antisense insertion  A process by which a DNA sequence is inserted into a host cell in reverse sequence.

artificial sweetener  A sweet-tasting synthetic food product that contains few or no calories.

bioballistics  A method for inserting genes into a host cell, in which thin metal slivers are coated with genes and fired into the cell by some mechanism, such as a gene gun; also called biolistics.

browning  The process that occurs when the surface of fruits, vegetables, and shellfish have been cut or bruised.

Bt (or bt)   An abbreviation for Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacterium that is highly toxic to a number of insects.

calorie  A unit of measurement of energy. A calorie is defined as the amount of heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 g of water by 1°C. In nutrition, the term commonly refers to a kilocalorie, represented by an upper case C and correctly written as Calorie.

chemical poration  A method used to insert genes into host cells, in which cells are treated with some chemical to produce tiny openings in the cell walls. The pores allow genes to be inserted into the cell body more easily.

chimera  An organism that contains DNA from two or more different species.

correction  An action taken by a food company when food labels do

not accurately reflect contents. Retailers make requested changes to food labels without returning products to the food-processing facility. Corrections do not involve foods that are unfit for human consumption.

cross-contamination   The transfer of pathogens from one food to

another, either directly or indirectly. edible vaccine  A vaccine that is produced when one or more

genes for an antigen are added to some natural food. electroporation  A method for inserting genes into host cells, in

which cells are treated with an electrical shock to produce tiny pores

in their cell walls, making it easier to insert genes into the cell body. enriched flour   Flour (such as wheat flour) to which vitamins and

minerals have been added to increase its nutritional value. enzyme   A protein that catalyzes a biochemical reaction. ester   A member of an organic family of compounds produced by

the reaction between an organic acid and an alcohol. food danger zone   That range of temperatures within which

pathogens survive and reproduce most efficiently, between about

40°F (4°C) and 140°F (60°C).

food infection  A form of illness caused when bacteria and other microorganisms invade the digestive tract and colonize the intestinal epithelium.

food intoxication  A form of illness caused when bacteria release toxins into foods.

food irradiation  See irradiation of food.

food poisoning  See food intoxication.

food recall  See recall.

fortification   The process of adding vitamins and minerals to foods

that otherwise do not contain them or to foods that normally do

contain them in higher concentrations. free radical  An atom or molecule that contains at least one

unpaired electron. gene gun  A device for inserting DNA into a host cell. genetically engineered food  See genetically modified food. genetically modified food (GM food)   Foods and food ingredients

consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms, or

produced from such organisms.

health food  A somewhat ambiguous term for any food that

contributes to an overall improvement in a person's health. hydrogen bond  A force of attraction between two polar molecules

or two polar regions of unlike electrical charge. insecticidal crystal proteins (ICP)   Proteins that are toxic to a

wide variety of insects. irradiation of food  A method of preserving food by treating it with

X-rays, gamma rays, or some other form of high-energy radiation. laser poration  A method for inserting genes into host cells, in

which cells are exposed to a beam of laser light that produces tiny

pores in their cell walls, making it easier to insert genes into the

cell body.

ligase  An enzyme that catalyzes the formation of hydrogen bonds

between two DNA fragments. lipid  A member of an organic family of compounds characterized

by its tendency to dissolve in alcohol, ether, chloroform, or other

organic solvents, but not in water. market withdrawal  An action taken by a food company in which a

particular food product is no longer made available to retailers, for

any number of reasons. microbial antagonists  Organic and inorganic acids that retard or

prevent spoilage by lowering the pH of food or by interrupting

some essential biochemical reactions in a microbe. modified atmospheric packaging (MAP)   A system of food

preservation in which foods are sealed in a bag or other container

from which oxygen has been removed. natural food  A somewhat ambiguous term for foods that

are minimally processed and free of artificial color, flavors,

preservatives, and additives. organic food  A somewhat ambiguous term defined by the U.S.

government in the Organic Foods Protection Act of 1990 as any

food produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable

resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance

environmental quality for future generations. pH  A measure of the acidity of an aqueous solution defined as the

negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration, or pH =

-log[H + j.

phytotoxin Any of a number of plant-generated chemicals that are toxic to a wide variety of animals, including bacteria, fungi, insects, herbivores, and human beings.

precautionary principle  The philosophical concept that governing bodies may be justified in taking regulatory actions even in cases where some scientific uncertainty remains regarding the possible risks and consequences of a given practice.

protease An enzyme that breaks peptide bonds that link amino acids together in protein molecules.

radiolysis  The breaking of chemical bonds by radiation of any

type.

radiolytic products  Fragments of molecules produced by the

process of radiolysis. rancidity  The process by which a fat or oil decomposes into its

fundamental components, fatty acids and glycerol. recall  An act taken by a food company when one of its products is

found to be unsuitable for human consumption. Under a recall,

foods are returned from a retailer to the food-processing company. recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology   Any procedure by which

