50 years of DNA research turned upside down as scientists discover second programming language within genetic code

Stephanie Seiler

Original link:
http://www.sott.net/article/270045-50-years-of-DNA-research-turned-upside-down-as-scientists-discover-second-programming-language-within-genetic-code

 

 

Scientists have discovered a second code hiding within DNA. This second code contains information that changes how scientists read the instructions contained in DNA and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease.

A research team led by Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate professor of genome sciences and of medicine, made the discovery. The findings are reported in the Dec. 13 issue of Science.

Read the research paper. Also see commentary in Science, "The Hidden Codes that Shape Protein Evolution."

The work is part of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, also known as ENCODE. The National Human Genome Research Institute funded the multi-year, international effort. ENCODE aims to discover where and how the directions for biological functions are stored in the human genome.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

"For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact how proteins are made," said Stamatoyannopoulos. "Now we know that this basic assumption about reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways."

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they are made.

The discovery of duons has major implications for how scientists and physicians interpret a patient's genome and will open new doors to the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

"The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously," said Stamatoyannopoulos.

Grants from the National Institutes of Health U54HG004592, U54HG007010, and UO1E51156 and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases FDK095678A funded the research.

In addition to Stamatoyannopoulos, the research team included Andrew B. Stergachis, Eric Haugen, Anthony Shafer, Wenqing Fu, Benjamin Vernot, Alex Reynolds, and Joshua M. Akey, all from the UW Department of Genome Sciences, Anthony Raubitschek of the UW Department of Immunology and Benaroya Research Institute, Steven Ziegler of Benaroya Research Institute, and Emily M. LeProust, formerly of Agilent Technologists and now with Twist Bioscience.

About the author

Stephanie H. Seiler heads the communications agency Gemini BioProjects LLC.

Irradiating formamide with meteorite dust can lead to synthesis of prebiotic compounds

Apr 14, 2015 by Bob Yirka report

Original link:  http://phys.org/news/2015-04-irradiating-formamide-meteorite-synthesis-prebiotic.html?hootPostID=d95ad0fc125ca2d23616dc56a18eca5d

 

Neat FA mixed with meteorite powder was irradiated at 243 K with

170-MeV protons for 3 min. The uniform proton field was bounded

10 × 10 cm2 by the collimator system. The averaged linear energy

transfer (LET) was 0.57 keV/μm, and the calculated absorbed dose

was 6 Gy. Eleven meteorites classified into the iron (Canyon Diablo

and Campo del Cielo), stony-iron (NWA 4482), chondrite (NWA 2828,

Gold Basin, Dhofar 959, Orgueil, NWA 1465, and Chelyabinsk), and

achondrite (NWA 5357 and Al Haggounia 001) families were used in

the FA irradiations. The products were analyzed by gas

chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) after formation of the

corresponding trimethylsilyl ethers (TMS).

Credit: (c) PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422225112

(Phys.org)—A combined team of researchers from Italy and Russia has shown that prebiotic compounds can be synthesized by irradiating liquid formamide (aka methanamide) mixed with meteorite dust. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team members describe their experiments, the results they found and what their findings suggest about the origins of life on Earth.

Formamide, an amide derived from formic acid, is a compound abundant in interstellar space (here on Earth it is used to make a variety of products) and because of that scientists are eager to find out if it might have played a role in the development of life on our planet. Prior research has shown that if it is heated it will break down into ammonia and carbon monoxide and eventually into water vapor and hydrogen cyanide.

In this new effort, the combined team treated it differently—they took a logical approach to finding the answer to whether it might have served as a precursor to the development of compounds necessary for life to have formed, by attempting to duplicate the conditions that might have existed on a meteorite during Earth's early history. They ground up samples from the four major classes of meteorites and added them to liquid formamide and kept the mixtures at the extremely low temperatures of space. Next, they shot a proton laser beam at the different mixes as a means of simulating the solar wind. Close examination of the various materials afterwards revealed the presence of nucleobases, carboxylic acids, sugars, amino acids and four nucleosides.

The researchers suggest their findings indicate that prebiotic compounds could have come about on planet Earth courtesy of meteorites carrying formamide that had been exposed to the solar wind. When mixed with phosphates on the planet's surface, the result could very well have been the building blocks of life. Their findings also suggest that because the process of producing the prebiotic compounds was so simple, and done with materials abundant in space, the chances of life evolving on other planets would seem to be high, at least for one residing in a habitable zone.

Explore further: New study revisits Miller-Urey experiment at the quantum level

More information: Meteorite-catalyzed syntheses of nucleosides and of other prebiotic compounds from formamide under proton irradiation, Raffaele Saladino, PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1422225112

Abstract
Liquid formamide has been irradiated by high-energy proton beams in the presence of powdered meteorites, and the products of the catalyzed resulting syntheses were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Relative to the controls (no radiation, or no formamide, or no catalyst), an extremely rich, variegate, and prebiotically relevant panel of compounds was observed. The meteorites tested were representative of the four major classes: iron, stony iron, chondrites, and achondrites. The products obtained were amino acids, carboxylic acids, nucleobases, sugars, and, most notably, four nucleosides: cytidine, uridine, adenosine, and thymidine. In accordance with theoretical studies, the detection of HCN oligomers suggests the occurrence of mechanisms based on the generation of radical cyanide species (CN·) for the synthesis of nucleobases. Given that many of the compounds obtained are key components of extant organisms, these observations contribute to outline plausible exogenous high-energy–based prebiotic scenarios and their possible boundary conditions, as discussed.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Anti-GMO groups obsess about superweeds, the non-existent glyphosate-created pest

Andrew Porterfield & Jon Entine | April 14, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project

Original post:  http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/04/anti-gmo-groups-obsess-about-superweeds-the-non-existent-glyphosate-created-pest/

Read the latest “analysis” on GMOs from Consumer Reports and you’ll “learn” that glyphosate, the chemical developed by Monsanto (it’s trademark is now expired), as Roundup–often but not exclusively paired with herbicide tolerant GM seeds—has led to an “explosion” in what are popularly known as “superweeds.”

