🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

FSHN 125 Lecture Notes - Solanine, Arsenic, Natural Foods

39 views3 pages
lemondog142
7 Apr 2014
School
CSU
Department
Food Sci+Human Nutrition
Course
FSHN 125
Professor
John Avens

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Must break down into inorganic chemical molecules before they can be used by growing plants. Both: natural organic chemical fertilizers and synthetic inorganic chemical fertilizers contain: These inorganic chemicals are identical whether from synthetic or natural sources. The growing plant can"t tell the difference and foods produced by both types of fertilizer are nutritionally healthy and safe to eat. The inorganic chemicals, nitrogen, potassium, and phosphate are: needed by growing plants, supplied by natural organic fertilizers, supplied by synthetic inorganic fertilizers, a and c only, a, b, and c. An organically grown potato, a rather simple natural food , contains 150 different chemicals which have been identified: Many of these natural chemicals are carcinogenic and/or toxic poisons that fda would recommend banning if they were added by humans, but they are not. Assuming enough fertilizer is provided, organically grown food and conventionally grown food (using synthetic chemical fertilizers) are both nutritionally healthy and safe to eat: true, false.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents

FOOD-SCI 150 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Sewage Sludge, Organic Food, Bovine Somatotropin
apricottermite644
AGRB-2050
Final Exam
Study Guide
AGRB-2050 Study Guide - Final Guide: Organic Certification, Crop Rotation, Organic Food
raspberryskunk140
BIO SCI 9A Lecture Notes - Lecture 16: National Organic Program, Sewage Sludge, Dietary Supplement
byzantiummacaw133

Related Questions

SUMMARY: Sales of non-GMO foods are outpacing organic foods at U.S. grocery stores. This has important implications for the organic food industry which is responding with marketing to educate consumers. Organic foods are also non-GMO. Organic foods are certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture which sets standards for the use of chemicals, antibiotics and animal welfare. The federal government regulates foods that are labeled organic, but not those labeled non-GMO. The distinction matters to companies because it can take years to be certified organic. It costs thousands of dollars initially and annual renewal is required. Non-GMO sales increased about 70% a year since 2013. This is significant to organic food companies because sales in one category can come at the expense of the other. Non-GMO and organic foods compete for shelf space. There is the perception consumers place a higher value on the non-GMO label than they do on certified organic foods. Non-GMO costs less and customers may feel it is just as good as organic. California Certified Organic Farmers developed a label to communicate that "Organic is non-GMO and more." Other cooperatives are considering marketing efforts to clarify that organic standards encompass non-GMO.

CLASSROOM APPLICATION: As consumer behavior changes, companies need to adapt. Organic foods are both non-GMO and they meet additional federal standards for certification which include the use of pesticides, antibiotics and animal welfare. Consumers seem confused about the differences between non-GMO and organic. This is important for organic food companies because the price of their foods is typically higher than those which are only non-GMO. Educating consumers is the goal of marketing efforts to clarify "Organic is non-GMO and more." The distinction is more important because of changes in consumer behavior which are driving shopping decisions. About 49% of consumers who responded to a poll thought non-GMO was important when shopping for food and beverages while 47% indicated the importance for organic. Consumers are interested in the safety and characteristics of the foods they buy and organic foods face new competition from efforts to market non-GMO foods.

QUESTIONS:
1. (Introductory) Define the term "non-GMO." Why would shoppers demand either non-GMO or organic foods?
2. Compare and contrast the standards and certification process for the non-GMO as compared to the certified organic label.
3. Discuss the efforts of organic food producers to market their products and educate shoppers about what organic certification entails.
4. Some producers think sales of non-GMO foods will boost sales of organic foods. Do you agree? Explain why…

Organic vs. Non-GMO Labels. Who’s Winning?Organic and non-GMO companies push for prominence—and meaning for their labels

Natural-foods makers have spent years going after the industry establishment. Now, they are taking on each other.Surging sales of foods marketed as made without genetically modified crops are outpacing sales of food labeled organic in U.S. grocery stores. That is frustrating some organic companies and farmers, who invest significant sums to meet government organic standards and to get their foods certified.

The organic industry is responding with marketing campaigns touting that its foods—in addition to being made without genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, as such crops are known—also abide by other requirements.

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has certified organic foods since 2002, requires that producers also keep out most synthetic pesticides and certain fertilizers, and that animals used to produce organic food can go outdoors year-round and aren’t given hormones or antibiotics.

“Organic is non-GMO,” said Cathy Calfo, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers, a trade group that recently started promoting a new label to highlight the difference. “Non-GMO is not organic.