DNA segments from two or more different species are combined

to make a hybrid form of DNA. restriction endonuclease   See restriction enzyme. restriction enzyme   An enzyme that recognizes specific base

segments in a DNA molecule and then cuts those segments at

specific positions. stock recovery   An action taken by a food company in which the

company has retailers return food products to it even though there

may be nothing wrong with those foods. structured lipid (SL)   Any lipid in which the position and

character of fatty acid remnants in a lipid molecule have been

altered from those found in the molecule's natural state. sulfite   Any of a group of chemical species that includes sulfur

dioxide (SO2), sulfurous acid (H2SO3), the sulfite ion (SO32~), and

the bisulfite ion (HSO3~). traceability tag  A piece of DNA added to genetically modified

foods that has no effect on human health, the environment, or the

organism into which it is inserted, but that provides an "address" of the company that made the product. transgenic organism  See chimera.

unsaturation  In organic chemistry, the presence of double or

triple bonds in a compound. whole food  A somewhat ambiguous term for any food that is as

close to its whole and natural state as possible.

That way of life persisted well into the 20th century, until the rise of modern chemistry during the century's early decades made possible a new and dramatically different way of looking at foods. Food scientists developed methods for transforming natural foods, not only to make them last longer, but also to make them more in­teresting and appealing to eat.

One of the first contributions of food chemistry was the invention and introduction of new types of food additives, chemicals that were capable of extending the shelf life of natural foods as well as increas­ing their aesthetic appeal. The use of food additives was hardly a new phenomenon in the 20th century, of course, but the additives developed by food chemists were the result of careful testing and development with some degree of assurance that the additives used would really contribute to an increase in the quality of foods to which they were added.

The introduction of a scientific approach to the development of food additives came at a time when public indignation had begun

to demand closer control over the public food supply by the federal government. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was only the first of many efforts in the United States to ensure that alterations made in natural food were safe for humans and, to some extent, that they actually achieved some of the health and nutritional claims made for them. As food chemists extended the range of their research late in the 20th century to produce foods that differed very significantly from their natural state—and, in many case, produced entirely new and synthetic food products—governmental agencies have contin­ued to be involved in efforts to make sure that such foods are safe and efficacious, efforts that have had mixed results.

By the last quarter of the 20th century, researchers had begun to take advantage of the full range of new materials and techniques that had been introduced into the field of chemistry to produce a virtually endless variety of new foods for consumers. In the most dramatic cases, entirely new food products were invented by intro­ducing genes from one organism into another organism, the latter intended as a food for human consumption. Public reaction to such techniques varied widely, from enthusiastic acceptance to resis­tance that sometimes has bordered on the violent. In spite of the many studies that have been done so far, it is still not clear whether genetically modified foods pose any level of risk for human health or the natural environment or whether they will become yet one more ingenious addition to the arsenal of foods available to the modern consumer.

Interestingly enough, the reaction of some of those most con­cerned about genetically modified foods, food additives, the irra­diation of foods, synthetic foods, and other products of research in modern food chemistry has been to renounce all or most of those advances (if advances they really are) and go back to simpler days. In early 2004, for example, the New York Times Magazine carried a feature story about a young man in Vermont who had opened an organic restaurant in which he served only those foods that he could obtain—insofar as possible—from farms, dairies, and other produc­ers in the immediate area. Anyone reading that story might be ex­cused for imagining that it could just as easily have been written a century ago, when the kinds of food that most people ate were

precisely like those currently available in the "new" Vermont "farm-fresh" restaurant. Prices in the restaurant were significantly higher than those in more traditional restaurants that relied to a large ex­tent on processed foods. But customers of the restaurant appeared not to be concerned about that fact and were willing to pay more to be able to buy fresh, whole, natural, organic foods, free of chemical treatment. Perhaps the most interesting point about the article was the response it drew from readers from around the country who praised the idea and looked forward to the day when a similar res­taurant would be available in their area. As the author of the original story pointed out, there may perhaps be a market for a chain of similar restaurants that would bring to consumers a diet that many had thought had long passed them by.

So what is the future of the food industry in the United States and other developed nations of the world? Are we seeing just the begin­ning of a new age in foods, with an ever-increasing number and va­riety of synthetic or altered foods that we can hardly imagine today? Or are public concerns about health issues and possible risks to the environment of sufficient concern to cause governmental agencies to rein in the kinds of changes that researchers can make in foods and that food companies can offer to the public? Only the bravest souls will attempt to answer that question!

For example, freelance health and medical writer Marilynn Larkin wrote a 1991 column for the American Council on Science and Health's magazine Priorities on the "feeding frenzy" over organic foods. She claimed to be "horrified to discover that a new generation of activists seemed to have absorbed the same myths that she had adopted in the 1960s about the benefit of things 'organic.'" Larkin was concerned that the organic food movement was using "scare tactics and pseudoscience" to frighten the general public into believ­ing that conventional foods are unsafe. She also objected to the use of federal money to support research on organic foods and to create and operate a program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture to certify organic foods. She argued that the program might prove to be so expensive that it would raise the cost of organic foods so much as to actually drive organic farmers out of business.