The use of genetically modified seeds has … led to about a 10-fold increase in farmers’ use of glyphosate. But that in turn has created a new problem for farmers to battle: a rising number of “superweeds” that have now become immune to glyphosate. “This defeats one of the major reasons why GMOs were introduced in the first place,” says [Michael] Hansen, Ph.D., senior scientist at Consumers Union.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a activist scientist at the Center for Food Safety, made identical claims when he was a lead scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists before he was eased out of UCS almost a year ago. Superweeds are a “plague”, he has contended:

It sounds like a bad sci-fi movie or something out of The Twilight Zone. But ‘superweeds’ are real and they’re infesting America’s croplands, Overuse of Monsanto’s ‘Roundup Ready’ seeds and herbicides in our industrial farming system is largely to blame. And if we’re not careful, the industry’s proposed ‘solutions’ could make this epidemic much worse.

Well, Gurian-Sherman and Consumer Reports are over the top wrong.

Let’s start with the use of the term “superweed.” You now see it in stories all the time, even in the mainstream media and in usually reliable sources. But for the most part it’s a meaningless term. Andrew Kniss, associate professor of weed biology & ecology at the University of Wyoming responding to a story in the journal Nature:

I was a little disappointed to see the term “superweeds” in any type of scientific publication. I have repeatedly expressed my displeasure with this term, and my graduate students know better than to ever use the word around me. To see it in a publication as reputable as Nature is exceptionally frustrating.

Many activists use the word to describe a weed that can out compete with other plants, particularly food crops, in ways never seen before on farms. They conjured images out of the Little Shop of Horrors: monstrous, hideous creatures leaving carnage in their wake, as Missouri Farm Bureau head, Blake Hurst once wrote. But that’s not the case. In fact, attempts by farmers to stave off bugs, fungus and weeds reach back thousands of years. Hardy weeds that have developed resistance to herbicides, including organic herbicides, have always “plagued” modern farming.
Weeds, just like humans and all living things, have a fierce survival instinct. When a chemical–natural or synthetic–is applied to fields to kill them, random “protective” mutations allow a handful to survive. Over the years, that hardy handful of weeds propagate, and eventually the farmer is faced with a so-called “superweed”. It’s how evolution works.

So let’s dump the scare jargon: superweeds are not ‘super’ in any real sense of the word; they are just weeds that have evolved to evade a particular weed management strategy. If you have ever seen a dandelion so short that it has almost no stem, you’ve seen a superweed. That dandelion’s super power is crouching down, so that lawnmowers can’t get it before it goes to seed. But really, we are talking about weeds that have evolved to withstand applications of our most commonly used herbicides, including glyphosate.

Periodic resistance to pesticides has been growing for about 40 years–in parallel with the rise of large scale farming, both conventional and organic. Contradicting the dire picture painted by Hansen and Gurian-Sherman, there’s been no sudden increase in resistance since genetically modified crops were introduced. In fact, as we’ve reported at Genetic Literacy Project, the level has fallen somewhat since glyphosate resistant crops were introduced. Glyphosate has actually improved the situation with herbicide resistant weeds by decreasing the use of atrazine which was the most popular herbicide before RR crops came along.

Some weeds have even managed to evolve ways to resist many different herbicides. In an herbicide-free environment, certain weeds will grow faster and bigger, physically crowding out other plants (including desirable crops). They’ll take water and soil nutrients as well as physical space. It doesn’t matter whether the crop is conventional, organic or genetically modified; weeds will act exactly the same way. Resistance comes from using an herbicide that has one mechanism of action—a small number of weeds will be able to survive the herbicide, and return to plague the crops that received the herbicide.

In other words, there is no crisis; weed management is complex; glyphosate is not the devil in plant form. All of which makes the hyperbolic comments spewed by Consumer Reports, once a reliable independent consumer-focused magazine, all the more disappointing. CR is now claiming dozens of weeds now resist glyphosate, which means, it concludes, that the herbicide is “losing its effectiveness.”

While the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds does count 32 weeds that resist the main action of glyphosate and similarly acting herbicides, the same survey shows there are 150 weeds overall that resist some kind of herbicide. In other words, disease resistance is not a problem unique to glyphosate. It’s relationship to genetic engineering is minimal. And here’s something you won’t read in Consumer Reports: Independent international agencies tracking weed resistance show that it has subsided somewhat since genetically modified crops were introduced. The down trend is modest, so it’s not a reason to stand up and cheer. But the facts belie the hysteria generated by campaigning scientists—let’s call it, in Al Gore’s words, an “inconvenient truth” to hard-edged ideologues.

Instead of promoting fear and perpetuating the myth of Godzilla-like monster plants wrecking havoc oh humanity,,the Weed Science Society of America recommends a number of practices that any farm (organic, genetically modified, or conventional non-GMO) can take:

• Apply integrated weed management practices, including multiple herbicide modes-of-action with overlapping weed spectrums in rotation, sequences, or mixtures.
• Use the full recommended herbicide rate and proper application timing for the hardest to control weed species.
• Scout fields after herbicide application to ensure control has been achieved. Avoid allowing weeds to reproduce by seed or to proliferate vegetatively.
• Monitor site and clean equipment between sites.