The federal government doesn’t regulate non-GMO labeling. Instead, certification is done by private groups, mainly the Non-GMO Project. The Bellingham, Wash., nonprofit doesn’t prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides on crops used as ingredients, or ensure animal-welfare standards. But it says it tests more stringently to ensure GMOs aren’t inadvertently mixed into ingredients during transportation or production.

The distinctions might seem like hairsplitting, but they matter for companies. Earning the Non-GMO Project’s imprimatur or the USDA’s organic certification can take months or years, depending on the item and the applicant backlog. Each can cost thousands of dollars initially, and must be renewed annually—a significant expense for smaller producers. Prices for organic and non-GMO ingredients also are significantly higher than regular ones.

GMOs have become a focus of skeptical consumers. U.S. government agencies and international bodies including the World Health Organization long have said that GMOs—whose DNA is altered to withstand pests or weedkilling sprays—are safe. But the technology’s critics say it facilitates harmful use of pesticides and that GMOs’ safety for human consumption isn’t proven.

That doubt has driven rapid growth for non-GMO foods, which this year are on pace to surpass those of food bearing the USDA’s certified organic seal, according to data compiled by research company Spins LLC.

ENLARGE Non-GMO sales soared by an average of about 70% annually from 2013 through this year, and are expected to top $13 billion this year. That is five times the rate for food tracked by Spins that bears the organic seal, sales of which total nearly $11 billion for the 52 weeks ended Nov 1. The Spins data don’t include sales from Whole Foods Market Inc., a major seller of both categories.

The USDA’s organic certification applies to foods that are 95% or more organic. The Organic Trade Association, whose numbers include estimates of Whole Foods sales and some other retailers not measured by Spins, touts the much larger figure of $35.9 billion in 2014 for foods containing 70% or more organic ingredients.

One category’s growth can come at the expense of another’s, since specialty foods often compete for the same limited shelf space in supermarkets. Last year, foods labeled non-GMO claimed 3.7% of total food sales in U.S. grocery stores, more than the 3.5% for organic items, according to market-research firm Nielsen NV. About 49% of consumers polled by Nielsen called non-GMO an important factor in food-and-beverage shopping, versus 47% for organic.

Organic-food companies say many consumers are confused about the labels’ different attributes. Vernon Peterson, owner of Abundant Harvest Organics in Kingsburg, Calif., says he often receives inquiries about the peaches, persimmons and other crops that his company distributes to customers including Kroger Co. and Whole Foods.

“Even though we [are] a 100% organic company, I get a question or two a week, ‘is any of your produce genetically modified?’” he said. “We see the consumer putting a higher value on the non-GMO than the organic label.”

Megan Westgate, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, said the “relationship between non-GMO and organic is probably the most politically sensitive thing we deal with, and we’re careful not to undermine consumer trust in the organic label.” She said consumer confusion around the definition of organic predates the Non-GMO Project, but she acknowledged that some organic-food producers have expressed concerns about her group infringing on their turf.

‘We see the consumer putting a higher value on the non-GMO than the organic label.’

—Vernon Peterson, owner of Abundant Harvest Organics

Rising non-GMO food sales are “a two-edged sword,” said Oren Holle, a longtime organic farmer in Bremen, Kan. While some consumers may migrate from those to organic foods, Mr. Holle said he worries about “a perception out there that if I buy the non-GMO it’s a little less costly when you run up to the checkout counter, and it’s just about as good.”

Mr. Holle last year participated in an online-video campaign trumpeting organic food’s purported superiority over items that are only non-GMO. The Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing Inc., a cooperative that funded the campaign, is now discussing marketing materials that brand organic as “the real non-GMO.”

California Certified Organic Farmers, based in Santa Cruz, Calif., debuted its new label in March that boasts “Organic is non-GMO & more.” The labels are designed to attract shoppers looking for non-GMO foods while highlighting organic’s curbs on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, said Ms. Calfo.

Mr. Peterson hopes the new label, which he has added to Abundant Harvest products, will clarify things. “When you have a confused public, it’s never good,” he said.

Some bigger organic brands are more sanguine. George Siemon, chief executive of Organic Valley, the largest U.S. cooperative of organic farms, said that while some consumers may find non-GMO easier to understand, it ultimately will boost organic-food sales by drawing more attention to how food is produced.Still, Mr. Siemon said that Organic Valley is considering adding a non-GMO label to some of its products.

Please read the article below and answer the following question, use economic analysis to answer the question. In your answer, ensure that you use relevant economic theories, concepts, and/or diagrams.

d) What can we as private individuals do to address these concerns in the absence of government intervention? Are such private solutions likely to be effective?

