Organic food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

Organic produce at a farmers' market in Argentina

Organic food, ecological food, or biological food are foods and drinks produced by methods complying with the standards of organic farming. Standards vary worldwide, but organic farming features practices that cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Organizations regulating organic products may restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in the farming methods used to produce such products. Organic foods are typically not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or synthetic food additives.

In the 21st century, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification to market their food as organic. Although the produce of kitchen gardens may actually be organic, selling food with an organic label is regulated by governmental food safety authorities, such as the National Organic Program of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the European Commission (EC).

From an environmental perspective, fertilizing, overproduction, and the use of pesticides in conventional farming may negatively affect ecosystems, soil health, biodiversity, groundwater, and drinking water supplies. These environmental and health issues are intended to be minimized or avoided in organic farming.

Demand for organic foods is primarily driven by consumer concerns for personal health and the environment, such as the detrimental environmental impacts of pesticides. From the perspective of science and consumers, there is insufficient evidence in the scientific and medical literature to support claims that organic food is either substantially safer or healthier to eat than conventional food. Organic agriculture has higher production costs and lower yields, higher labor costs, and higher consumer prices as compared to conventional farming methods.

Meaning, history and origin of the term

Further information on the production of organic food: Organic farming

See also: History of organic farming

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 products, generally deemed not organic, introduced into food production. The organic farming movement arose in the 1940s in response to the industrialization of agriculture.

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". Early soil scientists also described the differences in soil composition when animal manures were used as "organic", because they contain carbon compounds, whereas superphosphates and Haber process nitrogen do not. Their respective use affects humus content of soil. 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, as well as 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 and Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease (1945).

In the industrial era, organic gardening reached a modest level of popularity in the United States in the 1950s. In the 1960s, environmentalists and the counterculture championed organic food, but it was only in the 1970s that a national marketplace for organic foods developed.

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. 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. Small specialty health food stores and co-operatives were instrumental to bringing organic food to a wider audience. As demand for organic foods continued to increase, high-volume sales through mass outlets such as supermarkets rapidly replaced the direct farmer connection. Today, many large corporate farms have an organic division. However, for supermarket consumers, food production is not easily observable, and product labeling, like "certified organic", is relied upon. Government regulations and third-party inspectors are looked to for assurance.

In the 1970s, interest in organic food grew with 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.

Legal definition

Main article: Organic certification

See also: List of countries with organic agriculture regulation

EU logo for organic products

Organic food production is distinct from private gardening. In the EU, organic farming and organic food are more commonly known as ecological or biological, or in short 'eco' and 'bio'.

Currently, the European Union, the United States, Canada, Japan, and many other countries require producers to obtain special certification based on government-defined standards 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.

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.

In the United States, organic production is managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) 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. If livestock are involved, the livestock must be reared with regular access to pasture and without the routine use of antibiotics or growth hormones.

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, 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. Pesticides are allowed as long as they are not synthetic. 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". Several groups have called for organic standards to prohibit nanotechnology on the basis of the precautionary principle in light of unknown risks of nanotechnology. 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.

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
• Canada:
• European Union: EU-Eco-regulation
  • Sweden: KRAV
  • United Kingdom: DEFRA
  • Poland: Association of Polish Ecology
  • Norway: Debio Organic certification
• India: National Program for Organic Production (NPOP)
• Indonesia: BIOCert, run by Agricultural Ministry of Indonesia.
• Japan: JAS Standards
• Mexico: Consejo Nacional de Producción Orgánica, department of Sagarpa
• New Zealand: there are three bodies; BioGro, AsureQuality, and OFNZ
• United States: National Organic Program (NOP) Standards

In the United States, 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.

In the U.S., the food label "natural" or "all natural" does not mean that the food was produced and processed organically.

Environmental sustainability

Further information: Environmental impact of pesticides

From an environmental perspective, fertilizing, overproduction and the use of pesticides in conventional farming has caused, and is causing, enormous damage worldwide to local ecosystems, soil health, biodiversity, groundwater and drinking water supplies, and sometimes farmers' health and fertility.

Organic farming typically reduces some environmental impact relative to conventional farming, but the scale of reduction can be difficult to quantify and varies depending on farming methods. In some cases, reducing food waste and dietary changes might provide greater benefits. A 2020 study at the Technical University of Munich found that the greenhouse gas emissions of organically farmed plant-based food were lower than conventionally-farmed plant-based food. The greenhouse gas costs of organically produced meat were approximately the same as non-organically produced meat. However, the same paper noted that a shift from conventional to organic practices would likely be beneficial for long-term efficiency and ecosystem services, and probably improve soil over time.