Many farmers are using these practices. But they will never entirely eliminate the damage wrought by weeds, fungi, insects and other pests and the collateral problems that flow from agents used to combat these pests. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that pesticide control is a central component of modern agriculture, whether you run a conventional or organic farm. Crop losses before harvesting average 35 percent worldwide currently. What would those losses be without pesticides? More like 70 percent, say agricultural experts.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a senior fellow at the World Food Center Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, University of California-Davis. Follow @JonEntine on Twitter

Clean Energy Revolution Is Ahead of Schedule

By Noah Smith

  

The most important piece of news on the energy front isn't the plunge in oil prices, but the progress that is being made in battery technology. A new study in Nature Climate Change, by Bjorn Nykvist and Mans Nilsson of the Stockholm Environment Institute, shows that electric vehicle batteries have been getting cheaper much faster than expected. From 2007 to 2011, average battery costs for battery-powered electric vehicles fell by about 14 percent a year. For the leading electric vehicle makers, Tesla and Nissan, costs fell by 8 percent a year. This astounding decline puts battery costs right around the level that the International Energy Agency predicted they would reach in 2020. We are six years ahead of the curve. It's a bit hard to read, but here is the graph from the paper:

This puts the electric vehicle industry at a very interesting inflection point. Back in 2011, McKinsey & Co. made a chart showing which kind of vehicle would be the most economical at various prices for gasoline and batteries:

Looking at this graph, we can see the incredible progress made just since 2011. Battery prices per kilowatt-hour have fallen from about $550 when the graph was made to about $450 now. For Tesla and Nissan, the gray rectangle (which represents current prices) is even farther to the left, to about the $300 range, where the economics really starts to change and battery-powered vehicles become feasible.

But in the past year, the price of gasoline has fallen as well, and is now in the $2.50 range even in expensive markets. A glut of oil, and a possible thaw in U.S.-Iran relations, have moved the gray rectangle down into the dark blue area where internal combustion engines reign supreme.

Still, if battery prices keep falling, the gray rectangle will keep moving to the left. The Swedish researchers believe that Tesla’s new factories will be able to achieve the 30 percent cost reduction the company promises, simply from economies of scale and incremental improvements in the manufacturing process. That, combined with a rebound in gas prices to the $3 range, would be enough to make battery-powered vehicles an economic alternative to internal combustion vehicles in most regions.

But this isn't the only piece of good energy news. Investment in renewable energy is powering ahead.

The United Nations Environment Programme recently released a report showing that global investment in renewable energy, which had dipped a bit between 2011 and 2013, rebounded in 2014 to a near all-time high of $270 billion. But the report also notes that since renewable costs -- especially solar costs -- are falling so fast, the amount of renewable energy capacity added in 2014 was easily an all-time high. China, the U.S. and Japan are leading the way in renewable investment. Renewables went from 8.5 percent to 9.1 percent of global electricity generation just in 2014.

That’s still fairly slow in an absolute sense. Adding 0.6 percentage point a year to the renewable share would mean the point where renewables take half of the electricity market wouldn’t come until after 2080. But as solar costs fall, we can expect that shift to accelerate. In particular, forecasts are for solar to become the cheapest source of energy -- at least when the sun is shining -- in many parts of the world in the 2020s.

Each of these trends -- cheaper batteries and cheaper solar electricity -- is good on its own, and on the margin will help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, with all the geopolitical drawbacks and climate harm they entail. But together, the two cost trends will add up to nothing less than a revolution in the way humankind interacts with the planet and powers civilization.

You see, the two trends reinforce each other. Cheaper batteries mean that cars can switch from gasoline to the electrical grid. But currently, much of the grid is powered by coal. With cheap solar replacing coal at a rapid clip, that will be less and less of an issue. As for solar, its main drawback is intermittency. But with battery costs dropping, innovative manufacturers such as Tesla will be able to make cheap batteries for home electricity use, allowing solar power to run your house 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

So instead of thinking of solar and batteries as two independent things, we should think of them as one single unified technology package. Solar-plus-batteries is set to begin a dramatic transformation of human civilization. The transformation has already begun, but will really pick up steam during the next decade. That is great news, because cheap energy powers our economy, and because clean energy will help stop climate change.

Of course, skeptics and opponents of the renewable revolution continue to downplay these remarkable developments. The takeoff of solar-plus-batteries has only begun to ramp up the exponential curve, and market shares are still small. But it has begun, and it doesn’t look like we’re going back.

To contact the author on this story:
 
Noah Smith at nsmith150@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor on this story:
 
James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.net

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy

• By Sebastian Anthony
• Original link:  http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/160131-thorium-nuclear-reactor-trial-begins-could-provide-cleaner-safer-almost-waste-free-energy 

Share This article

At a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor — but not in the sense that most people think of when they hear the word thorium. The Norwegians haven’t solved the energy crisis and global warming in one fell swoop — they haven’t created a cold fusion thorium reactor. What they have done, though, which is still very cool, is use thorium instead of uranium in a conventional nuclear reactor. In one fell swoop, thorium fuel, which is safer, less messy to clean up, and not prone to nuclear weapons proliferation, could quench the complaints of nuclear power critics everywhere.

In a conventional nuclear reactor, enriched uranium fuel is converted into plutonium and small amounts of other transuranic compounds. There are ways to recycle plutonium, but for many countries, such as the USA, it is simply a waste product of nuclear power — a waste product that will be dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. While the safety of nuclear power plants is hotly contested, no one is arguing the nastiness of plutonium. Any technological development that could reduce the production of plutonium, or consume our massive stocks of plutonium waste, would be a huge boon for the Earth’s (and humanity’s) continued well-being. (See: Nuclear power is our only hope, or, the greatest environmentalist hypocrisy of all time.)

Enter thorium. Natural thorium, which is fairly cheap and abundant (more so than uranium), doesn’t contain enough fissile material (thorium-231) to sustain a nuclear chain reaction. By mixing thorium oxide with 10% plutonium oxide, however, criticality is achieved. This fuel, which is called thorium-MOX (mixed-oxide), can then be formed into rods and used in conventional nuclear reactors. Not only does this mean that we can do away with uranium, which is expensive to enrich, dangerous, and leads to nuclear proliferation, but it also means that we finally have an easy way of recycling plutonium. Furthermore, the thorium-MOX fuel cycle produces no new plutonium; it actually reduces the world’s stock of plutonium. Oh, thorium-MOX makes for safer nuclear reactors, too, due to a higher melting point and thermal conductivity.

