 15 resistance to pests and diseases, or to use crop rotations and cover crops for crop nutrient 16 management. Many regulations emphasize that the use of allowed substances should only 17 be considered a last resort, when other measures have failed to achieve the intended 18 management goal. The Australian standard, for example, states: “Inputs must not be used 19 as a permanent measure to support a poorly designed or badly managed system. Non-20 essential use of inputs is counter to organic and bio-dynamic farming principles” (AUS 21 2009, p. 50).22 In general, however, regulations tend to put a stronger emphasis on natural substances 23 than natural processes. Typically regulations spend a couple of sentences stating that pest 24 or soil fertility management or management of livestock health should be based on 25 natural processes, after which they extensively discuss criteria and requirements for the 26 use of allowed substances. In addition, the use of different natural processes is typically 27 listed as recommended, and not required. For example, the European commission 28 regulation (EU 2008) spends 40 words on the use of natural processes (e.g. high quality 29 feed and exercise) for disease prevention in livestock, and then continues using more than 30 300 words to discuss requirements for the use of natural and synthetic veterinary 161 treatments. The US NOP spends 65 words discussing the need to manage soil fertility and 2 crop nutrient requirements using “rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and 3 animal materials”, and then discusses at length (using 450 words) requirements for what 4 constitutes allowed inputs (USDA 2013).56 3.2 Organic regulations are not setting good standards for environmental 7 sustainability8 Our analysis supports the frequent criticism that the codification of organic practices has 9 led to a reductionist perspective of organic agriculture, focused on avoidance of synthetic 10 inputs (Allen & Kovach 2000; Goodman 2000). The prohibition of synthetic inputs does 11 not, by itself, constitute more environmental friendly management (Kirchmann & 12 Bergström 2001; Bahlai et al. 2010), or represent a sufficient condition for sustainability, 13 and may not even be a necessary one (paraphrasing Hodges 1993, as cited in Rigby & 14 Caceres 2001, p. 26). 15 To investigate this further, we compiled a list of management practices identified as 16 environmental best practices in farming (Altieri & Rosset 1996) and reviewed whether 17 and how these practices are regulated in organic regulations. In this exercise we did 18 distinguish between practices that are ‘required’ (e.g. “the producer must”), and those that 19 are mentioned but ‘not regulated’ (e.g. “it is recommended the producer should”). We 20 find that management practices that have been identified as important components of 21 sustainable agriculture - like permanent soil cover through cover and catch crops (Altieri 22 & Rosset 1996; Tonitto et al. 2006), or the use of crop associations, and a mixture of crop 23 varieties (Altieri & Rosset 1996; Zhu et al. 2000) - are typically not clearly regulated in 24 organic regulations (see Table 5). While some of these sustainable management practices 25 might be crop- or climate-zone specific (e.g. agroforestry or cover crops) and thus cannot 26 be required for all farmers, most of these practices could be implemented in the majority 27 of farming systems.28 Some other concerns of sustainable agriculture are also mostly, or entirely, absent from 29 organic regulations. Few of the regulations, for example, discuss water conservation, and 30 none require specific irrigation practices, even though agriculture is the largest user of 171 freshwater worldwide (Rosegrant et al. 2009), and increasing water use efficiency is a 2 major concern for sustainable agriculture (Tilman et al. 2002). Only the Australian and 3 Mexican regulations have detailed discussions of water management, for example 4 requiring farmers to conserve water and to use local water resources without impacting 5 flora and fauna (AUS 2009, p. 16; LPO 2013, Artículo 33). The Indian and Ugandan 6 regulations follow the IFOAM standard that “operators shall not deplete nor excessively 7 exploit water resources, and shall seek to preserve water quality” (IFOAM 2006, p. 15), 8 but without further detail. All other regulations examined – i.e. EU, US and the Codex 9 Alimentarus - do not even mention irrigation or water management. In the scoring of 10 organic principles water therefore received the lowest score of all organic principles 11 (Table 5).12 Table 5. Comparison of how different sustainable management practices identified by Altieri & 13 Rosset (1996) are regulated in organic regulations. / - indicates the management practice is not 14 discussed; NR (Not Regulated) – indicates the practice is discussed but not regulated, or its use is 15 suggested but not required; Req. – indicates use is required. See Table A2 in Appendix A for a 16 colour version of this table, and Table A5 for more details about how these practices are 17 regulated.IFOAM FAO Aus. EU US India Mex. Ugan.Living mulch* / / / / / / / /Dead soil cover** NR NR NR / NR NR NR NRCover Crops NR / / / Req. NR Req. NRConservation tillage NR / NR NR NR / NR NRAlley cropping / / / / NR / Req. /Agroforestry / / / / / / Req. /Living Barriers*** / / NR / / / NR /Rotations Req. NR Req. Req. Req. NR Req. Req.Crop Associations NR / NR / NR NR Req. Req.Cultivar Mixtures NR / / / / / / NRAnimal integration / NR NR NR / NR Req. /18*a cover crop interplanted or undersown with the main crop** mulching with dead biological or synthetic material***a windbreak usually involving trees and/or shrubs1920 Another sustainability concern that is essentially absent from organic regulations is 21 nutrient use efficiency. This is discussed as an aim of organic agriculture, but not 181 translated into any concrete management requirements. Even though most organic 2 regulations emphasize that the focus of nutrient management on organic farms should be 3 on nutrient recycling rather than applying external inputs, the amount of inputs is not 4 actually limited. The European and the Mexican regulations limit the amount of animal 5 manure applied to fields (to 170 and 500 kg of nitrogen per ha respectively), but they do 6 not limit total nutrient inputs. The use of organic instead of synthetic nutrient inputs does 7 not, by itself, result in reduced loss of nitrogen or phosphorus from the system 8 (Kirchmann & Bergström 2001). Nutrient efficiency in agriculture requires targeted 9 management to reduce excess nutrient application by meeting crop demand as closely as 10 possible (Berry et al. 2002).11 This lack of concrete management requirements that relate to environmental 12 sustainability appears rather paradoxical as regulations often state (for example in their 13 preambles) that organic agriculture entails best environmental practices and is aimed at 14 enhancing the environmental performance of agriculture (NOSB 2011, p. 30). 15 Environmental principles are, however almost entirely absent from the regulations- for 16 example, in the US regulation soil principles are ranked in the middle and biodiversity 17 principles come almost last (Table 4).18 It could be argued that some of the management methods associated with best 19 environmental practices – like diversified crop rotations, integration of leguminous crops, 20 or application of compost and crop residues – by default have to be part of an organic 21 management system, as the prohibition of chemical nutrient inputs and pesticides 22 requires reverting to such practices to achieve good crop and animal production. In 23 practice, however, it is perfectly possible to manage a farming system without chemical 24 inputs but also without using sustainable management practices. Many examples show 25 that organic farms, especially large-scale organic production, can rely on ‘natural’ but 26 external inputs like animal manure and allowed organic fertilizers and pesticides, without 27 adopting other sustainable management practices (Buck et al. 1997; Guthman 2004).2829 3.3 Organic pioneers would be disappointed with today’s regulations30 Sir Albert Howard is arguably one of the most important figures of the original organic 191 movement. Joseph Heckman, in a review of the history of organic agriculture, writes that 2 “Sir Albert Howard would likely be dissatisfied with the current status of the organic 3 movement” (Heckman 2006, p. 148). The conceptualization of organic agriculture in 4 today’s regulations differs in substantial ways from some of the key principles of organic 5 agriculture as advocated by organic pioneers.6 Howard would have agreed with the prohibition of synthetic inputs in today’s organic 7 regulations, as “artificial manures lead inevitably to artificial nutrition, artificial food, 8 artificial animals, and finally to artificial men and women” (Howard 1940, chapter 3, 9 para. 16). Howard and other organic pioneers had, however, a more holistic 10 understanding of health and of ‘natural’ than current organic regulations. For organic 11 pioneers ‘natural’ meant an “obedience to the laws by which the world is governed” (a 12 writer to Sir Albert Howard’s journal ‘Soil and Health’, Conford 2001, p. 92). Avoiding 13 ‘artificial manures’ would, by itself, not lead to healthy food, but human health was 14 dependent on a fertile soil, which was a core concept of organic philosophy (Könemann 15 1939; Howard 1940; Balfour 1950). Howard starts his ‘An Agricultural Testament’ with 16 “The maintenance of the fertility of the soil is the first condition of any permanent