Although a few enthusiasts on both sides of the organic food issue overstate their cases, there are some reasons that a person might ob­jectively question the safety of such foods and the methods by which they are produced. Probably the most commonly expressed concern relates to the possible existence of disease-causing microorganisms in organic foods, such as E. coli 0157:H7. As noted in chapter 5, ill­nesses caused by E. coli 0157:H7 are among the most common food-borne diseases in the United States and other parts of the world. The use of pesticides on conventional crops limits to a significant extent the possibility that such bacteria will survive on those crops. Since organic farmers eschew the use of pesticides, however, that form of protection against food-borne illnesses is lost. The problem is com­pounded by the fact that one of the most common forms of fertilizer used by organic farmers is cow manure, a primary reservoir for the E. coli 0157:H7 bacterium.

Critics of organic farming also question the importance organic consumers attribute to the absence of pesticides in organic foods. Conventional foods are already very carefully protected by laws and regulations that limit the amount of pesticide residue that is allowed on all kinds of foods, the skeptics say. Americans are not at risk from pesticide residues in the food, so, according to these critics, paying a premium price for organic foods does not make any sense.

Questions have been raised also about the supposed environ­mental benefits of organic farming. Some of the techniques used by organic farmers, such as extensive tillage, effectively loosen soil, promoting the growth and development of plants. However, some soil scientists suggest that such practices may actually reduce the mineral content of soil and lead to increased erosion.

As with so many topics in the field of food science, consumers are being presented with an increasing number of choices as to the kinds of foods available for purchase. A number and variety of legitimate arguments can be made for and against the use of organic farming techniques and the sale of organic foods. In most cases, convincing sci­entific evidence to support either side in these disputes is still lacking.

As an example of the first claim, an article in National Grocer Magazine claims that the taste and appearance of natural and con­ventional products are often different. "For example, the article claims, "natural peanut butter tastes like peanuts, rather than a peanut-based sandwich spread. A sip of a natural peach juice will be more reminiscent of biting into a fresh peach than a commer­cial juice whose added sweeteners and artificial flavors will be more closely aligned to a fruit punch than fresh fruit." Other proponents use terms like more flavorful, fresher, better tasting, and more vivid when describing organic foods. The claim is also made that profes­sional chefs prefer organic foods. In one survey conducted by Food and Wine magazine in 1997, 76 percent of chefs questioned said they "actively seek out organically grown ingredients."

One problem with the argument that organic foods taste better is that it tends to be based on anecdotal reports that are not necessarily supported by scientific research. A number of studies have been con­ducted in which consumers have been offered organic and nonorganic versions of the same product and asked which had the better taste. In virtually every case, consumers have been unable to distinguish the taste between the two types of food. In 2003, for example, the Good Housekeeping Institute conducted a blind tasting of organic and nonorganic versions of three food products, organic Cascadian Farms' Honey Nut O's with General Mills' Honey Nut Cheerios (both made by the same company); Heinz Organic Ketchup with Heinz Ketchup, and Country Choice Vanilla Sandwich Cremes with Nabisco's Oreos. The results of this test showed that people generally found no difference in taste between the organic and nonorganic versions of the foods.

One factor that affects the results of taste tests appears to be whether or not consumers are aware of which kinds of foods they are tasting. In one notable case in Great Britain, the large super­market chain Tesco conducted a number of in-store taste tests that seemed to indicate that people preferred the taste of organic to nonorganic foods. The company's claims, however, were challenged by the British Advertising Standards Authority, which conducted tests of its own. The Authority discovered that in blind taste tests, where people did not know which kind of food they were tasting, they found essentially no differences in taste between organic and nonorganic foods.

Interestingly enough, some taste tests appear to suggest that at least some people prefer the taste of nonorganic to organic foods. In 1999, for example, a student at Berkeley High School in California conducted an informal taste test of organic foods among fourth and fifth graders in the city's elementary schools. He found that students generally tended to prefer processed foods to their organic counter­parts. He explained his results by suggesting that "kids have been eating sugar and fast food for so long, they just don't like the taste of organic. They've never had it before, so it tastes strange to them."

One of the strongest arguments presented by organic food en­thusiasts is that such foods are safer to consume because they are grown without the use of the synthetic chemicals found in pesticides or chemical fertilizers (neither of which may be used in the produc­tion of organic foods). There is certainly some evidence to support the view that organic foods are safer. The Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, one of the most highly respected con­sumer magazines in the nation, has conducted tests and reviews of research on the relative amounts of pesticides found on organic and nonorganic food products. They have found consistently that organic foods have lower amounts of pesticides, approaching zero in many instances, compared to conventionally produced foods. In 2002, for example, the magazine reported that pesticide residues were found on 95 percent of all pears produced by conventional methods, compared with 25 percent produced organically. Similar differences were noted for peaches (93 percent to 50 percent), sweet bell peppers (69 percent to 9 percent), strawberries (91 percent to 25 percent), spinach (84 percent to 47 percent), and other fruits and vegetables.