Thor Energy’s thorium reactor in Halden, Norway. The rod in the

middle of the picture contains thorium-MOX pellets, and is being

inserted into the reactor (which is underground).

Thorium-MOX, in short, is about as exciting as it gets in the nuclear power industry. Before it can be used, though, Thor Energy needs to make sure that the thorium fuel cycle is fully understood. To do this, the company has built a small test reactor in the Norwegian town of Halden, where rods of thorium-MOX provide steam to a nearby paper mill. This reactor will run for five years, after which the fuel will be analyzed to see if it’s ready for commercial reactors.

The first batch of thorium-MOX pellets, which are inside the rods, was made in Germany; the next batch of pelles will be made in Norway; and the final, hopefully commercial-grade pellets will be made by the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory. Westinghouse Electric Company, one of the world’s largest producers of nuclear reactors, is one of Thor Energy’s commercial backers.

(And yes, just in case you were wondering, the element thorium really is named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. And yes, Norse mythology originated from Norway, where Thor Energy is based. Coincidence, I think not!)

For the first time ever, researchers have encoded quantum information using simple electrical pulses.

Image: Arne Laucht

Researchers achieve electrical control of quantum bits, paving the way for quantum computers

For the first time ever, researchers have encoded quantum information using simple electrical pulses.

FIONA MACDONALD

Original link:  http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-have-achieved-electrical-control-of-quantum-bits-paving-the-way-for-quantum-computers

Researchers from UNSW in Australia are a big step closer to creating affordable, large quantum computers, after gaining electrical control of quantum bits, or qubits, for the first time.

The team was able to store quantum information in silicon using only simple electrical pulses, instead of pulses of oscillating magnetic fields. This is the same way that the computers we use today encode data, and it means that we now have the ability to cheaply and easily control the quantum computers of the future.

"We demonstrated that a highly coherent qubit, like the spin of a single phosphorus atom in isotopically enriched silicon, can be controlled using electric fields, instead of using pulses of oscillating magnetic fields," said lead author of the study, Arne Laucht from UNSW Engineering, in a press release.

This is something that researchers have been attempting since 1998, and the results have now been published in the open-access journal Science Advances.

The method works by distorting the shape of the electron cloud attached to the phosphorous atom, quantum engineer Andrea Morello, who also worked on the research, explained in the release.

"This distortion at the atomic level has the effect of modifying the frequency at which the electron responds," he said.

"Therefore, we can selectively choose which qubit to operate. It's a bit like selecting which radio station we tune to, by turning a simple knob. Here, the 'knob' is the voltage applied to a small electrode placed above the atom."

The research suggests that it will be possible to locally control data in a large-scale quantum computers using only inexpensive voltage generators, as opposed to the pricey high-frequency microwave sources that quantum researchers have used to encode information in the past.

It also means that these types of qubits can be manufactured using technology similar to the kind we currently use, which will greatly cut the cost of quantum computers.

The key to the team's success was embedding the phosphorous atom in a thin layer of purified silicon that contains only the silicon-28 isotope, which is non-magnetic and doesn't disturb the qubit.

The UNSW Engineering quantum group was the first in the world to demonstrate single-atom spin qubits in silicon back in 2012, and they also last year showed that they could control these qubits with 99 percent accuracy. Their overall goal is to build the world's first affordable, large-scale quantum computer, and we honestly can't wait.

Love engineering? Find out more about the world-leading research happening at UNSW Engineering.

Organic food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organic vegetables at a farmers' market in Argentina

Organic foods are foods produced by organic farming. While the standards differ worldwide, organic farming in general features cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed, although certain organically approved pesticides may be used under limited conditions. In general, organic foods are also not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or synthetic food additives.^[1]

Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, organic food is food produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organizations. Although the produce of kitchen gardens may be organic, selling food with the organic label is regulated by governmental food safety authorities, such as the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or European Commission.^[2]

While there may be some differences in the nutrient and anti-nutrient contents of organically and conventionally produced food, the variable nature of food production and handling makes it difficult to generalize results, and there is insufficient evidence to support claims that organic food is safer or healthier than conventional food.^{[3][4][5][6][7]} Claims that organic food tastes better are generally not supported by evidence.^[4][8]

Meaning and origin of the term

Mixed organic bean sprouts

For the vast majority of its history, agriculture can be described as having been organic; only during the 20th century was a large supply of new chemicals introduced to the food supply.^[9] The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture known as the Green Revolution.^[10]

In 1939, Lord Northbourne coined the term organic farming in his book Look to the Land (1940), out of his conception of "the farm as organism," to describe a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming—in contrast to what he called chemical farming, which relied on "imported fertility" and "cannot be self-sufficient nor an organic whole."^[11] Early soil scientists also described the differences in soil composition when animal manures were used as "organic", because they contain carbon compounds where superphosphates and haber process nitrogen do not. Their respective use effects humus content of soil.^[12][13] This is different from the scientific use of the term "organic" in chemistry, which refers to a class of molecules that contain carbon, especially those involved in the chemistry of life. This class of molecules includes everything likely to be considered edible, and include most pesticides and toxins too, therefore the term "organic" and, especially, the term "inorganic" (sometimes wrongly used as a contrast by the popular press) as they apply to organic chemistry is an equivocation fallacy when applied to farming, the production of food, and to foodstuffs themselves. Properly used in this agricultural science context, "organic" refers to the methods grown and processed, not necessarily the chemical composition of the food.