system 17 of agriculture” (Howard 1940, chapter 1, para. 1). Even many of the social and political 18 ideas encapsulated in the organic movement were centred around soil - “wealth, welfare, 19 prosperity and even the future freedom of this nation are based upon the soil” (Louis 20 Bromfield, 1945, as cited in Conford 2001, p. 105). Howard’s version of organic 21 regulations would probably have dedicated most of their rules and standards to good soil 22 management practices. But in today’s regulations soil ranks low compared to other 23 principles (Table 4), and key soil terminology used by organic pioneers like humus, 24 composting, organic matter, and soil fertility is almost entirely absent.25 Another core idea of Howard that is missing from today’s regulations is the ‘Law of 26 Return’. Howard observed that in the ancient traditional farming systems of South Asia 27 that he admired – most prominently the farming system of the Hunzas in Pakistan – “the 28 very greatest care is taken to return to the soil all human, animal, and vegetable wastes 29 after being first composted together” (Howard 1940, chapter 12, para. 10). He therefore 30 proclaimed that a sound agriculture was not possible without returning to the soil what 31 was removed from it through harvest. Howard is often referred to as the ‘father of 201 modern composting’, as the study of different composting methods was a central element 2 of his work. Composting was not only the best way to increase soil fertility and foster soil 3 biological activity, but also allowed the recycling of urban wastes for use in rural 4 agriculture – one of “Howard’s favourite projects” (Conford 2001, p. 86). Organic 5 regulations today are, instead, rather ambiguous about the use of human excrements or 6 sewage sludge due to food safety concerns (see Supplemental Table S4). Some 7 regulations (e.g. US, EU, Uganda) do not allow any use of human wastes. Other 8 regulations prohibit the use of sewage sludge but allow the use of human excrements on 9 non-edible crops (e.g. Mexico), while some countries prohibit the use of human 10 excrements but allow the use of treated sewage sludge (e.g. India, Australia). 11 Since the times of Albert Howard the food system has changed considerably, and it is 12 only natural to expect organic agriculture to also have changed since then. But some of 13 these original ideas of the organic movement are still highly relevant today. Many current 14 debates about what constitutes sustainable agricultural management are consistent with 15 Howard’s idea that soil health is a core element (Parr et al. 1992; Doran 2002), and that 16 closing nutrient cycles in agriculture - especially the phosphorus cycle, where availability 17 is limited – is an important environmental goal (Tilman et al. 2002; Cordell et al. 2009). 18 Bringing some of these organic concepts back into organic regulations could thus connect 19 organic agriculture back to its roots, while also addressing food system sustainability 20 challenges.2122 3.4 The definition of organic agriculture in regulations is driven by 23 consumers24 Organic agriculture is a strongly consumer-driven sector (Fromartz 2007). And we 25 hypothesize that the reason why organic regulations focus on regulating ‘natural’ versus 26 ‘chemical’ inputs can be traced to the primary motivations of consumers. Although the 27 scientific evidence on the health benefit of organic food is unclear (Smith-Spangler et al. 28 2012; Barański et al. 2014), and although organic consumers identify a wide range of 29 motives, the most common stated reason for buying organic food is health and pleasure 30 (Zanoli & Naspetti 2002; Hughner et al. 2007). The healthiness of organic food is often 211 associated with the absence of chemical residues, as well as a higher nutritional value of 2 organic food (Hughner et al. 2007). This focus on health as the most common motive 3 appears to be consistent across different regions of the world (Davies et al. 1995; Chang 4 & Zepeda 2005; Dahm et al. 2009; Sirieix et al. 2011).5 Even though several qualitative reviews on the motives of organic consumers have been 6 conducted (Yiridoe et al. 2005; Hughner et al. 2007; Schleenbecker & Hamm 2013), 7 there has been no systematic review on the topic yet. To confirm the impression from a 8 qualitative review of the literature that the predominant reason for consumers to buy 9 organic is health, we summarized the results from studies on organic consumer motives 10 included in the three qualitative reviews conducted on this topic so far (i.e. Yiridoe et al. 11 2005; Hughner et al. 2007; Schleenbecker & Hamm 2013), as well as some additional 12 studies on the topic we found (see Appendix B for details on studies included). To 13 compare studies, we ranked the purchasing motives of organic consumers, as well as the 14 characteristics associated by consumers with organic products identified in each study. 15 Appendix B provides further details and more background on the comparison. Table 6 16 summarizes the main results derived from 34 studies we included in this analysis.1718 Table 6. Importance of different aspects of organic food for consumers, i.e. (1) characteristics 19 associated with organic products, and (2) motives for organic consumers to purchase organic 20 food. See Appendix B for details, including a list of references of studies included in the analysis.  Health Natural Environment Animal SocialScore 0.76 0.92 1.20 2.32 2.82Product characteristics (N=10) Rank 1 2 3 4 5Score 0.61 1.23 1.33 1.71 2.55Purchasing motives (N=25) Rank 1 2 3 4 52122 This analysis supports the notion that health aspects – including aspects of food safety 23 and food quality - are the most important characteristic associated with organic food by 24 consumers today. This belief that organic food is healthier, safer and tastier is grounded 25 on the belief that organic food is free of chemical substances, like pesticides, antibiotics, 26 and growth hormones, and that it is more nutritious. ‘Natural’ is thus the second most 27 important characteristic associated by consumers with organic food (Table 6). 221 Environmental motives typically rank highest of the altruistic values associated with 2 organic food, while animal welfare comes fourth, and social issues – supporting local 3 smallholder farmers, or giving fair prices to farmers - ranks last (see Table 6).4 The importance of consumer demand in the formulation of organic standards is 5 sometimes very clearly stated in regulations. Several regulations (e.g. Mexico and 6 Australia) state the production of food of high nutritional quality as the first principle of 7 organic agriculture, while many of the regulations mention that processing aids and food 8 additives should not impair the ‘authenticity’ of the organic product (e.g. FAO & WHO 9 2001, p. 11; Aus 2009, p. 39; IFOAM 2007, p. 58 & p. 64). The Australian standard, for 10 example, explains that: “The use of additives and processing aids of non-agricultural 11 origin included in the Annexes, takes into account the expectations of consumers that 12 processed products from organic production systems should be composed essentially of 13 ingredients as they occur in nature” (Aus 2009, p. 39).14 The importance of consumers in defining organic regulations is also evident in the 15 process of how these regulations come to be formulated. In many countries the 16 formulation of organic standards has been the outcome of a long process during which 17 different stakeholder groups were consulted, and public comments received (Vos 2000; 18 Padel et al. 2009; Mosier & Thilmany 2016). A first draft of the US NOP, for example, 19 received more public comments than any previous USDA regulation. Most of these 20 comments concerned the list of allowed substances (Friedland 2005). The EU is currently 21 revising organic standards. The first draft, released in early 2014, received strong 22 criticism from farmer groups. The draft included more stringent rules on contamination of 23 organic products (e.g. requiring residue-testing for baby food, and lowering the allowable 24 levels of residues in organic products), as well as the elimination of exemptions allowed 25 in the current version (e.g. the use of in-conversion feed or of non-organic seeds), as well 26 as a strengthening of the control system. As justification for revising the standards, the 27 European Commission stated the interest of consumers in pesticide-free food and the 28 need to improve consumer confidence in organic products (EU 2014b).29231 4. Bringing the environment back into organic regulations 2 Ideally, regulations for sustainable agriculture would be outcome-based, setting 3 environmental targets that need to be achieved, as is done, for example, to address air 4 pollution. But the sustainability challenges associated with agriculture are manifold - 5 ranging from biodiversity loss, land degradation, climate change mitigation and 6 adaptation to water resource depletion - and monitoring these outcomes is more difficult. 