In spite of these findings, most authorities in the field of food sci­ence are reluctant to acknowledge any clear-cut benefits of eating or­ganic foods rather than their processed counterparts. Disinterested organizations and individuals frequently express the position that there is no significant scientific evidence that organic foods are, in general, safer than nonorganic foods. They tend to point out that very few controlled scientific studies have been conducted on the relative safety of the two types of food, and those studies that have been completed tend to show little or no differences. For example, C. M. Williams, in the Hugh Sinclair Unit of Human Nutrition of the School of Food Biosciences at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom, completed an exhaustive review of studies on the nutritional value of organic foods in 2002. He concluded the following: "There appears to be widespread perception amongst consumers that such [organic] methods result in foods of higher nutritional quality. The present review concludes that evidence that can support or refute such perception is not available in the scientific literature."

Proponents of organic foods often argue that such foods are not only safer than processed foods, they are also healthier. That is, by eating organic rather than processed foods, a person can achieve a healthier lifestyle with less disease and, presumably, a longer life—according to the assertion. Over the years, a number of specific claims have been made for a variety of organic foods. For example, the Holistic Health Tools Web site encourages the use of green tea because it has a number of health benefits, including prevention of cancer; reduc­tion in cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and blood sugar levels; and antibacterial and antiviral actions. At times, proponents for the health benefits of organic foods carry their claims to the extreme. A Web site on the health benefits of flaxseed, for example, claims that the product may protect a person against heart disease, elevated cho­lesterol, hypertension, high blood pressure, diabetes, certain types of cancers, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, eczema, psoriasis, skin prob­lems, side effects of menopause and osteoporosis, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis, constipation, multiple sclerosis, endometriosis, hair loss, insomnia, and attention deficit disorder (ADD).

As with claims for the safety of organic foods, claims for their health benefits often rely on anecdotal reports and folk beliefs. Neither necessarily invalidates such claims, but they are not the same as scientific confirmation. In recent years, some researchers have carried out controlled experiments to determine the extent to which such claims may be valid. The results of such studies are now beginning to accumulate, providing at least some minimal support for the health claims made for at least some organic foods.

For example, Dr. Virginia Worthington, at Johns Hopkins University, reported in 2001 on a review of 41 published studies com­paring the nutritional value of organically and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, and grains. She found that the organic products tended to have higher concentrations of vitamins C (27 percent more than in conventionally grown foods), iron (21.1 percent more), mag­nesium (29.3 percent more), and phosphorus (13.6 percent more). Worthington concluded that five servings of organic vegetables pro­vided the recommended daily intake of vitamin C for men and wom­en, while comparable amounts of conventional counterparts did not. The special benefits of vitamin C provided by organic foods have been noted by other researchers as well. For example, Theo Clark, professor of chemistry at Truman State University in Missouri, re­ported in 2002 that organically grown oranges have as much as 30 percent more vitamin C as their conventionally grown counterparts, as did an extensive study conducted under the auspices of the Soil Association of the United Kingdom, reported in 2001. The U.K. study also found that organic crops tend to have contain higher concentra­tions of essential minerals and phytonutrients. Phytonutrients are chemicals derived from plants, such as beta carotene, capsaicin, and flavonoids, that benefit human health.

Research sometimes focuses on very specific health benefits provided by certain types of organic foods. In 2003, for example, Alyson Mitchell, assistant professor of food science at the University of California at Davis, reported that three organic food products— corn, strawberries, and marionberries—had significantly higher concentrations of compounds known as polyphenolics, natural anti-oxidants that occur in plants, than their conventional counterparts. They may protect against a variety of diseases and disorders, such as heart attack, stroke, hardening of the arteries, Alzheimer's dis­ease, diabetes, certain eye diseases, arthritis, and osteoporosis, as well as reducing the normal process of ageing. These compounds are produced naturally by all plants as a way of combating attacks by insect predators. But they appear to be largely destroyed by pesticides used on conventional crops. When pesticides are not used, foods retain the polyphenolics and are available to people who eat the pesticide-free foods.

In spite of such research supporting the health benefits of or­ganic foods, many authorities are still wary about promoting health claims too vigorously. Most governmental agencies still take a cau­tious stance, suggesting that the nutritional value of organic and conventional foods are essentially equivalent. Perhaps of greatest significance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture makes no claims that organic food is healthier (or safer or tastier or more attractive or superior in any other way) than conventional foods.

Finally, proponents of organic food suggest that the farming tech­niques by which such foods are grown tend to have a favorable im­pact on the environment. A report on organic farming presented to the Scottish parliament in 2002 identified seven general categories of claimed benefits:

>  Biodiversity protection: Because synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and other nonnatural chemicals are used in the farming process, there is likely to be a reduced impact on plants and animals liv­ing in the area where crops are being produced.