Ideas that organic food could be healthier and better for the environment originated in the early days of the organic movement as a result of publications like the 1943 book, The Living Soil.^[14][15] Gardening and Farming for Health or Disease,^[16]

Early consumers interested in organic food would look for non-chemically treated, non-use of unapproved pesticides, fresh or minimally processed food. They mostly had to buy directly from growers. Later, "Know your farmer, know your food" became the motto of a new initiative instituted by the USDA in September 2009.^[17] Personal definitions of what constituted "organic" were developed through firsthand experience: by talking to farmers, seeing farm conditions, and farming activities. Small farms grew vegetables (and raised livestock) using organic farming practices, with or without certification, and the individual consumer monitored.^{[citation needed]}

Members of Toronto's Karma Co-op share food and play music

Small specialty health food stores and co-operatives were instrumental to bringing organic food to a wider audience.^{[citation needed]} As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection.^{[citation needed]} Today there is no limit to organic farm sizes and many large corporate farms currently have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied on. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.^{[citation needed]}

In the 1970s, interest in organic food grew with the publication of Silent spring^[18] and the rise of the environmental movement, and was also spurred by food-related health scares like the concerns about Alar that arose in the mid-1980s.^[19]

Legal definition

The National Organic Program (run by the USDA) is in charge of the legal definition of organic in the United States and does organic certification.

Organic food production is a self-regulated industry with government oversight in some countries, distinct from private gardening. Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification based on government-defined standards in order to market food as organic within their borders. In the context of these regulations, foods marketed as organic are produced in a way that complies with organic standards set by national governments and international organic industry trade organizations.
In the United States, organic production is a system that is managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and regulations in Title 7, Part 205 of the Code of Federal Regulations to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.^[20] If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.^[21]

Processed organic food usually contains only organic ingredients. If non-organic ingredients are present, at least a certain percentage of the food's total plant and animal ingredients must be organic (95% in the United States,^[22] Canada, and Australia). Foods claiming to be organic must be free of artificial food additives, and are often processed with fewer artificial methods, materials and conditions, such as chemical ripening, food irradiation, and genetically modified ingredients.^[23] Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic.^[24] However, under US federal organic standards, if pests and weeds are not controllable through management practices, nor via organic pesticides and herbicides, "a substance included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production may be applied to prevent, suppress, or control pests, weeds, or diseases."^[25] Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle^[26] in light of unknown risks of nanotechnology.^[27]:5–6 The use of nanotechnology-based products in the production of organic food is prohibited in some jurisdictions (Canada, the UK, and Australia) and is unregulated in others.^{[28][29]:2, section 1.4.1(l)}

There are four different levels or categories for organic labeling. 1)‘100%’ Organic: This means that all ingredients are produced organically. It also may have the USDA seal. 2)‘Organic’: At least 95% or more of the ingredients are organic. 3)’Made With Organic Ingredients': Contains at least 70% organic ingredients. 4)‘Less Than 70. Organic Ingredients’: Three of the organic ingredients must be listed under the ingredient section of the label.^[30] To be certified organic, products must be grown and manufactured in a manner that adheres to standards set by the country they are sold in:

• Australia: NASAA Organic Standard^[31]
• Canada:^[32]
• European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
  • Sweden: KRAV^[33]
  • United Kingdom: DEFRA^[34]
  • Poland: Association of Polish Ecology^[35]
  • Norway: Debio Organic certification^[36]
• India: NPOP, (National Program for Organic Production)^[37]
• Indonesia: BIOCert, run by Agricultural Ministry of Indonesia.^[38]
• Japan: JAS Standards^[39]
• United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards

In the United States, the food label "natural" or "all natural" does not mean that the food was produced and processed organically.^[40][41]

Public perception

There is widespread public belief, promoted by the organic food industry, that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and tastes better than conventional food.^[42][43][44] These beliefs have fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices and difficulty in confirming these claimed benefits scientifically.^{[3][5][6][45][46]}

Psychological effects such as the “halo” effect, which are related to the choice and consumption of organic food, are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food.^[4] An example of the halo effect was demonstrated by a study of Schuldt and Schwarz.^[47] The results showed university students who inferred that organic cookies were lower in calories and could be eaten more often than conventional cookies. This effect was observed even when the nutrition label conveyed an identical calorie content. The effect was more pronounced among participants who were strong supporters of organic production, and had strong feelings about environmental issues. The perception that organic food is low-calorie food or health food appears to be common.^[4][47]

In China the increasing demand for organic products of all kinds, and in particular milk, baby food and infant formula, has been "spurred by a series of food scares, the worst being the death of six children who had consumed baby formula laced with melamine" in 2009 and the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, making the Chinese market for organic milk the largest in the world as of 2014.^[48][49][50] A Pew Research Centre survey in 2012 indicated that 41% of Chinese consumers thought of food safety as a very big problem, up by three times from 12% in 2008.^[51]

Taste

A 2002 review concluded that in the scientific literature examined, “While there are reports indicating that organic and conventional fruits and vegetables may differ on a variety of sensory qualities, the findings are inconsistent.”^[8]
There is evidence that some organic fruit is drier than conventionally grown fruit; a slightly drier fruit may also have a more intense flavor due to the higher concentration of flavoring substances.^[4]

Some foods, such as bananas, are picked when unripe, are cooled to prevent ripening while they are shipped to market, and then are induced to ripen quickly by exposing them to propylene or ethylene, chemicals produced by plants to induce their own ripening; as flavor and texture changes during ripening, this process may affect those qualities of the treated fruit.^[52][53] The issue of ethylene use to ripen fruit in organic food production is contentious because ripeness when picked often does affect taste; opponents claim that its use benefits only large companies and that it opens the door to weaker organic standards.^[54][55]