7 We do, however, believe that organic agriculture could be a powerful tool to move 8 towards more sustainable food production for several reasons, including the continued 9 growth of the organic sector, the strong consumer demand for organic products, and the 10 widespread recognition of the organic label. Most importantly, however, organic 11 currently represents in most countries the only legally-defined label that allows 12 consumers to know about and influence through their consumer behaviour how their food 13 is produced.14 Rather than regulating environmental outcomes, organic regulations should continue to 15 be process-based and explicitly include clear requirements for environmental best 16 practices. Such requirements could include, for example, a minimum amount of 17 leguminous crops in rotations (Crews & Peoples 2004), the use of cover crops (Tonitto et 18 al. 2006), plant diversification schemes like inter-cropping and trap crops (Letourneau et 19 al. 2011), the use of crop varieties with high genetic diversity (Zhu et al. 2000), use of 20 conservation tillage (Hobbs et al. 2008) or enhanced integration of animal and cropping 21 systems (Naylor et al. 2005), all of which have been identified as important 22 environmental best management practices. Some best practices that are already required 23 in some countries (e.g. the setting aside of a certain portion of the farmland as 24 conservation area in Australia, the prohibition of clearing primary vegetation in Uganda 25 and India, or the need for multi-storey cropping systems including native species in areas 26 where the primary vegetation is rainforest in the Mexican regulation) should be adopted 27 by other countries. In order to better represent the ideas of organic pioneers, organic 28 standards should focus on requiring closed nutrient cycling by, for example, encouraging 29 integrated crop-livestock systems, allowing the use of (appropriately treated) human 241 wastes and municipal composts, limiting the amount of off-farm inputs, or by monitoring 2 soil fertility standards.3 Stricter regulation of environmental best practices in organic regulations would most 4 likely bring new challenges, including (1) potentially higher costs for producers leading 5 to some producers exiting organic agriculture, (2) potentially higher prices for consumers, 6 and (3) lower willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental attributes compared to health 7 attributes of organic food. In the following we will discuss each of these challenges in 8 turn.9 A recent meta-analysis of studies across North America, Europe and India found that 10 organic farming has typically higher labour but lower input costs, and that despite lower 11 yields, organic is, on average, more profitable than conventional farming due to premium 12 prices received (Crowder & Reganold 2015). Despite this generally higher profitability of 13 organic agriculture, the organic sector is still often supply-limited, and increases in 14 organic area have lagged behind increases in consumer demand (Oberholtzer et al. 2005; 15 EC 2010). The barriers that prevent farmers from adopting organic agriculture despite its 16 higher profitability are not well understood but probably include the cost and uncertainty 17 of the transition period, insufficient technical support and access to information on 18 organic practices, lack of marketing opportunities, operational aspects like higher labour 19 requirements and the ease of pest and weed management, as well as farmer attitudes, 20 social pressures and norms (Padel 2001; Schneeberger et al. 2002; Rodriguez et al. 21 2009). On the one hand, these current patterns suggest that stricter environmental best 22 practices in organic regulations would most likely not reduce the profitability advantage 23 of organic farming11. On the other hand, stricter regulations might create additional 24 barriers for farmers to enter organic agriculture and thereby increase the gap between 25 organic demand and organic supply. Future research and targeted policies need to address 26 the factors preventing farmers from entering the organic market.27 A related question is whether stricter organic regulations would lead to an increased 28 concentration of the organic sector by forcing small-scale producers out of organic 11 Especially given that in the studies included in the meta-analysis by Crowder & Reganold (2016) the breakeven premiums required to make organic as profitable as conventional was only 6%, and considerably lower than the actual 30% price premium received by farmers.251 agriculture as they might not have the capital needed to change their operation in order to 2 meet new standards. To understand this better, one potential case study is the recently 3 proposed stricter animal welfare standards for poultry production in the US NOP. An 4 analysis by the USDA amended to the proposed rule suggests that the costs of 5 compliance to these stricter standards would most likely be higher for larger producers, as 6 small producers are already often implementing higher standards (e.g. lower stocking 7 densities and more access to outdoor space), while larger producers might not be able to 8 acquire sufficient land area to comply to new standards without reducing flock sizes 9 (USDA 2016). A similar pattern might apply if stricter environmental best practices were 10 implemented in organic regulations, as small-scale organic producers are often already 11 using sustainable practices like animal integration, higher crop diversity, or smaller field 12 sizes (Belfrage et al. 2005), while large-scale organic producers are often using more 13 intensive undiversified agricultural practices (Buck et al. 1997; Guthman 2004).14 The next question is how more explicit inclusion of environmental best practices in 15 organic regulations would potentially influence consumers. Increased costs of organic 16 production might increase the organic premium and consumers might not be willing to 17 pay such premiums for environmental standards. But firstly, analyses of recent trends in 18 organic price premiums suggest that premiums are not decreasing despite the growth of 19 the organic sector, as prices are not determined only by the costs of organic production 20 but also by the high demand in the organic sector (Oberholtzer et al. 2005; Carlson & 21 Jaenicke 2016). Secondly, even though ‘health’ is the most common motive for organic 22 consumers, altruistic values of environment, animal welfare and societal well-being are 23 still of importance to many organic consumers today (Zanoli & Naspetti 2002), Table 6); 24 30% of English respondents (Hutchins & Greenhalgh 1995), 50% in Germany (Oltersdorf 25 1983), and 85% in Ireland (Davies et al. 1995) stated, for example, that they bought 26 organic food mainly or partly for environmental reasons. Thirdly, consumers have often 27 been shown to have high WTP for clearly defined and communicated additional attributes 28 of organic food (Lusk & Briggeman 2009; Zander & Hamm 2010). Currently one of the 29 main barriers to organic consumption is confusion and lack of knowledge of the different 30 organic labels used and their meaning (Hutchins & Greenhalgh 1995; Padel & Foster 31 2005; Janssen & Hamm 2012). But the more information is provided about an organic 261 product, the more people are willing to buy it and pay a higher price for it (Soler et al. 2 2002; Stolz et al. 2011). And consumers with strong environmental values have often a 3 higher WTP for organic food (Gil et al. 2000; Lusk & Briggeman 2009; Costanigro et al. 4 2016), as they associate organic food with superior environmental performance 5 (Costanigro et al. 2016). Clearer environmental standards in organic regulations would 6 thus allow consumers to more clearly differentiate the environmental attributes of organic 7 food and thus potentially increase their WTP for organic premiums.8 Given these trends we therefore believe that clear environmental standards in organic 9 regulations that can be communicated to the consumer might not necessarily reduce the 10 demand for organic food but could, instead, allow for increased growth of the organic 11 sector by meeting the demands of organic consumers with environmental values and by 12 increasing consumer trust in the organic label.271TheoryRegulationsConsumersProducersHealthEnvironmentAnimal welfareSocialTheoryRegulationsConsumersProducersHealthEnvironmentAnimal welfareSocialEnvironmentalBenefitEnvironmentalBenefitba2 Fig. 2. The current main poles of influence of organic agriculture (a) and how these poles would 3 look like if the environment was brought back into organic regulations (b). The thickness and 4 shade of arrows indicates the importance of each influence; dotted arrows indicate influences that 5 are basically non-existent.67 5. Conclusion8 Organic regulations appear to be caught between different and often opposing interests 9 and therefore watered-down to be rather one-dimensional. As the organic market 10 continues to grow, and as more farmers enter organic production, and a larger, and more 11 diverse group of consumers demand affordable chemical-free food, there is a risk that 12 organic agriculture will be reduced even more to the lowest common denominator 281 between the different interest groups, i.e. absence of synthetic substances. The original 2 idea of organic being environmentally friendly farming is in danger of being lost.3 Organic regulations are the place where organic agriculture is defined today. Organic 4 regulations should therefore be very clear about what the goal of organic agriculture is. If 5 organic agriculture is to primarily deliver chemical-free food to consumers, organic 6 regulations should include more product standards (e.g. food safety, residue-free food) 7 rather than prescribing process standards, as they do today. If organic agriculture is, 8 instead, to stay truer to its original ideas and include a holistic understanding of 9 ecosystem and human health and more sustainable (soil) management practices, organic 10 regulations should include more environmental best practices in their process standards.11 But such policy changes need to be supported by continued research in three key areas: 12 Firstly, agricultural and environmental research needs to clearly identify the 13 environmental best management practices that lead to beneficial environmental 14 outcomes. Secondly, economic and psychological research needs to better understand the 15 WTP of consumers for environmental attributes of organic food, and how these attributes 16 should be communicated to increase consumers’ WTP. Thirdly, social research needs to 17 identify the reasons keeping farmers from entering organic agriculture. If we address 18 these knowledge gaps and at the same time include clearer environmental standards in 19 organic regulations, organic agriculture could play an important role in the creation of a 20 more sustainable food system.21291 7. References2 ACO (2010). Australian Certified Organic Standard 2010 - Version: 1.0.  (ed. 3 (BFA), BFoA).4 Allen, P. & Kovach, M. (2000). The capitalist composition of organic: The 5 potential of markets in fulfilling the promise of organic agriculture. Agr. 6 Human Values, 17, 221-232.7 Altieri, M.A. & Rosset, P. (1996). Agroecology and the conversion of lárge‐scale 8 conventional systems to sustainable management. Int. J. Environ. Stud., 9 50, 165-185.10 Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J. & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-11 rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology, 31, 12 597-606.13 AUS (2009). National Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Produce - Edition 14 3.4.  (ed. Organic Industry Export Consultative Committee, AQaIS).15 Bahlai, C.A., Xue, Y., McCreary, C.M., Schaafsma, A.W. & Hallett, R.H. (2010). 16 Choosing organic pesticides over synthetic pesticides may not effectively 17 mitigate environmental risk in soybeans. PLoS ONE, 5, e11250.18 Balfour, E.B. (1950). The Living Soil. The Devin-Adair Company, New York.19 Barański, M., Średnicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., 20 Stewart, G.B. et al. (2014). Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium 21 concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically 22 grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br J Nutr, 23 112, 794-811.24 Belfrage, K., Björklund, J. & Salomonsson, L. (2005). The effects of farm size and 25 organic farming on diversity of birds, pollinators, and plants in a Swedish 26 landscape. Ambio, 34, 582-588.27 Berry, P., Sylvester Bradley, R., Philipps, L., Hatch, D.J., Cuttle, S.P., Rayns, F. 28 et al. (2002). Is the productivity of organic farms restricted by the supply of 29 available nitrogen? Soil Use and Management, 18, 248-255.30 Buck, D., Getz, C. & Guthman, J. (1997). From farm to table: the organic 31 vegetable commodity chain of Northern California. Soc. Ruralis, 37, 3-20.32 Carlson, A. & Jaenicke, E. (2016). Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums 33 from 2004 to 2010. In: Economic Research Report (ed. (USDA), USDoA). 34 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).35 Chang, H.-S. & Zepeda, L. (2005). Consumer perceptions and demand for 36 organic food in Australia: focus group discussions. Renew. Agric. Food 37 Syst., 20, 155-167.38 Conford, P. (2001). The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris Books, 39 Glasgow.40 Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O. & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global 41 food security and food for thought. Global Environ. Change, 19, 292-305.42 Costanigro, M., Deselnicu, O. & McFadden, D.T. (2016). Product differentiation 43 via corporate social responsibility: consumer priorities and the mediating 44 role of food labels. Agr. Human Values.301 COTA (2013). The National Organic Market - Growth, Trends & Opportunities, 2 2013. Canada Organic Trade Association.3 Crews, T. & Peoples, M. (2004). Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: 4 ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ., 102, 5 279-297.6 Crowder, D.W. & Reganold, J.P. (2015). Financial competitiveness of organic 7 agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of 8 Sciences, 112, 7611-7616.9 Dahm, M.J., Samonte, A.V. & Shows, A.R. (2009). Organic foods: do eco-friendly 10 attitudes predict eco-friendly behaviors? J. Am. Coll. Health, 58, 195-202.11 Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R. & Zollitsch, W. (2010). 12 Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria 13 towards an assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agronomy 14 for sustainable development, 30, 67-81.15 Davies, A., Titterington, A.J. & Cochrane, C. (1995). Who buys organic food?: A 16 profile of the purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland. Br. Food J., 17 97, 17-23.18 Doran, J.W. (2002). Soil health and global sustainability: translating science into 19 practice. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ., 88, 119-127.20 EC (2010). An analysis of the EU organic sector. European Commission 21 Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.22 EU (2007). Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and 23 labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. 24 In: L 189/1 (ed. Union, E) Official Journal of the European Union.25 EU (2008). Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules 26 for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic 27 production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic 28 production, labelling and control. In: L 250/1 (ed. Union, E) Official Journal 29 of the European Union.30 EU (2014a). Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed 31 rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as 32 regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third 33 countries. In: L 334/25 (ed. Union, E) Official Journal of the European 34 Union.35 EU (2014b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the 36 Council on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending 37 Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the 38 Council and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. In: 39 COM(2014) 180 final (ed. Commission, E) Brussels.40 FAO & WHO (2001). Codex Alimentarius - Organically Produced Foods. World 41 Health Organization (WHO) & Food and Agriculture Organization of the 42 United Nations (FAO) Rome, p. 65.43 FiBL & IFOAM (2013). The World of Organic Agriculture 2013 - Statistics and 44 emerging trends. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & 45 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Frick, 46 Switzerland.311 Friedland, M.T. (2005). You Call That Organic-The USDA's Misleading Food 2 Regulations. NYU Envtl. LJ, 13, 379.3 Fromartz, S. (2007). Organic, Inc.: Natural foods and how they grew. Houghton 4 Mifflin Harcourt, Orlando, Florida.5 Gil, J.M., Gracia, A. & Sanchez, M. (2000). Market segmentation and willingness 6 to pay for organic products in Spain. The International Food and 7 Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 207-226.8 Giovannucci, D. (2006). Salient Trends in Organic Standards: Opportunities and 9 Challenges for Developing Countries. In: World Bank/USAID Trade and 10 Standards E-learning Course. World Bank & USAID.11 Goklany, I.M. (2002). The ins and outs of organic farming. Sci, 298, 1889.12 Goodman, D. (2000). Organic and conventional agriculture: materializing 13 discourse and agro-ecological managerialism. Agr. Human Values, 17, 14 215-219.15 Guthman, J. (2004). Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in 16 California. Univ of California Pr.17 Hartman Group (2006). Who's Buying Organic?: Demographics 2006. Available 18 at: http://www.hartman-group.com/hartbeat/who-buying-organic-demographics-19 2006 Last accessed April 24 2012.20 Heckman, J. (2006). A history of organic farming: Transitions from Sir Albert 21 Howard's War in the Soil to USDA National Organic Program. Renew. 22 Agric. Food Syst., 21, 143-150.23 Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K. & Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in 24 sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: 25 Biological Sciences, 363, 543-555.26 Howard, A. (1940). An agricultural testament. Oxford University Press, New York.27 Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content 28 analysis. Qualitative health research, 15, 1277-1288.29 Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz II, C.J. & Stanton, J. (2007). 30 Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why 31 people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 94-110.32 Hutchins, R. & Greenhalgh, L. (1995). Organic confusion: sustaining competitive 33 advantage. Nutr. Food Sci., 95, 11-14.34 IFOAM (2006). The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing. 35 Version 2005. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements 36 (IFOAM).37 Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: 38 Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic 39 certification logos. Food Quality and Preference, 25, 9-22.40 Kirchmann, H. & Bergström, L. (2001). Do Organic Farming Practices Reduce 41 Nitrate Leaching? Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 32, 997-1028.42 Könemann, E. (1939). Biologische Bodenkultur und Düngewirtschaft. 43 Siebeneicher, Feldafing.44 Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 45 Sage.321 Lampkin, N.H., Foster, C., Padel, S. & Midmore, P. (1999). The Policy and 2 Regulatory Environment for Organic Farming in Europe. In: Organic 3 Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy Hohenheim.4 Letourneau, D., Armbrecht, I., Salguero Rivera, B., Montoya Lerma, J., JimÈnez 5 Carmona, E., Constanza Daza, M. et al. (2011). Does plant diversity 6 benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecol. Appl., 21, 9-21.7 Lockeretz, W. (2007). What explains the rise of organic farming? In: Organic 8 farming: An international history (ed. Lockeretz, W). CAB International 9 Oxfordshire, pp. 1-8.10 LPO (2006). Ley de Productos Organicos. In: Nueva Ley DOF 07-02-2006 (ed. 11 Union, CdDdHCdl).12 LPO (2013). Lineamientos para la Operación Orgánica de las actividades 13 agropecuarias.  (ed. Secretaria de agricultura, g, desarrollo rural, pesca y 14 alimentacion) Diario oficial.15 Lusk, J.L. & Briggeman, B.C. (2009). Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 91, 184-16 196.17 Mäder, P., Fließbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P. & Niggli, U. (2002). The 18 Ins and Outs of Organic Farming. FiBL response to the letter of Goklany in 19 Science Vol 298. Sci, 298, 1889-1890.20 McEachern, M.G. & Mcclean, P. (2002). Organic purchasing motivations and 21 attitudes: are they ethical? Int. J. Consumer Stud., 26, 85-92.22 Mosier, S.L. & Thilmany, D. (2016). Diffusion of food policy in the US: The case 23 of organic certification. Food Policy, 61, 80-91.24 Naylor, R., Steinfeld, H., Falcon, W., Galloway, J., Smil, V., Bradford, E. et al. 25 (2005). Losing the links between livestock and land. Sci, 310, 1621-1622.26 Nelson, E., Gómez Tovar, L., Schwentesius Rindermann, R. & Gómez Cruz, 27 M.A. (2010). Participatory organic certification in Mexico: an alternative 28 approach to maintaining the integrity of the organic label. Agr. Human 29 Values, 27, 227-237.30 NOSB (2011). National Organic Standards Board - Policy and Procedures 31 Manual.  (ed. Board, NOS).32 NPOP (2005). National Programme for Organic Production.  (ed. Department of 33 Commerce, MoCaI).34 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C. & Greene, C. (2005). Price premiums hold on as US 35 organic produce market expands. US Department of Agriculture, 36 Economic Research Service Washington (DC).37 Oltersdorf, U. (1983). Der Markt fuer "gesunde Nahrungsmittel" in der 38 Bundesrepublik Deutschland. AID Verbraucherdienst, 28, 223-231.39 OTA (2016). Global Organic trade guide - A resource for international organic 40 trade designed for U.S. exports. Available at: 41 http://www.globalorganictrade.com/index.php Last accessed 07.06.2016 42 2016.43 Padel, S. (2001). Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the 44 diffusion of an innovation? Soc. Ruralis, 41, 40-61.331 Padel, S. & Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and 2 behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. 3 Br. Food J., 107, 606-625.4 Padel, S., Röcklinsberg, H. & Schmid, O. (2009). The implementation of organic 5 principles and values in the European Regulation for organic food. Food 6 Policy, 34, 245-251.7 Parr, J., Papendick, R., Hornick, S. & Meyer, R. (1992). Soil quality: attributes 8 and relationship to alternative and sustainable agriculture. Am. J. 9 Alternative Agric., 7, 5-11.10 Rigby, D. & Cáceres, D.M. (2001). Organic farming and the sustainability of 11 agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems, 68, 21-40.12 Rodriguez, J.M., Molnar, J.J., Fazio, R.A., Sydnor, E. & Lowe, M.J. (2009). 13 Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change agent 14 perspectives. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 24, 60-71.15 Rosegrant, M.W., Ringler, C. & Zhu, T. (2009). Water for agriculture: maintaining 16 food security under growing scarcity. Annual review of Environment and 17 resources, 34, 205-222.18 Schleenbecker, R. & Hamm, U. (2013). Consumers’ perception of organic 19 product characteristics. A review. Appetite, 71, 420-429.20 Schmid, O. (2007). Development of standards for organic farming. In: Organic 21 farming: An international history (ed. Lockeretz, W). CAB International 22 Oxfordshire, pp. 152-174.23 Schneeberger, W., Darnhofer, I. & Eder, M. (2002). Barriers to the adoption of 24 organic farming by cash-crop producers in Austria. Am. J. Alternative 25 Agric., 17, 24-31.26 Scialabba, N. & Hattam, C. (2002). Organic agriculture, environment and food 27 security. In: Environment and Natural Resources Series. Food and 28 Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Rome.29 Scott, S., Vandergeest, P. & Young, M. (2009). Certification Standards and the 30 Governance of Green Foods in Southeast Asia. In: Corporate Power in 31 Global Agrifood Governance (eds. Clapp, J & Fuchs, D). MIT Press 32 Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 61.33 Sirieix, L., Kledal, P.R. & Sulitang, T. (2011). Organic food consumers' trade‐offs 34 between local or imported, conventional or organic products: a qualitative 35 study in Shanghai. Int. J. Consumer Stud., 35, 670-678.36 Smith-Spangler, C., Brandeau, M.L., Hunter, G.E., Bavinger, J.C., Pearson, M., 37 Eschbach, P.J. et al. (2012). Are organic foods safer or healthier than 38 conventional alternatives?: a systematic review. Annals of Internal 39 Medicine, 157, 348-366.40 Soler, F., Gil, J.M. & Sanchez, M. (2002). Consumers' acceptability of organic 41 food in Spain: Results from an experimental auction market. Br. Food J., 42 104, 670-687.43 Stolz, H., Stolze, M., Hamm, U., Janssen, M. & Ruto, E. (2011). Consumer 44 attitudes towards organic versus conventional food with specific quality 45 attributes. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 58, 67-72.46 Tilman, D. (1998). The greening of the green revolution. Nature, 396, 211-212.341 Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. (2002). 2 Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418, 3 671-677.4 Tonitto, C., David, M.B. & Drinkwater, L.E. (2006). Replacing bare fallows with 5 cover crops in fertilizer-intensive cropping systems: A meta-analysis of 6 crop yield and N dynamics. Agric Ecosyst Environ, 112, 58-72.7 Trewavas, A. (2001). Urban myths of organic farming. Nature, 410, 409-410.8 UNCSD (2012). Uganda Organic Agriculture Standards and Policies. Available 9 at: 10 http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=99&nr=34&menu=11 137 Last accessed May 5 2012.12 UOS (2005). Uganda Organic Standard (UOS) for Organic Production and 13 Processing.  (ed. UgoCert).14 USDA (2013). National Organic Program. In: Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter I, 15 Subchapter M, Part 205 (ed. (USDA), USDoA) Electronic Code of Federal 16 Regulations.17 USDA (2016). National Organic Program; Organic Livestock and Poultry 18 Practices. In: Federal Register, pp. 21956-22009.19 Vogt, G. (2007). The origins of organic farming. In: Organic farming: An 20 international history (ed. Lockeretz, W). CAB International Oxfordshire, pp. 21 9-29.22 Vos, T. (2000). Visions of the middle landscape: Organic farming and the politics 23 of nature. Agr. Human Values, 17, 245-256.24 Willer, H. & Lernoud, J. (2015). The World of Organic Agriculture - Statistics and 25 Emerging Trends 2015. FiBL & IFOAM Frick, Switzerland.26 Yiridoe, E.K., Bonti-Ankomah, S. & Martin, R.C. (2005). Comparison of consumer 27 perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally 28 produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renew. Agric. Food 29 Syst., 20, 193-205.30 Zander, K. & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical 31 attributes of organic food. Food quality and preference, 21, 495-503.32 Zanoli, R. & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of 33 organic food: a means-end approach. Br. Food J., 104, 643-653.34 Zhu, Y., Chen, H., Fan, J., Wang, Y., Li, Y., Chen, J. et al. (2000). Genetic 35 diversity and disease control in rice. Nature, 406, 718-722.36 1 Supplementary Material  Appendix A: Additional Tables  Table A1. Colour version of Table 4 in main text. Comparison of importance of organic principles within each regulation.  Natural Animal Human Soil Local Biodiv Water Mexico 2 1 4 5 3 7 6 IFOAM 1 7 2 3 6 5 4 Aus 1 6 3 4 7 5 2 Uganda 1 2 5 4 3 6 7 India 1 6 2 4 5 3 7 EU 1 2 3 5 4 7 6 US 1 2 3 4 7 6 5 FAO 2 1 3 4 7 6 5 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score 77 46 42 21 17 16 13   Table A2. Colour version of Table 5 in main text. Comparison of how different sustainable management practices identified by Altieri & Rosset (1996) are regulated in organic regulations. Red - the management practice is not discussed; orange - practice is discussed but not regulated, or its use is suggested but not required; green – its use is required. See Supplementary Table S5 for more details about how these practices are regulated.  IFOAM FAO Austr. EU US India Mexico Ugan. Living mulch*                 Dead soil cover**                 Cover Crops                 Conservation tillage                 Alley cropping                 Agroforestry                 Living Barriers***                 Rotations                 Crop Associations                 Cultivar Mixtures                 Animal integration                   *a cover crop interplanted or undersown with the main crop ** mulching with dead biological or synthetic material ***a windbreak usually involving trees and/or shrubs   2 Table A3. Sensitivity analysis of the comparison of organic principles within regulations. Weighting method 1 uses relative word count as weighting factor; weighting method 2 uses the square of the relative word count as weighting factor; scoring 1 method uses scores of 0, 0.5 and 1; scoring method 2 uses scores if 0 or 1. Method Natural Human Animal Soil Local Biodiv Water Researcher 1, scoring 1, unweighted 1 2 3 5 5 4 7 Researcher 2, scoring 1, unweighted 1 5 2 4 7 3 6 Researcher 1, scoring 1, weighting 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Researcher 2, scoring 1, weighting 1 1 3 2 4 6 5 7 Researcher 1, scoring 1, weighting 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Researcher 2, scoring 1, weighting 2 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 Researcher 1, scoring 2, unweighted 1 2 3 5 5 4 7 Researcher 2, scoring 2, unweighted 1 5 2 4 7 3 6     3 Table A4. Comparison of regulation of human wastes in different organic regulatory texts.  