>  Soil health: Organic farming may have positive effects on the soil, again because synthetic chemicals are avoided, and also because traditional soil improvement techniques, such as crop rotation and composting, are routinely incorporated in organic farming procedures. Because synthetic pesticides are not used, helpful macro - and microorganisms in the soil, such as worms and bacteria, are not destroyed and contribute to the enrichment of the soil used in farming.

>  Water retention of soil: Manipulation of the soil, an essential pro­cess used in organic farming, also tends to improve the soil's abil­ity to hold water and control its flow through the soil, reducing erosion that is sometimes associated with conventional farming.

>  Reduction of greenhouse gases: Organic farming, according to some proponents, may reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, am­monia, and methane released to the atmosphere, thereby con­tributing to the reduction in greenhouse emissions and the risk of global climate change.

>  Energy conservation: Because all natural materials are used, the amount of energy needed to operate an organic farm may be less than that required for the operation of a conventional farm.

>  Improved animal health: Again, because synthetic chemicals are not introduced into the farming environment, animals living in the area of a farm may be at less risk to their own health and they may tend to live longer in the more healthful environment.

>  Improved nutritional value: The use of only natural products in organic farming also tends to improve the health and nutritional value of crops that are grown and animals that are raised in such environments.

The evidence for these claims varies widely from relatively strong to virtually nonexistent. According to the report, for example, the impact of organic farming on soil quality as been "researched ex­tensively," but, by contrast, there are "no quantitative data avail­able" on climate change effects. The study does cite two other major European reports (similar reports from the United States are much less common) offering at least some support for the supposed en­vironmental benefits of organic farming. For example, a report is­sued in January 2002 by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements concluded that "there is a positive relation­ship between organic production and biodiversity conservation."

A report issued by the House of Lords European Communities Committee in 1999 reached a similar conclusion:

From the evidence that we have received, the claims for certain benefits of organic farming appear to be valid. This would be so for biodiversity, soil structure, water quality, most aspects of animal health and welfare, and some aspects of food quality.

Proponents of organic foods suggest that such foods have a number of benefits. They are convinced that such foods are more aesthetically pleasing, safer to eat, more nutritious, and better for the environment than are conventional foods. They often use argu­ments based on common sense or anecdotal evidence. Those claims may or may not be supported by scientific evidence. Such evidence now appears to suggest that the difference between organic and con­ventional foods may not be as profound or convincing as proponents of organic foods have argued in the past. Food sales data suggest that many people are convinced of the superiority of organic foods and are willing to pay a price premium to buy such foods.

How is it possible to explain the additional costs of producing organic foods compared to their conventional counterparts? The answer that organic farmers give is that they have additional costs that are not part of the process of raising conventional crops and animals. For instance:

> 

Organic farming excludes the use of chemicals such as weed killers and insecticides. (Mauro Fermariello/Photo Researchers, Inc.)

Labor costs tend to be much higher on organic farms because of the labor-intensive agricultural practices used, such as hand-weeding, hand-tilling, composting, and crop rotation.

>  The cost of natural fertilizers tends to be significantly greater than that of synthetic fertilizers.

© Infobase Publishing

Price premiums paid for organic frozen vegetables, 1995-2001

>  Organic farmers tend to experience a significantly greater amount of crop loss than do conventional farmers because the former do not use chemicals to reduce spoilage (such as pesticides and fun­gicides). According to some studies, the yield for an organically grown crop may be anywhere from 10 to 40 percent less than that for a conventionally grown crop of the same kind.

>  The relatively small size of organic farms compared with con­ventional farms means that the per-unit cost of a farm product is likely to be greater.

>  Organic foods still tend to represent a relatively small percent­age of the overall food market, with the result that large, cost-effective storage and transportation systems are still not well developed.

>  The adoption of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, while a boon to consumers, resulted in additional costs to farmers who wish to meet its stringent requirements and have their products legally certified as "organic."

Proponents of organic farming also like to point out that their practices provide a number of hidden benefits which, in effect, re­duce the real overall price of the products. For example, they claim that organic farming and animal practices

>  protect and improve the environment, reducing future costs needed to deal with pollution and land degradation;

>  maintain higher standards for domestic animals, reducing the costs of caring for sick animals;

>  reduce farm laborers' exposure to potentially toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, reducing the health costs for those em­ployees;

>  contribute to the development of rural areas by generating ad­ditional farm employment and increasing income in local com­munities.

Organic proponents say that the problem is not that organic food is too expensive, but that conventional foods are unrealistically inex­pensive. That is, the practices by which they are grown tend to have hidden costs that society as a whole eventually has to pay and that should be factored into the real costs of conventional foods. However sound these arguments may or may not be, consumers in the United States and other countries appear to be willing, in increasingly large numbers, to pay the additional cost for organic foods.