Chemical composition

With respect to chemical differences in the composition of organically grown food compared with conventionally grown food, studies have examined differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residues. These studies generally suffer from confounding variables, and are difficult to generalize due to differences in the tests that were done, the methods of testing, and because the vagaries of agriculture affect the chemical composition of food; these variables include variations in weather (season to season as well as place to place); crop treatments (fertilizer, pesticide, etc.); soil composition; the cultivar used, and in the case of meat and dairy products, the parallel variables in animal production.^[3][6][56] Treatment of the foodstuffs after initial gathering (whether milk is pasteurized or raw), the length of time between harvest and analysis, as well as conditions of transport and storage, also affect the chemical composition of a given item of food.^[3][6] Additionally, there is evidence that organic produce is drier than conventionally grown produce; a higher content in any chemical category may be explained by higher concentration rather than in absolute amounts.^[4]

Nutrients

A 2014 meta-analysis of 343 studies,^[3] found that organically grown crops had 17% higher concentrations of polyphenols than conventionally grown crops. Concentrations of phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols, and anthocyanins were elevated, with flavanones being 69% higher.
A 2012 survey of the scientific literature did not find significant differences in the vitamin content of organic and conventional plant or animal products, and found that results varied from study to study.^[6] Produce studies reported on ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) (31 studies), beta-carotene (a precursor for Vitamin A) (12 studies), and alpha-tocopherol (a form of Vitamin E) (5 studies) content; milk studies reported on beta-carotene (4 studies) and alpha-tocopherol levels (4 studies). Few studies examined vitamin content in meats, but these found no difference in beta-carotene in beef, alpha-tocopherol in pork or beef, or vitamin A (retinol) in beef. The authors analyzed 11 other nutrients reported in studies of produce. Only 2 nutrients were significantly higher in organic than conventional produce: phosphorus and total polyphenols).^{[citation needed]}

Similarly, organic chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional chicken. The authors found no difference in the protein or fat content of organic and conventional raw milk.^[57][58]

Anti-nutrients

The amount of nitrogen content in certain vegetables, especially green leafy vegetables and tubers, has been found to be lower when grown organically as compared to conventionally.^[5] When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels,^[59] while early literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products.^[4][5] However, a 2014 review found lower concentrations of cadmium, particularly in organically grown grains.^[3]

Pesticide residues

A 2012 meta-analysis determined that detectable pesticide residues were found in 7% of organic produce samples and 38% of conventional produce samples. This result was statistically heterogeneous, potentially because of the variable level of detection used among these studies. Only three studies reported the prevalence of contamination exceeding maximum allowed limits; all were from the European Union.^[6] A 2014 meta-analysis found that conventionally grown produce was four times more likely to have pesticide residue than organically grown crops.^[3]

The American Cancer Society has stated that no evidence exists that the small amount of pesticide residue found on conventional foods will increase the risk of cancer, though it recommends thoroughly washing fruits and vegetables. They have also stated that there is no research to show that organic food reduces cancer risk compared to foods grown with conventional farming methods.^[60]

The Environmental Protection Agency has strict guidelines on the regulation of pesticides by setting a tolerance on the amount of pesticide residue allowed to be in or on any particular food.^[61][62]

Bacterial contamination

A 2012 meta-analysis determined that prevalence of E. coli contamination was not statistically significant (7% in organic produce and 6% in conventional produce). Four of the five studies found higher risk for contamination among organic produce. When the authors removed the one study (of lettuce) that found higher contamination among conventional produce, organic produce had a 5% greater risk for contamination than conventional alternatives. While bacterial contamination is common among both organic and conventional animal products, differences in the prevalence of bacterial contamination between organic and conventional animal products were statistically insignificant.^[6]

Organic meat production requirement

Organic meat certification in the United States authenticates that the farm animals meet USDA organic protocol. These regulations include that the animals are fed certified organic food and that it contains no animal byproducts.
Further, organic farm animals can receive no growth hormones or antibiotics, and they must be raised using techniques that protect native species and other natural resources. Irradiation, and genetic engineering are not allowed with organic animal production.^{[63][64][64][65]} One of the major differences in organic animal husbandry protocol is the pasture rule. The minimum requirements for time on pasture do vary somewhat by species and between the certifying agencies, but the common theme is to require as much time on pasture as is possible and reasonable.^[66][67]

Health and safety

There is little scientific evidence of benefit or harm to human health from a diet high in organic food, and conducting any sort of rigorous experiment on the subject is very difficult; a 2014 review found that "there is only a limited number of human studies available having investigated the effects of consumption of organic food on health, disease risks’ and health promoting compounds, and the development of reliable biomarkers to be used in such studies are still in its infancy"^[56] and a 2012 meta-analysis noted that "there have been no long-term studies of health outcomes of populations consuming predominantly organic versus conventionally produced food controlling for socioeconomic factors; such studies would be expensive to conduct."^[6] The 2014 review noted that "The discrepancy between the outcome of the animal studies, showing a rather wide array of positive effects of organic food, and the short-term human studies, only showing a few positive effects, has resulted in questions related to planning and performance of human studies."^[56] A 2009 meta-analysis noted that "Most of the included articles did not study direct human health outcomes. In ten of the included studies (83%), a primary outcome was the change in antioxidant activity. Antioxidant status and activity are useful biomarkers but do not directly equate to a health outcome. Of the remaining two articles, one recorded proxy-reported measures of atopic manifestations as its primary health outcome, whereas the other article examined the fatty acid composition of breast milk and implied possible health benefits for infants from the consumption of different amounts of conjugated linoleic acids from breast milk."^[45] In addition, as discussed above, difficulties in accurately and meaningfully measuring chemical differences between organic and conventional food make it difficult to extrapolate health recommendations based solely on chemical analysis.