US EU FAO IFOAM Aus India Uganda Mexico Sewage sludge Not allowed Not part of list of allowed substances, not allowed Not mentioned specifically, included in human excrements Not mentioned specifically, included in human excrements After treatment; to non-edible crops & pastures; to crops for human consumption only through trickle irrigation & precluding contact with edible parts From separated sources, monitored for contamination / Not allowed Human excrements / Not part of list of allowed substances, not allowed Only from separated sources, monitored for contamination, treated to eliminate risks, not on edible crops Only on non-edible crops; exceptions may be made / Not allowed Not allowed If composted, not applied to edible crops Municipal solid wastes (i.e. urban composts) Not mentioned specifically, included in compost Only from separated sources, after treatment, monitored for contamination, below defined limits of metal concentrations Sorted, composted or fermented From separated sources, monitored for contamination Not mentioned specifically, included in compost From separated sources, monitored for contamination From separated sources, monitored for contamination Only after treatment, monitored for contamination, below defined limits of metal concentrations    4 Table A5. Comparison of regulation of environmental best practices, as identified by Altieri & Rosset (1996, see reference in main article), in different organic regulatory texts. Sustainable management practice US EU Regulated Wording Regulated Wording Living mulch* Not discussed / Not discussed / Dead soil cover/mulch Use suggested §205.206 Weed problems may be controlled through (1) Mulching with fully biodegradable materials Not discussed / Cover Crops Use required §205.203 The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal materials. §205.205 The producer must implement a crop rotation including but not limited to sod, cover crops, green manure crops, and catch crops that provide the following functions that are applicable to the operation: (...) Not discussed / Conservation tillage Use suggested (unclear wording) §205.203 The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion. Use suggested (unclear wording) EU 2007, Article 12 - (a) organic plant production shall use tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or increase soil organic matter, enhance soil stability and soil biodiversity, and prevent soil compaction and soil erosion; Alley cropping Use suggested for perennial crops Definitions - Perennial cropping systems employ means such as alley cropping, intercropping, and hedgerows to introduce biological diversity in lieu of crop rotation. Not discussed / Agroforestry Not discussed / Not discussed / Living Barriers** Not discussed / Not discussed /  5 Rotations Use required §205.203 The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal materials. §205.205 The producer must implement a crop rotation including but not limited to sod, cover crops, green manure crops, and catch crops that provide the following functions that are applicable to the operation: (a) Maintain or improve soil organic matter content; (b) Provide for pest management in annual and perennial crops; (c) Manage deficient or excess plant nutrients; and (d) Provide erosion control. Use required EU 2007, Article 12 -(b)  the fertility and biological activity of the soil shall be maintained and increased by multiannual crop rotation including legumes and other green manure crops (…); Crop Associations Use suggested for perennial crops Definitions - Perennial cropping systems employ means such as alley cropping, intercropping, and hedgerows to introduce biological diversity in lieu of crop rotation. Not discussed / Cultivar Mixtures Not discussed / Not discussed / Animal integration Not discussed / Not regulated EU 2008, preamble - The holistic approach of organic farming requires a livestock production related to the land, where the produced manure is used to nourish the crop production.      6 Table A5 continued. Sustainable management practice Australia India Regulated Wording Regulated Wording Living mulch* Not discussed / Not discussed / Dead soil cover/mulch Use suggested 3.8 Where used, mulches should be of natural materials. 3.8.1 Pests, diseases and weeds must be controlled by any combination of the following: (h) mulching and mowing Use suggested 3.2.5 Weeds, pests and diseases should be controlled by a number of preventive cultural techniques which limit their development, e.g. suitable rotations, green manures, a balanced fertilising programme, early and predrilling seedbed preparations, mulching, mechanical control and the disturbance of pest development cycles. Cover Crops Not discussed / Use suggested 3.2.3 Diversity in crop production is achieved by a combination of: - an appropriate coverage of the soil during the year of production which diverse plant species Conservation tillage Use suggested (unclear wording) 3.5.1 The fertility and the biological activity of the soil must be maintained or increased by any combination of the following methods: (e) tillage techniques which preserve or improve soil structure. Not discussed / Alley cropping Not discussed / Not discussed / Agroforestry Not discussed / Not discussed /  7 Living Barriers** Use suggested 3.4.2 Operators must develop 5% of their property as treed areas, grasslands or other reserves which are non-cultivated and nonintensively grazed within five years from the date the production unit attains in-conversion status. 3.4 An organic production unit can enhance biodiversity by: (c) provision of wind breaks and non-cultivated buffer zone areas. Not discussed? 3.1.3 Areas which should be managed properly and linked to facilitate biodiversity: - Extensive pastures, meadows, extensive grassland, extensive orchards, hedges, hedgerows, groups of trees and/or bushes and forest lines. The certification programme shall set standards for a minimum percentage of the farm area to facilitate biodiversity and nature conservation. Rotations Use required 3.7.4 Crop rotations aid long-term soil fertility and ensure healthy plants. Operators shall include deep rooted and leguminous species within crop rotations. Use suggested (crop diversity in space or time) 3.2.3 Diversity in crop production is achieved by a combination of: - a versatile crop rotation with legumes3.2.3.1. Where appropriate, the certification programme shall require that sufficient diversity is obtained in time or place in a manner that takes into account pressure from insects, weeds, diseases and other pests, while maintaining or increasing soil, organic matter, fertility, microbial activity and general soil health. For non perennial crops, this is normally, but not exclusively, achieved by means of crop rotation. Crop Associations Use suggested (unclear wording) 3.7 The proper choice of variety, stimulation of soil fertility, careful sowing and cultivation techniques (e.g. rotation, variety, use of mixed cropping, plant spacing, use of green manures) hinders the incidence of pests and diseases. Use suggested (crop diversity in space or time) 3.2.3.1. Where appropriate, the certification programme shall require that sufficient diversity is obtained in time or place in a manner that takes into account pressure from insects, weeds, diseases and other pests, while maintaining or increasing soil, organic matter, fertility, microbial activity and general soil health. For non perennial crops, this is normally, but not exclusively, achieved by means of crop rotation. Cultivar Mixtures Not discussed / Not discussed /  8     Animal integration Not regulated 3.8 Livestock are an integral part of a broad acre organic farming system. Not regulated 3.1.1 For a sustainable agro-ecosystem to function optimally, diversity in crop production and animal husbandry must be arranged in such a way that there is an interplay of all the elements of the farming management.  9 Table A5 continued. Sustainable management practice IFOAM FAO Regulated Wording Regulated Wording Living mulch* Not discussed / Not discussed / Dead soil cover/mulch Use suggested 4.5 Pests, diseases and weeds should be managed by the knowledgeable application of one, or a combination, of the following measures: (j) mulching and mowing; Use suggested Annex 1.A.6 - Pests, diseases and weeds should be controlled by any one, or a combination, of the following measures: - mulching and mowing; Cover Crops Use suggested 2.2 Operators should minimize loss of topsoil through minimal tillage, contour plowing, crop selection, maintenance of soil plant cover and other management practices that conserve soil. 4.3 Diversity in crop production is achieved by a combination of: (b) appropriate coverage of the soil with diverse plant species for as much of the year as possible. Not discussed / Conservation tillage Use suggested 2.2 Operators should minimize loss of topsoil through minimal tillage, contour plowing, crop selection, maintenance of soil plant cover and other management practices that conserve soil. Not discussed / Alley cropping Not discussed / Not discussed / Agroforestry Not discussed / Not discussed / Living Barriers** Not discussed / Not discussed /  10 Rotations Use required 4.3 Diversity in crop production is achieved by a combination of: (a) a diverse and versatile crop rotation that includes green manure, legumes and deep rooting plants; 4.3.1 Diversity in plant