Albert Howard was born on December 8, 1873, at Bishop's Castle, Shropshire, son to Richard Howard and Ann Kilvert Howard. He attended Wrekin College, an independent boarding school in Shropshire, before matriculating at the Royal College of Science, in South Kensington, London. He then received an appointment as Foundation Scholar at St. John's College, Cambridge, where he earned First Class Natural Sciences Tripos (final examinations in a subject) in 1896 and 1897 and was awarded a Cambridge Diploma of Agriculture and National Diploma of Agriculture in 1899. In the same year, he was appointed Lecturer in Agricultural Science at Harrison College in the Barbados and Mycologist and Agricultural Lecturer at the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies. In 1903, he returned to England, where he took a position as botanist at the Southeastern Agricultural College in Wye. Two years later, he left Wye to become Imperial Economic Botanist to the Government of India.

Howard served as an agricultural adviser for the British government in India from 1905 to 1931. During his period of service, Howard witnessed the introduction of some early scientific agricultural techniques to Indian farmers, techniques that involved the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Howard noted that such techniques sometimes seemed to be less successful than more traditional techniques about which he had learned. An important influence in his own interest in traditional farm­ing techniques was a book by the American missionary F. H. King, The Farmers of Forty Centuries, that told of practices traditionally followed by Chinese farmers.

Howard decided to carry out experiments to determine those prac­tices that were most likely to improve the growth of traditional Indian crops. He was especially interested in learning more about the best method by which materials could be composted, allowing waste prod­ucts to be returned to the soil for more productive farming. He experi­mented with a variety of different materials, both natural and synthetic, and different methods of treating those materials that resulted in the richest form of compost. The most efficient system he discovered is one that would be familiar to many modern-day organic farmers. It involved stacking alternate layers of animal manure, sewage sludge, garbage, straw, and leaves that were turned occasionally over a period of six months or longer. Liquids drained from the decomposing materials were then recycled to maintain adequate moisture in the piles. The method is sometimes referred to as the "Indore process," named after the Indian state in which Howard was working at the time.

Howard's research extended far beyond the development of more ef­ficient composting techniques, however. His experiments were inspired by a simple philosophy that all aspects of nature—soil, crops, livestock, and humans—were part of a natural whole and that agricultural proce­dures that treated any single element in isolation from the others were doomed to be less successful than they could be. Howard summarized his quarter-century of research in India and his philosophy of what would now be called organic farming in An Agricultural Testament, a book pub­lished in 1943 that is still a bible to many organic farmers.

After his return to England in 1931, Howard was active in the organic farming movement that was just developing in that nation. He strongly influenced the work of other early organic farming enthusiasts, includ­ing J. I. Rodale and Lady Eve Balfour. Both were founders of England's Soil Association, the nation's best-known group working for the im­provement of organic farming technique and for the dissemination of information about such techniques.

During his lifetime, Howard received a number of honors, including the Silver Medal of the Royal Society of Arts in 1920 and the Barclay Memorial Medal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1930. He was made a Fellow of that society in 1928 and an Honorary Fellow of the Imperial College of Science in 1935. He was knighted in 1934. Howard died on October 20, 1947, at Blackheath, London.

—Lady Eve Balfour, "Towards a Sustainable Agriculture—The Living Soil," an address given at the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Sissach, Switzerland, 1977.

The post-World War II world saw a collision between two sharply con­trasting views of agriculture. One was a traditional, "organic" approach focused on the growth of crops and livestock that made use primarily of natural materials. The other was a newer, more "modern" approach that relied on the extensive use of synthetic chemicals for fertilizers and pesti­cides. For most of the last half of the 20th century, it appeared that the latter view would win out. Yet, a strong movement continued to call for reliance on natural fertilizers and pest-control systems. One of the strongest and most persistent voices for that philosophy was Lady Eve Balfour.

Eve Balfour was born in London on July 16, 1898. Her family boasted a number of famous names, including her great-grandfather, Bulwer Lytton, who was a poet, critic, novelist, and politician; an uncle, John William Strutt, Lord Rayleigh, the winner of the 1904 Nobel Prize in physics; and another uncle, A. J. Balfour, who served as Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1901 to 1905. Eve Balfour grew up in an extended family of one brother, four sisters, and a number of cousins that included overall eight girls and three boys. The family divided its time between two households, one in Woking, Surrey, and the other in Whittingehame, East Lothia. The family group was apparently a somewhat unusual one for the time, one in which children's ideas and interests were taken seriously. Eve's natural interests in a host of subjects, therefore, bloomed early with the encouragement of her parents, aunts, and uncles.

Eve developed a serious interest in nature early in life, declaring at the age of 12 that she had decided to become a farmer. In spite of the unusual request from a member of the upper class, Eve's parents offered their support immediately. They provided her with a private tutor to help her prepare for a career in agriculture, and arranged for her to be enrolled at the Reading University College Agricultural Department when she was old enough to be admitted. In 1915, Eve began her course of study at Reading and two years later was awarded her Farming Diploma. Afterward she was hired to supervise a 50-acre farm operated by the Women's War Agricultural Committee in Monmouthshire, near Rogerstone.