The Australian dairy farming industry is in a state of crisis. Cheap dairy products and fluctuations in both the domestic and global markets have taken a financial toll on farmers. Consumers have rallied to help struggling dairy producers. But this is only half the problem. The true cost of dairy is also paid by dairy cows and the environment.

Welfare problems:

Despite the idyllic image of outdoor farming, several industry practices negatively affect dairy cows. To meet production demands, dairy cows are subject to a continuous cycle of impregnation, induced calving, and milking. Tail-docking and horn removal are routinely performed without pain relief. Lameness is another major animal welfare problem, often the result of environmental pressures, such as tracks, herd size, and handling. The average lifespan of a dairy cow is six to seven years, whereas generally, cows can live for 20 to 25 years. One of the most controversial issues is young bobby€ calves. A bobby calf is a newborn calf, less than 30 days old, who has been purposely separated from its mother. Immediately after separation, the cow and calf call out and search for each other. Most bobby calves are slaughtered within the first week of their life. Handling and transport pose added problems for young calves who have not developed herding behaviors, are vulnerable to stress, and are forced to go without their mother's milk. Each year, 450,000 bobby calves are slaughtered. Dairy farmers are being milked dry, but let's remember the real cost of milk May 25, 2016, 6.11 am AEST The dairy industry faces a number of welfare and environmental issues. Cow image from www.shutterstock.com Advocacy groups frequently uncover the routine abuse of bobby calves in Australian abattoirs and challenge the dairy industry to do something about it. Yet aside from the wider ethical questions over the use and exploitation of animals, farmers are not legally doing anything wrong. This is because the treatment of animals operates in a legal context where animals are considered absolute property. What's more, farm animals are exempt from the provisions of anti-cruelty legislation. Codes of practice are practically useless because they promote low welfare standards and are unenforceable.

The environmental impact:

As well as systematic welfare problems, livestock farming is, both directly and indirectly, one of the most ecologically harmful human activities. The Australian livestock sector is worth A$17 billion and dairy cattle farming is a A$4.2 billion industry. In Australia, livestock farming accounts for 10% to 16% of greenhouse gas emissions, with dairy farms contributing 19% of this or 3% of total emissions. Methane emissions, from digestion and manure, and nitrous oxide from livestock are significant contributors. Globally, the livestock sector is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the world's transport. Livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land, including the land used to grow crops to feed these animals. Animal agriculture is a key factor in land degradation, deforestation, water stress, pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock farming will also be affected by climate change, particularly changes in temperature and water. The quantity and quality of pasture and forage crops will also be affected. Diseases may increase due to fluctuating weather and climate.

Emissions can be reduced:

Just as the energy sector is attempting to transition to low-carbon energy sources to tackle climate change, the agricultural sector needs to transition to an ethical and sustainable alternative. From the current crisis, there are several opportunities for farmers to seize. Large transitions are possible in land use, production, output, and profitability. Places such as Gippsland in Victoria, which currently produces 19% of Australia's dairy, have the opportunity for agricultural development based on apples and brassicas, such as broccoli, kale, cauliflower, cabbage, turnip, and mustard. Some of these crops are already popular in the region. As a result of climate change and increasing temperatures, some areas will be more suitable than others. While still in the stages of research, perennial grain crops that store more carbon, maintain better soil and water quality, and manage nutrients better than annuals have the potential to contribute to sustainable agriculture. New land uses could also include carbon plantings, biofuels, and bioenergy crops. Investing in further research for alternatives to livestock farming is needed. Some have argued that livestock emissions can be technically mitigated by modifying animal feed, better managing pastures, carbon sequestration, and manure storage.

Welfare issues remain:

But technical mitigation does not address the endemic animal welfare problems in the livestock industry. Consumer demand is one of the most powerful strategies to combat animal welfare and environmental problems. Research shows that we must reduce food waste and losses in the supply chain and change our diets toward less resource-intensive diets, such as plant-based diets. Doing so would cut emissions by two-thirds and save lives. It's possible to eliminate animal suffering and reduce carbon emissions by reducing and replacing livestock production and consumption. Alternatives to dairy milk include soy and almond milk. Soy milk is nutritionally comparable to dairy milk and has a significantly smaller environmental footprint. Policy initiatives also need to address these issues. The Food and Agriculture Organization's Livestock's Long Shadow report recommends a policy approach that correctly prices natural resources to reflect the full environmental costs and to end damaging subsidies. In the interim, higher taxes on meat and other livestock products will be necessary to improve public health and combat climate change. Denmark, for instance, is considering proposals to raise the tax on meat after its ethics council concluded that climate change is an ethical problem€. Governments everywhere need to have a transitional plan for livestock producers and workers - one that helps to cultivate the ethical and sustainable agricultural endeavors of the future.