Over the past decade, the demand for organic food has skyrocketed. As more information about human health and the effect of our ecological footprint becomes available, the attractiveness of organic products increases. The influence of this on younger generations in particular is extremely evident in social media. Green smoothies, acai bowls and avocado toast that often include organic produce are extremely popular among health and lifestyle influencers; the fact that these foods are also aesthetically pleasing only adds to the appeal. Unfortunately, the media portrayal of organic consumables is not entirely honest. In many cases, only the attractive and refined finished product is passed on. Many consumers are unaware of what really happens behind the production of organic products and their specific scientific benefits, or lack thereof. Organic foods are not as beneficial as many people think. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The most direct way to highlight the deception of the organic food industry is to explain food labels. There are three main types of labels: “100% organic”, “Organic” and “Made with organic ingredients”. It seems like everyone is saying the same thing, but in reality they are completely different. “100% organic” products have the USDA seal, are raised separately, are not genetically modified and contain only organic ingredients (Bahl). “Organic” foods also have the USDA seal, but contain 95% organic ingredients. Products labeled “Made with Organic Ingredients” do not have the USDA seal and are made with only 70% organic ingredients. Many consumers are unaware of these distinctions and only see the organic portion of the label. Some may buy “organic” foods thinking they are completely pure when in reality the 5% content of the products is not explicitly declared. Furthermore, the industry is not transparent about it, which significantly diminishes its reliability. If companies label their products to get consumers to buy them, how can people trust that the foods are legitimately beneficial? Without knowing the background of food labels, most, if not all, people believe that organic foods are more nutritious than traditionally grown foods; at the moment this statement is practically in the public domain. In a study conducted by Stanford University and published in the article "Eating organic food isn't much healthier, study finds," this belief actually wasn't found to be entirely true. There are actually very few differences between organic and non-organic foods. Of course, conventionally grown foods have higher rates of pesticide residues and antibiotic use - if that weren't true, that would be another matter entirely - but the actual nutritional value is virtually identical. Dr. Dena Brevata , the lead researcher of this experiment, says: "There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional ones, from environmental concerns to taste preferences, but when it comes to individual health, there's not much difference" . This shows that the doctor herself would not recommend investing in organic products due to their marketed health benefits. Dr. Brevata also points out the interesting fact that not enough research has been conducted to investigate the effects of organic foods on human health:only 17 of 237 studies reviewed by the Stanford team mention it. If the organic industry claims that its products benefit people more than non-organic foods, it is obviously important to actually show how. Another important reason why people believe that organic foods are so beneficial is because they supposedly have no processing. The USDA defines organic produce as free from pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, genetic modifications and ionizing radiation; organic animal products must be free of antibiotics and growth hormones. This does not mean, however, that they are not exposed to all treatments. Copper sulfate is commonly used, which can cause poisoning. Mulch used as fertilizer may contain pesticide residues resulting from spraying conventional crops; organic companies take advantage of this to reduce infestations while legally maintaining the organic standard (Smith). The fact that one of the main benefits of buying organic foods is in many cases false is enough to demonstrate that these products are not as pure as the industry claims them to be. There is virtually no difference in this regard between organic and non-organic foods. In fact, the organic industry seems incredibly incapable of finding loopholes through regulations and deceiving consumers about what they thought they were paying for. Additionally, mulch, especially that used on soybean plants, may contain bone meal from slaughterhouses. Bone meal could be incorporated into mulch to replace traditional additives used on non-organic farms, which is incredibly shocking, especially to those who purchase these foods thinking they are not animal products. Some might say that it is just as possible that conventional foods use bone meal in their fertilizers, but the difference is that organic farms claim that their products are ethical, while conventional foods do not explicitly state these promises to consumers. notion, genetically modified foods have also become somewhat taboo, and those who are avid investors in organic foods often do so because of the supposed negative effects of genetic modification. The simple fact is that technology has advanced so rapidly over the past few decades that it is impossible to test the full effects of these newly developed foods. Technology like this simply hasn't been around long enough, and genetic modification is equally likely to have positive or negative consequences. A recent 2019 study summarized by Diana Gitig shows that GMOs, particularly corn, cotton, and Bt soy, actually have positive effects on agriculture. Bt corn and other Bt crops allow fewer pesticides because they are bred for insect-killing proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, hence the “Bt.” The effectiveness of these proteins was tested on farms located in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia by monitoring populations of the European corn borer and corn earworm, whose larvae eat the crops. GMO crops have successfully combated increasing pest reproduction rates due to rising temperatures, and between 1992 and 2016, the total amount of insecticide applied to New Jersey pepper fields dropped by as much as 85 percent . Not only are the GMO crops themselves less exposed to pesticides and insects, but surrounding non-GMO crops also benefit from the decreased pest population. Organic foods that simply don't have the characteristics to repel parasites are definitely moresusceptible to them. Although this is only one study in a relatively small area of ​​interest, it provides solid scientific evidence of the positive effects of genetic modification and the shortcomings of organic foods. Outside of the chemical composition of organic food, the whole picture of organic food production is distorted. In many advertisements, people see a small picturesque field worked by a happy farmer with a sunset in the background. This, unfortunately, is not the reality. The term “industry” has been used consistently throughout this essay so far and it means exactly that. The same heavy equipment and aggressive techniques used on traditional farms are used on organic ones. Unfortunately, in the real world, many times organic methods cannot be implemented by smaller farms. The simple fact is that the certification and procedures involved in organic farming are too expensive for small farms to maintain. The organic food industry is indeed big business and, ultimately, companies exist to make money. Profit is by no means something to be despised, but many consumers use organic and local farming interchangeably when they mean incredibly different things. Those who purchase organic produce thinking they are supporting direct, small-scale agriculture couldn't be more wrong. Another aspect of production that the organic industry fails to address is the treatment of workers. SE Smith highlights the misconception that workers on organic farms are treated more ethically in the article "Workers on Organic Farms Aren't Always Paid Fairly." Organic farmers face very similar, if not identical, problems to conventional farmers, such as insufficient wages, difficult conditions and minimal protection. Often farmers don't even earn enough to buy the food they grow. In California, in particular, workers often point to lack of income and benefits, wage theft, forced labor, long hours, unsafe conditions and favoritism within the company. Throughout history, even and especially today, working conditions and employment in general have been a controversial topic that many people are passionate about. Surprisingly, the fact that unethical treatment of workers occurs in an industry where its entire appeal is ethicality has not awakened the conscience of many people. Many consumers don't even consider the actual practices implemented by organic farms because the image put out by the industry is so credible and perfect. After all these reasons why organic foods are not as miraculous as they seem, it all comes back to money. Organic products are more expensive for both consumers and producers. As mentioned above, certification is a laborious process that requires a lot of investment from the company and is also very difficult to perpetuate. To remedy this, organic farms often treat their workers unethically, as explained in the previous paragraph, because it costs less. The production cost is reflected in the consumer cost and it is evident that organic foods are more expensive than conventionally grown ones. People might say that going to the grocery store is a small amount of money and that you can save a little extra in exchange for a healthier lifestyle. The price of buying groceries may not seem like a lot at once, but the bills add up quickly, as most people eat out every day and more.