Given the pressures of WorldWar I, Balfour's experience at Monmouthshire was a challenging and difficult one, but it only confirmed her desire to re­main in agriculture. After the war, in 1919, she and her sister Mary purchased a 157-acre farm at Haughley in Suffolk, called New Bells. Eve remained at New Bells for most of the remaining years of her life, for much of the time with Mary at her side, along with two women companions, Beb Hearnden and Kathleen Carnley ("K.C."), her domestic partner of 50 years.

Besides operating the New Bells farm, Balfour also pursued a number of other activities, which ranged from organizing a dance band and writing de­tective novels to earning a pilot's license and participating in the Tithe War, a movement to relieve farmers of the 10 percent tax they had traditionally been charged by landowners in England. In spite of these activities, Balfour's primary focus throughout her life was on organic approaches to agriculture. She wrote about her philosophy in some detail in her most famous book, The Living Soil, first published in 1943. The book explained the scientific basis for organic agriculture and outlined the extensive research program that had been undertaken at Haughley, comparing three approaches to farming: organic, conventional (involving the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides), and "mixed" (combining elements of both organic and conven­tional approaches). The Living Soil went through a number of editions and is still regarded as the "bible" of the modern organic movement.

In 1945, Balfour was one of the founding members of the Soil Association, an organization founded on the principle that the key to healthy humans is healthy soil, which, in turn, is made possible by the use of organic farming techniques, such as crop rotation, and the avoidance of synthetic chemicals. Today, the association calls itself the United Kingdom's "leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming." Balfour re­mained active in the Soil Association until the last years of her life, often acting as its most public spokesperson and its reminder of the reasons for which the organization was created. She continued to write and speak about her passion for organic farming into the tenth decade of her life, and in 1990 she was (somewhat belatedly) awarded an O.B.E. in the New Year's Honours List. Only two weeks later, on January 14, 1990, she died at her home in Theberton.

The revolution in modern food processing can be traced to the years after World War II when a host of new processing technologies were developed. By the 1950s and 1960s, hundreds of new food prod­ucts made by these technologies were available to consumers and the proportion of direct-from-the-farm products decreased significantly. In response to this trend, a relatively small number of consumers began to express concerns about the effects of food processing on the aesthetic and nutritional qualities of the food products being made available to Americans. In a number of locations, stores specializing in "natural" and "organic" foods began to open. Sales at these stores represented only a very small fraction (about 1 percent) of all food sales in the nation, however. Many people regarded such stores as the province of individuals with somewhat "peculiar" eating habits.

As late as 1990 the sale of natural and organic foods was still largely restricted to two minor sources: specialized natural food stores and direct sales from producers, such as at farmers markets. In 1991, 68 percent of all natural and organic foods were sold through special­ized natural food stores, about 25 percent directly from producers, and only 7 percent through conventional food markets. But the early 1990s saw a sudden and dramatic change in the role of natural and organic foods in the American diet. Such products suddenly became of interest to a much broader audience of Americans, as recorded by the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) and the Food Marketing Institute. As the graph on page 181 shows, the sale of organic fruits and vegetables increased from less than $181 million in 1990 to $2.2 billion in 2000. During the same period, total sales of organic milk (first made available in conventional su­permarkets in 1993) jumped from $15.8 million in 1996 to $104 mil­lion in 2000. Overall, sales of natural and organic food products have been increasing at a rate of more than 20 percent annually since the mid-1990s, reaching a total of $8.5 billion in 2002, the last year for which data are available.

Conventional foo d stores noticed this change in consumer spending patterns and began to stock natural and organic foods. Between 1995

Sales of organic fruits and vegetables in four selected years

2,500 I--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2,000                                             ——

<a

0  1,500 - с

1  1,000 -

2

500 ------------------

J i i I               u            u

1990        1997        1999        2000 Year

Sales of organic milk, half-and-half, and cream, 1996-2000

110,000 I

£    85,000 to

1 60,000 с

=       35,000

10,000 L-

0L_I           I      I        I      I        I      I        I

1996      1997      1998      1999      2000 Year

© Infobase Publishing

Trends in sales of organic foods: (a) organic fruits and vegetables in four selected years; (b) organic milk, half-and-half, and cream, 1996-2000

and 2000, the percentage of natural and organic foods sold in con­ventional markets jumped from less than 10 percent to more than 50 percent. The Food Marketing Institute estimates that organic foods are now available at more than 20,000 natural food stores and more than 75 percent of all conventional markets.

Today, a wide variety of natural and organic food products are commercially available. By far the most popular are fresh fruits and vegetables, with sales of about $2.2 billion, followed by nondairy beverages, breads and grains, dairy products, and packaged foods (which includes frozen and dried prepared foods, baby food, soups, and desserts). The graph above shows the five top-selling types of natural foods in the United States in 2000.