With regard to the possibility that some organic food may have higher levels of certain anti-oxidants, evidence regarding whether increased anti-oxidant consumption improves health is conflicting.^{[68][69][70][71][72]}

As of 2012, the scientific consensus is that while "consumers may choose to buy organic fruit, vegetables and meat because they believe them to be more nutritious than other food.... the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."^[73] A 12-month systematic review commissioned by the FSA in 2009 and conducted at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine based on 50 years' worth of collected evidence concluded that "there is no good evidence that consumption of organic food is beneficial to health in relation to nutrient content."^[74] There is no support in the scientific literature that the lower levels of nitrogen in certain organic vegetables translates to improved health risk.^[5] However, a 2014 review found that: "Both animal studies and in vitro studies clearly indicate the benefits of consumption of organically produced food instead of that conventionally produced. Investigations on humans are scarce and only few of those performed can confirm positive public health benefits while consuming organic food. However, animal experiments are today routinely used to assess impact on humans in various other aspects and thus, the positive effects on animal from consumption of organically produced food can be regarded as an indication of positive effects also on humans."^[56]

Consumer safety

Pesticide exposure

Claims of improved safety of organic food has largely focused on pesticide residues.^[5] These concerns are driven by the facts that "(1) acute, massive exposure to pesticides can cause significant adverse health effects; (2) food products have occasionally been contaminated with pesticides, which can result in acute toxicity; and (3) most, if not all, commercially purchased food contains trace amounts of agricultural pesticides."^[5] However, as is frequently noted in the scientific literature: "What does not follow from this, however, is that chronic exposure to the trace amounts of pesticides found in food results in demonstrable toxicity. This possibility is practically impossible to study and quantify;" therefore firm conclusions about the relative safety of organic foods have been hampered by the difficulty in proper study design and relatively small number of studies directly comparing organic food to conventional food.^{[4][5][8][46][75]}

Additionally, the Carcinogenic Potency Project,^[76] which is a part of the US EPA's Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network,^[77] has been systemically testing the carcinogenicity of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, and building a publicly available database of the results^[78] for the past ~30 years. Their work attempts to fill in the gaps in our scientific knowledge of the carcinogenicity of all chemicals, both natural and synthetic, as the scientists conducting the Project described in the journal, Science, in 1992:

Toxicological examination of synthetic chemicals, without similar examination of chemicals that occur naturally, has resulted in an imbalance in both the data on and the perception of chemical carcinogens. Three points that we have discussed indicate that comparisons should be made with natural as well as synthetic chemicals.
1) The vast proportion of chemicals that humans are exposed to occur naturally. Nevertheless, the public tends to view chemicals as only synthetic and to think of synthetic chemicals as toxic despite the fact that every natural chemical is also toxic at some dose. The daily average exposure of Americans to burnt material in the diet is ~2000 mg, and exposure to natural pesticides (the chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves) is ~1500 mg. In comparison, the total daily exposure to all synthetic pesticide residues combined is ~0.09 mg. Thus, we estimate that 99.99% of the pesticides humans ingest are natural. Despite this enormously greater exposure to natural chemicals, 79% (378 out of 479) of the chemicals tested for carcinogenicity in both rats and mice are synthetic (that is, do not occur naturally).
2) It has often been wrongly assumed that humans have evolved defenses against the natural chemicals in our diet but not against the synthetic chemicals. However, defenses that animals have evolved are mostly general rather than specific for particular chemicals; moreover, defenses are generally inducible and therefore protect well from low doses of both synthetic and natural chemicals.
3) Because the toxicology of natural and synthetic chemicals is similar, one expects (and finds) a similar positivity rate for carcinogenicity among synthetic and natural chemicals. The positivity rate among chemicals tested in rats and mice is ~50%. Therefore, because humans are exposed to so many more natural than synthetic chemicals (by weight and by number), humans are exposed to an enormous background of rodent carcinogens, as defined by high-dose tests on rodents. We have shown that even though only a tiny proportion of natural pesticides in plant foods have been tested, the 29 that are rodent carcinogens among the 57 tested, occur in more than 50 common plant foods. It is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens.^[79]

While studies have shown via chemical analysis, as discussed above, that organically grown fruits and vegetables have significantly lower pesticide residue levels, the significance of this finding on actual health risk reduction is debatable as both conventional foods and organic foods generally have pesticide levels well below government established guidelines for what is considered safe.^[4][5][6] This view has been echoed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture^[59] and the UK Food Standards Agency.^[7]

A study published by the National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.^[80] A study published in 2006 by Lu et al. measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children before and after replacing their diet with organic food. In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped from negligible levels to undetectable levels when the children switched to an organic diet, the authors presented this reduction as a significant reduction in risk.^[81] The conclusions presented in Lu et al. were criticized in the literature as a case of bad scientific communication.^[82][83]

More specifically, claims related to pesticide residue of increased risk of infertility or lower sperm counts have not been supported by the evidence in the medical literature.^[5] Likewise the American Cancer Society (ACS) has stated their official position that "whether organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer because they are less likely to be contaminated by compounds that might cause cancer is largely unknown."^[84] Reviews have noted that the risks from microbiological sources or natural toxins are likely to be much more significant than short term or chronic risks from pesticide residues.^[4][5]

Microbiological contamination

In looking at possible increased risk to safety from organic food consumption, reviews have found that although there may be increased risk from microbiological contamination due to increased manure use as fertilizer from organisms like E. coli O157:H7 during organic produce production, there is little evidence of actual incidence of outbreaks which can be positively blamed on organic food production.^[4][5][8] One outbreak of E. coli in Germany was blamed on organic farming of bean sprouts.^[85][86]

Economics

Demand for organic foods is primarily driven by concerns for personal health and for the environment.^[87] Global sales for organic foods climbed by more than 170 percent since 2002 reaching more than $63 billion in 2011^[88] while certified organic farmland remained relatively small at less than 2 percent of total farmland under production, increasing in OECD and EU countries (which account for the majority of organic production) by 35 percent for the same time period.^[89] Organic products typically cost 10 to 40% more than similar conventionally produced products, to several times the price.^[90] Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts.