production and activity shall be assured by minimum crop rotation requirements and/or variety of plantings. Minimum rotation practices for annual crops shall be established unless the operator demonstrates diversity in plant production by other means. Use suggested Annex 1.A.5 - The fertility and biological activity of the soil should be maintained or increased, where appropriate, by: a) cultivation of legumes, green manures or deep-rooting plants in an appropriate multi-annual rotation programme; Crop Associations Use suggested (unclear wording) 4.3.1 Diversity in plant production and activity shall be assured by minimum crop rotation requirements and/or variety of plantings. Minimum rotation practices for annual crops shall be established unless the operator demonstrates diversity in plant production by other means. Not discussed / Cultivar Mixtures Use suggested (unclear wording) 4.3.1 Diversity in plant production and activity shall be assured by minimum crop rotation requirements and/or variety of plantings. Minimum rotation practices for annual crops shall be established unless the operator demonstrates diversity in plant production by other means. Not discussed /  11 Animal integration Not discussed / Not regulated Annex 1.B.2 - Livestock can make an important contribution to an organic farming system by: a) improving and maintaining the fertility of the soil; b) managing the flora through grazing; c) enhancing biodiversity and facilitating complementary interactions on the farm; and d) increasing the diversity of the farming system.       12 Table A5 continued. Sustainable management practice Uganda Mexico Regulated Wording Regulated Wording Living mulch* Not discussed / Not discussed / Dead soil cover/mulch Use suggested 2.6.2 Pests, diseases and weeds should be managed by the knowledgeable application of one, or a combination, of the following measures: - Mulching and mowing Use suggested ARTÍCULO 47.- Los operadores orgánicos que tengan en su unidad de producción hierbas no deseadas realizarán preferentemente su retiro manual o mecánico de la hierbas y utilizarán herramientas adecuadas, acolchados, cubiertas (contra biotransmisores), cultivos de cobertura tales como: leguminosas y vegetales silvestres. Cover Crops Use suggested 2.4.2 Diversity in crop production is achieved by a combination of: - appropriate coverage of the soil with diverse plant species for as much of the year as possible Use required ARTÍCULO 24.- De acuerdo con las condiciones y factores ambientales, así como las particulares de cada unidad de producción, se deberá prevenir o reducir la erosión del suelo utilizando técnicas agroecológicas apropiadas de conservación como son entre otras: III. Los cultivos de cobertura. ARTÍCULO 27.- Los operadores orgánicos, deberán aplicar prácticas agronómicas para que el suelo permanezca cubierto con una capa vegetal la mayor parte del tiempo, de acuerdo a sus condiciones agroecológicas.  13 Conservation tillage Use suggested 1.2.2 Operators should minimise loss of topsoil through minimal tillage, contour ploughing, crop selection, and rotation maintenance of soil plant cover and other management practices that conserve soil. Use suggested ARTÍCULO 24.- De acuerdo con las condiciones y factores ambientales, así como las particulares de cada unidad de producción, se deberá prevenir o reducir la erosión del suelo utilizando técnicas agroecológicas apropiadas de conservación como son entre otras: IV. La labranza de conservación. ARTÍCULO 42.- La producción vegetal orgánica deberá estar orientada a: II. Fomentar e implantar prácticas de labranza y cultivo que mantengan, mejoren o incrementen la materia orgánica del suelo que refuercen la estabilidad y la biodiversidad edáficas, prevengan la compactación y la erosión del suelo; Alley cropping Not discussed / Use required (in areas where native vegetation is forest) ARTÍCULO 26.- En las zonas donde la vegetación original o nativa la constituyan bosques o selvas, la operación orgánica deberá establecer en las áreas de cultivo, sistemas diversificados con dos o más estratos vegetales de especies nativas, especialmente en los cultivos perennes. Agroforestry Not regulated 2.6.2 Pests, diseases and weeds should be managed by the knowledgeable application of one, or a combination, of the following measures: - Diversified ecosystems. For example buffer zones to counteract erosion, agro-forestry, rotating crops, intercropping etc. Use required (in areas where native vegetation is forest) ARTÍCULO 26.- En las zonas donde la vegetación original o nativa la constituyan bosques o selvas, la operación orgánica deberá establecer en las áreas de cultivo, sistemas diversificados con dos o más estratos vegetales de especies nativas, especialmente en los cultivos perennes.  14 Living Barriers** Not discussed? 1.1.2 The operators should maintain a significant portion of their farms in order to facilitate biodiversity and nature conservation of their areas - In general all areas which are not under rotation and are not heavily manured: extensive pastures, meadows, extensive grassland, extensive orchards, hedges, hedgerows, edges between agriculture and forest land, groups of trees and/or bushes, and forest and woodland Use suggested ARTÍCULO 24.- De acuerdo con las condiciones y factores ambientales, así como las particulares de cada unidad de producción, se deberá prevenir o reducir la erosión del suelo utilizando técnicas agroecológicas apropiadas de conservación como son entre otras: I. Las barreras vivas o muertas; Rotations Use required (crop diversity in space or time) 2.4.2 Diversity in crop production is achieved by a combination of: - a diverse and versatile crop rotation that includes green manure, legumes and deep rooting plants 2.4.3.1 Diversity in plant production shall be assured by a crop rotation and/or variety of plantings through interplanting. 2.6.2 Pests, diseases and weeds should be managed by the knowledgeable application of one, or a combination, of the following measures: - Choice of appropriate species and varieties appropriate rotation programs Use required (crop diversity in space or time) ARTÍCULO 38.- Las rotaciones de cultivos, asociaciones y/o cultivos mixtos e intercalados, deben ocupar un lugar prioritario en los planes orgánicos, como una estrategia para evitar agotar los nutrientes del suelo, ayudar al desarrollo de la resistencia natural a plagas y enfermedades del suelo. ARTÍCULO 39.- La planeación de las rotaciones, asociaciones y/o cultivos mixtos e intercalados, debe estar orientada a prevenir la erosión, mantener la fertilidad del suelo, reducir el lavado o lixiviación de nutrientes y los problemas ocasionados por plagas, enfermedades y hierbas no deseadas. ARTÍCULO 41.- El operador deberá plasmar en su Plan Orgánico, de rotación de sus cultivos, la naturaleza de las especies, la presencia de hierbas, las condiciones locales y las necesidades de producción o consumo, entre otras y para el caso de las parcelas utilizadas para pastoreo, las rotaciones deben incluir a las leguminosas, así como de la promoción de los sistemas agrosilvopastoriles.  15 Crop Associations Use required (crop diversity in space or time) 2.4.3.1 Diversity in plant production shall be assured by a crop rotation and/or variety of plantings through interplanting. 2.6.2 Pests, diseases and weeds should be managed by the knowledgeable application of one, or a combination, of the following measures: - Diversified ecosystems. For example buffer zones to counteract erosion, agro-forestry, rotating crops, intercropping etc. Use required (crop diversity in space or time) ARTÍCULO 40.- Para el caso de que no sea posible la rotación, se debe promover la diversificación de especies mediante asociaciones y/o cultivos mixtos e intercalados, para mejorar la fertilidad del suelo y la biodiversidad. Cultivar Mixtures Use suggested 2.1.2 A wide range of crops and varieties should be grown to enhance the sustainability, self-reliance and biodiversity value of organic farms. Plant cultivars suitable for organic production should be selected to maintain both genetic diversity and biodiversity. Not discussed / Animal integration Not discussed / Use required ARTÍCULO 28.- La producción animal orgánica deberá contribuir al equilibrio de la producción vegetal o forestal, satisfaciendo las necesidades de nutrientes de las especies vegetales.   *a cover crop interplanted or undersown with the main crop ** mulching with dead biological or synthetic material ***a windbreak usually involving trees and/or shrubs  16 Appendix B: Review of organic consumer motives We included studies cited in (Yiridoe et al., 2005), Table 2, and (Schleenbecker and Hamm, 2013), Table 3, as well as studies reviewed by (Hughner et al., 2007) in our analysis. We also included other studies we found during a broad literature review. This does, however, not represent a systematic literature review, as we did not conduct a systematic literature search in scientific databases. Studies were included if they either reported (1) characteristics associated by consumers with organic products, (2) purchasing motivations of organic consumers. Studies that examined the relationship between general political and moral attitudes of consumers and the relationship with organic purchasing behaviour (e.g. de Magistris and Gracia, 2008; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist, 2005) were not included. Some studies did not actually examine organic consumers motives or perceived organic product characteristics directly, but they still interpreted their results in terms of purchasing motives (e.g. O’Donovan and McCarthy, 2002) and were therefore included in the analysis. Note that the majority (i.e. 20/34) studies included in this review are more than 10 years old (i.e. from before 2006), and most studies were conducted in the early 2000s (i.e. the same time that many organic regulations came into practice). But only 5 studies are from before the year 2000. We assigned the key results of each study to seven different potential reasons why consumers buy organic, or potential characteristics consumers associate with organic food: (1) health (including food quality and food safety), (2) chemical-free, (3) environment, (4) animal welfare, (5) social. Studies received a score on ‘health’ if they identified personal health as a buying reason for organic consumers or as a characteristics associated with organic food. This included statements like “I buy organic food because it is good for my health”, or product characteristics like “Organic food is healthier than conventionally grown food”, but it also included notions of food quality (e.g. perceived better taste, higher nutritional content or freshness of organic food) and food safety1, like  “I buy organic food because I worry about health scares” or “I buy organic food because it has a high safety level of guarantee and control”. ‘Chemical-free’ denoted statements or motives related to the absence of certain chemical substances, like “Organic food does not contain pesticides”. ‘Environment’ and ‘animal welfare’ were related to environmental characteristics and animal welfare standards. While ‘social’ described notions like “To help poor farmers out there”, or “It is more likely to be locally produced”. If possible the principles associated with organic food were ranked based on the importance of each factor for consumers in each study. Sometimes the ranking was based on statistical summary tables, and for example the %variation                                             1 We combined the motives of ‘food safety’ and ‘food quality’ into the ‘health’ category, as these were not always easy to separate, for example, in statements like “I buy organic food because it is better for me.”  17 explained by each factor, in other cases it was based on a qualitative description of results by the authors, e.g. “By far the strongest reason for buying organic food was health”, or “Secondary reasons for buying organic food were animal welfare, taste and local/regional production”. If a ranking was possible, the score of each factor represents its rank in that study. If a ranking of the factors identified in a study was not possible, every factor identified received a score of 1. Studies did not receive any score on a factor either if they did not examine or discuss this factor, or if they tested it but it did not show up as a significant motivation of organic consumers. To calculate aggregate scores, the average score for each factor across studies was taken, and divided by the number of times a factor was identified as contributing to consumer’s perspectives on organic food. This step ensured that factors that were identified more frequently in studies – no matter their ranking within each study – received a lower score (e.g. ‘animal welfare’ was often ranked quite closely to ‘environment’ in studies, but because it was identified as a factor contributing to consumers perception of organic much less frequently than ‘environment’, it received overall a higher score). It is important to note that a lower score is positive in this scoring approach, as it implies a higher rank in consumer’s importance. In total we could include 34 studies, providing 10 observations on product characteristics, and 25 observations on purchasing motives. Table B1 summarizes the results from this scoring analysis from all 34 studies, while Table B2 provides an overview of the studies included.   Table B1. Results of comparison of organic product characteristics and purchasing motives of organic consumers across 34 studies. See Table B2 for references of studies. / means the factor was not examined, * means the factor was tested but not found to be associated with organic products or purchasing motives.   Health Natural Environment Animal Social Variable examined study1 1 / / / / product characteristics study2 / 1 2 3 / product characteristics study3 1 2 4 / 3 purchasing motives study4 / 1 2 3 / purchasing motives study5 1 / 3 / / purchasing motives study6 1 / / / / purchasing motives study7 1 / 2 3 / purchasing motives study8 2 1 3 / / purchasing motives study9 1 / * / / purchasing motives study10 1 / / 2 / purchasing motives study11 1 / 1 / / purchasing motives study12 1 / 1 1 / purchasing motives  18 study13 2 1 / / / product characteristics study14 1 / 2 / / purchasing motives study15 1 1 2 / / product characteristics study16 2 1 3 / / purchasing motives study17 1 2 / / 3 product characteristics study18 1 / 2 3 / purchasing motives study19 1 / 3 2 / purchasing motives study20 1 / 3 2 / purchasing motives study21 1 / / / / purchasing motives study22 1 2 3 4 4 purchasing motives study23 1 2 3 / / purchasing motives study24 2 / 1 / / purchasing motives study25 / 2 1 / / product characteristics study25 1 3 2 / 2 purchasing motives study26 2 1 3 / 5 purchasing motives study27 1 / 2 * 3 purchasing motives study28 3 / 1 2 / product characteristics study29 1 / / / / product characteristics study30 1 / 2 3 / purchasing motives study31 1 2 3 4 5 product characteristics study32 1 2 / 4 3 product characteristics study33 / / 3 1 2 purchasing motives study34 1 / / / / purchasing motives Score 0.76 0.92 1.20 2.32 2.82 product characteristics Rank 1 2 3 4 5 Score 0.61 1.23 1.33 1.71 2.55 purchasing motives Rank 1 2 3 4 5       19 Table B2. Studies included in the review of consumer motives.  Author Country Region Year Urban Design Subjects Variable examined study1 Radman (2005) Croatia Europe 2002 urban quantitative general consumers product characteristics study2 Aarset et al. (2004) FR, DE, NO, ES, UK Europe 1998/99 national qualitative general consumers product characteristics study3 Chang and Zepeda (2005) Australia Oceania NA rural qualitative general consumers purchasing motives study4 Chen (2007) Taiwan Asia NA national quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study5 Chryssohoidis and Krystallis (2005) Greece Europe NA urban quantitative organic consumers purchasing motives study6 Dahm et al. (2009) USA USA NA urban quantitative general consumers (students) purchasing motives study7 Davies et al. (1995) Ireland Europe 1989-93 urban quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study8 Ekelund (1989) Sweden Europe NA NA quantitative NA purchasing motives study9 Gracia and de Magistris (2008) Italy Europe 2003 urban quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study10 Harper and Makatouni (2002) UK Europe 1999 urban qualitative general consumers (parents) purchasing motives study11 Hill and Lynchehaun (2002) UK Europe NA NA qualitative general consumers (women) purchasing motives study12 Hjelmar (2011) Denmark Europe 2008/09 NA qualitative general consumers purchasing motives study13 Hoefkens et al. (2009) Belgium Europe 2006/07 regional quantitative organic vs. general consumers product characteristics study14 Hutchins and Greenhalgh (1995) UK Europe NA urban quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study15 Lea and Worsley (2005) Australia Oceania 2004 urban quantitative general consumers product characteristics study16 Lockie et al. (2004) Australia Oceania NA national qualitative general consumers purchasing motives study17 Magnusson et al. (2001) Sweden Europe 1998 national quantitative general consumers product characteristics study18 Magnusson et al. (2003) Sweden Europe 1998 national  general consumers purchasing motives study19 Makatouni (2002) UK Europe 2000 urban qualitative organic consumers purchasing motives  20 (parents) study20 O’Donovan and McCarthy (2002) Ireland Europe NA NA quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study21 Ozguven (2012) Turkey Europe 2012 urban quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study22 Padel and Foster (2005) UK Europe 2002 urban qualitative organic consumers purchasing motives study23 Roitner-Schobesberger et al. (2008) Thailand Asia 2005 urban quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study24 Saba and Messina (2003) Italy Europe NA national quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study25 Sangkumchaliang and Huang (2012) Thailand Asia 2009 urban quantitative organic consumers product characteristics, purchasing motives study26 Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis (1998) Netherlands Europe 1988 national quantitative organic vs. general consumers purchasing motives study27 Sirieix et al. (2011) China Asia NA urban qualitative organic consumers purchasing motives study28 Stobbelaar et al. (2007) Netherlands Europe NA urban quantitative general consumers (adolescents) product characteristics study29 Tsakiridou et al. (2008) Greece Europe NA urban quantitative general consumers product characteristics study30 Wandel and Bugge (1997) Norway Europe 1993 national quantitative general consumers purchasing motives study31 Zagata (2012) Czech Republic Europe 2011 national quantitative organic consumers product characteristics study32 Zakowska-Biemans (2011) Poland Europe 2007 national quantitative general consumers product characteristics study33 Zander and Hamm (2010) DE, CH, AT, UK, IT Europe NA NA quantitative organic consumers purchasing motives study34 Zanoli and Naspetti (2002) Italy Europe NA NA qualitative organic vs. general consumers purchasing motives  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0378888/manifest

Comment

Related Items