The only term for which a clear and specific definition exists is that of organic foods. In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production

Act (OFPA) to set national standards governing the marketing of so-called organically produced products, to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard; and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced. The OFPA established the National Organic Program (NOP) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and ordered the department to establish standards for defining foods that could be labeled as organic in the United States. The NOP pro­mulgated those standards on October 21, 2002. They defined organic food as follows:

Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineer-ing; or ionizing radiation.

(Source: "Organic Food Standards and Labels: The Facts." Available online. URL: ams.usda.gov/nop/

Consumers/brochure.html)

A critical point to be noted about this definition is that it refers to the methods by which a food is produced; it does not describe the actual food itself.

The OFPA and its administrative rules provide an exhaustive list of materials and procedures that are permitted and prohibited in the production, storage, shipping, and sale of foods that can be legally la­beled as organic. The USDA's "National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances," for example, lists dozens of synthetic products that may be used in the production of organic foods (such as alcohols, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, soap-based her­bicides, plastic mulches, sulfur, insecticidal soaps, copper sulfate, ethylene, lignin sulfonate, and sodium silicate) and others that may not be used in the production of organic foods (such as ash from ma­nure burning, arsenic, lead salts, sodium fluoaluminate, strychnine, tobacco dust [nicotine sulfate], potassium chloride [in most cases], and sodium nitrate).

Food products that meet the USDA's standards may be marked (but are not required to be) with a distinctive package label. The label indicates that at least 95 percent of the food in the package has been produced by methods approved by the USDA. It can be used, however, only with single-ingredient foods, such as meats, milk, eggs, cereals, and cheese. Multiple-ingredient foods that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients cannot carry the USDA seal, but it can carry the statement "made with organic ingredients." Finally, food products that contain less than 70 percent organic foods cannot carry either the USDA label or the "made with organic ingredients" notice, although they can list organically produced ingredients on the side panel.

Food producers have reason to use terms such as natural, health­ful, whole, and organic in describing their products. Public opinion surveys show that a majority of Americans prefer to purchase foods that contain fewer pesticides, are environmentally friendly, and are more nutritious. They are likely to associate natural, healthful, whole, and organic foods with these characteristics. Yet, except for the term organic, no standards exist to define other types of "healthful" foods. Absent those standards, consumers have no guarantee that the foods they believe to be safe and nutritious actually have those qualities. This problem becomes ever more important as interest in healthful foods among consumers grows.

At first glance, those studies appear to show that a large majority of Americans would not buy and eat irradiated foods. A 1997 CBS News poll, for example, found that 77 percent of respondents would not buy irradiated foods. A poll conducted by the Food Marketing Institute produced even more dramatic results. The study found that the percentage of consumers who said they would buy irradiated foods dropped from 79 percent in 1998 to 38 percent in 2000.

An important factor in such polling, however, is the extent to which respondents are familiar with irradiated foods. Other studies suggest that the more consumers know about irradiated foods, the more likely they are to buy and eat those foods. When consumers in Georgia were offered to try irradiated foods in a 2003 study, for example, researchers found that acceptance of such foods increased from 29 percent in a 1993 study (when they did not try irradiated foods) to 69 percent in 2003 (when they did). The Georgia study cited earlier research that reported similar results. Researchers concluded that, in general, the more people know about irradiated foods, the more favorable they are of purchasing and consuming such foods and the more willing they are to pay a premium for ir­radiated foods.

The one point about which almost everyone agrees today is that irradiated foods should carry some type of label so that consumers know in advance what they are buying. The current U.S. regulations dealing with irradiation labeling are a bit inconsistent. Any food that has been irradiated must carry the radura logo and a verbal state­ment such as "treated with radiation" or "treated by radiation." That

labeling is required, however, only on foods sold to a first buyer. For example, if potatoes treated with radiation are sold to a company that makes potato chips, the potatoes must be labeled when sold to the company, but the potato chips do not have to indicate that the potatoes from which they were made were irradiated. The radiation of spices is one of the largest applications of food irradiation today. Because of current labeling practices, however, foods made with ir­radiated spices carry no label indicating that they have been treated with radiation.

Labeling of irradiated foods is in a period of transition. In 2002, Congress passed the Farm Security and Investment Act, which, among other provisions, directed the FDA to revise its regulations on the labeling of irradiated food products to make them somewhat less restrictive. As a result, the FDA began to allow use of the phrase "cold pasteurization" in place of "irradiation" in 2003. As one might expect, consumer groups objected to this decision, arguing that the change was simply a way to allow the food industry to continue using an objectionable and possibly risky practice without notifying consumers. The labeling of irradiated food, as with so many other practices that are changing the way in which foods are produced, delivered, and sold in the United States and other countries of the world, is likely to remain a contentious issue for years to come.