While organic food accounts for 1–2% of total food production worldwide, the organic food sales market is growing rapidly with between 5 and 10 percent of the food market share in the United States according to the Organic Trade Association,^[91] significantly outpacing sales growth volume in dollars of conventional food products.

• World organic food sales jumped from US $23 billion in 2002^[92] to $63 billion in 2011.^[93]

Asia

Production and consumption of organic products is rising rapidly in Asia, and both China and India are becoming global producers of organic crops^[94] and a number of countries, particularly China and Japan, also becoming large consumers of organic food and drink.^[48][95] The disparity between production and demand, is leading to a two-tier organic food industry, typified by significant and growing imports of primary organic products such as dairy and beef from Australia, Europe, New Zealand and the United States.^[96]

China

China’s domestic organic market is the fourth largest in the world.^[48][97] The Chinese Organic Food Development Center estimated domestic sales of organic food products to be around US$500 million per annum as of 2013. This is predicted to increase by 30 percent to 50 percent in 2014.^[98]

Whilst the United States remains the largest market for organic beef with sales of $1.35 billion in 2013,^[99][100] the Chinese market is anticipated to surpass that by 2016.^[99]

China is the world’s biggest infant formula market with $12.4 billion in sales annually;^[101] of this, organic infant formula and baby food accounted for approximately 5.5 per cent of sales in 2011.^[98] Australian organic infant formula and baby food producer Bellamy's Organic have reported that their sales in this market grew 70 per cent annually over the period 2008-2013, while Organic Dairy Farmers of Australia, reported that exports of long-life organic milk to China had grown by 20 to 30 per cent per year over the same period.^[102]

North America

United States

• In 2012 the total size of the organic food market in the United States was about $30 billion (out of the total market for organic and natural consumer products being about $81 billion)^[103][104]

• Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food industry.^[105]

• Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year in the early 2000s^[106] while sales of conventional food have grown only about 2 to 3 percent a year.^[107] The US organic market grew 9.5% in 2011, breaking the $30bn barrier for the first time, and continued to outpace sales of non-organic food.^[105]

• In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.^[108]

• Organic products accounted for 3.7% of total food and beverage sales, and 11.4% of all fruit and vegetable sales in the year 2009.^[95]

• As of 2003, two thirds of organic milk and cream and half of organic cheese and yogurt are sold through conventional supermarkets.^[109]

• As of 2012^[update], most independent organic food processors in the USA had been acquired by multinational firms.^[110]

• In order for a product to become USDA organic certified, the farmer cannot plant GMO seeds, livestock cannot eat plants that have GMO product in them. Farmers must provide substantial evidence showing there were no GMOs used from beginning to table.^[111]

Canada

• Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada.^[112]
• Organic food sales by grocery stores were 28% higher in 2006 than in 2005.^[112]
• British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.^[113]

Europe

Denmark

• In 2012, organic products accounted for 7.8% of the total retail consumption market in Denmark, the highest national market share in the world.^[114] Many public institutions have voluntarily committed themselves to buy some organic food and in Copenhagen 75 % of all food served in public institutions is organic. A governmental action plan initiated in 2012-2014 aims at 60 % organic food in all public institutions across the country before 2020.^[115]:4

Austria

• In 2011, 7.4% of all food products sold in Austrian supermarkets (including discount stores) were organic.^[116] In 2007, 8,000 different organic products were available.^[117]

Italy

• Since 2000, the use of some organic food is compulsory in Italian schools and hospitals. A 2002 law of the Emilia Romagna region implemented in 2005, explicitly requires that the food in nursery and primary schools (from 3 months to 10 years) must be 100% organic, and the food in meals at schools, universities and hospitals must be at least 35% organic.^[118]

Poland

• In 2005 7 percent of Polish consumers buy food that was produced according to the EU-Eco-regulation. The value of the organic market is estimated at 50 million Euros (2006).^[119]

Romania

• 70%–80% of the local organic production, amounting to 100 million Euros in 2010, is exported. The organic products market grew to 50 million Euros in 2010.^[120]

Ukraine

• In 2009 Ukraine was in 21st place in the world by area under cultivation of organic food. Much of its production of organic food is exported and not enough organic food is available on the national market to satisfy the rapidly increasing demand.^[121] The size of the internal market demand for organic products in Ukraine was estimated at over 5 billion euros in 2011, with rapid growth projected for this segment in the future.^[122] Multiple surveys show that the majority of the population of Ukraine is willing to pay more to buy organic food.^[123][124] On the other hand, many Ukrainians have traditionally maintained their own garden plots, and this may result in underestimation of how much organically produced food is actually consumed in Ukraine.

• The Law on Organic Production was passed by Ukraine's parliament in April of 2011, which in addition to traditional demands for certified organic food also banned the use of GMOs or any products containing GMOs.^[125] However, the law was not signed by the President of Ukraine^[126] and in September of 2011 it was repealed by the Verkhovna Rada itself.^[127] Attempts to pass a new law on organic food production took place throughout 2012.^[128]

United Kingdom

• Organic food sales increased from just over £100 million in 1993/94 to £1.21 billion in 2004 (an 11% increase on 2003).^[129] In 2010, the UK sales of organic products fell 5.9% to £1.73 billion. 86% of households buy organic products, the most popular categories being dairies (30.5% of sales) and fresh fruits and vegetables (23.2% of sales). 4.2% of UK farmland is organically managed.^[130]

Latin America[edit]

Cuba

• After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, agricultural inputs that had previously been purchased from Eastern bloc countries were no longer available in Cuba, and many Cuban farms converted to organic methods out of necessity.^[131] Consequently, organic agriculture is a mainstream practice in Cuba, while it remains an alternative practice in most other countries. Although some products called organic in Cuba would not satisfy certification requirements in other countries (crops may be genetically modified, for example^[132][133]), Cuba exports organic citrus and citrus juices to EU markets that meet EU organic standards. Cuba's forced conversion to organic methods may position the country to be a global supplier of organic products.^[134]