A 2019 life-cycle assessment study found that converting the total agricultural sector (both crop and livestock production) for England and Wales to organic farming methods would result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions as increased overseas land use for production and import of crops would be needed to make up for lower organic yields domestically.

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 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." 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." 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.

According to a newer review, studies found adverse effects of certain pesticides on children's cognitive development at current levels of exposure. Many pesticides show neurotoxicity in laboratory animal models and some are considered to cause endocrine disruption.

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." The evidence of beneficial health effects of organic food consumption is scarce, which has led researchers to call for more long-term studies. In addition, studies that suggest that organic foods may be healthier than conventional foods face significant methodological challenges, such as the correlation between organic food consumption and factors known to promote a healthy lifestyle. When the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the literature on organic foods in 2012, they found that "current evidence does not support any meaningful nutritional benefits or deficits from eating organic compared with conventionally grown foods, and there are no well-powered human studies that directly demonstrate health benefits or disease protection as a result of consuming an organic diet."

Prevalent use of antibiotics in livestock used in non-organic meat is a key driver of antibiotic resistance.

Consumer safety

Pesticide exposure

Claims of improved safety of organic food have largely focused on pesticide residues. 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." 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.

Additionally, the Carcinogenic Potency Project, which is a part of the US EPA's Distributed Structure-Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) Database Network, has been systemically testing the carcinogenicity of chemicals, both natural and synthetic, and building a publicly available database of the results 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.

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 (maximum residue limits) well below government established guidelines for what is considered safe. This view has been echoed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the UK Food Standards Agency.

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. 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. The conclusions presented in Lu et al. were criticized in the literature as a case of bad scientific communication.

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. 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." 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.

Microbiological contamination

Organic farming has a preference for using manure as fertilizer, compared to conventional farming in general. This practice seems to imply an increased risk of microbiological contamination, such as E. coli O157:H7, from organic food consumption, but reviews have found little evidence that the actual incidence of outbreaks can be positively linked to organic food production. The 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak, however, was blamed on organically farmed fenugreek sprouts.

Public perception

There is a widespread public belief that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and better tasting than conventional food, which has largely contributed to the development of an organic food culture. Consumers purchase organic foods for different reasons, including concerns about the effects of conventional farming practices on the environment, human health, and animal welfare.

While there may be some differences in the nutrient and antinutrient contents of organically and conventionally produced food, the variable nature of food production, shipping, storage, and handling makes it difficult to generalize results. Claims that "organic food tastes better" are generally not supported by tests, but consumers often perceive organic food produce like fruits and vegetables to taste better.

The appeal of organic food varies with demographic group and attitudinal characteristics. Several high quality surveys find that income, educational level, physical activity, dietery habits and number of children are associated with the level of organic food consumption. USA research has found that women, young adults, liberals, and college graduates were significantly more likely to buy organic food regularly when compared to men, older age groups, people of different political affiliations, and less educated individuals. Income level and race/ethnicity did not appear to affect interest in organic foods in this same study. Furthermore, individuals who are only moderately-religious were more likely to purchase organic foods than individuals who were less religious or highly-religious. Additionally, the pursuit of organic foods was positively associated with valuing vegetarian/vegan food options, "natural" food options, and USA-made food options. Organic food may also be more appealing to people who follow other restricted diets. One study found that individuals who adhered to vegan, vegetarian, or pescetarian diet patterns incorporated substantially more organic foods in their diets when compared to omnivores.

The most important reason for purchasing organic foods seems to be beliefs about the products' health-giving properties and higher nutritional value. These beliefs are promoted by the organic food industry, and have fueled increased demand for organic food despite higher prices and difficulty in confirming these claimed benefits scientifically. Organic labels also stimulate the consumer to view the product as having more positive nutritional value.

Psychological effects such as the "halo" effect are also important motivating factors in the purchase of organic food.

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. A Pew Research Center 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.

A 2020 study on marketing processed organic foods shows that, after much growth in the fresh organic foods sector, consumers have started to buy processed organic foods, which they sometime perceive to be just as healthy or even healthier than the non-organic version – depending on the marketing message.

Taste

There is no good evidence that organic food tastes better than its non-organic counterparts. 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.

Some foods which are picked when unripe, such as bananas, 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.

Chemical composition

Organic vegetables at a farmers' market

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. 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. 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.

Nutrients

Many people believe that organic foods have higher content of nutrients and thus are healthier than conventionally produced foods. However, scientists have not been equally convinced that this is the case as the research conducted in the field has not shown consistent results.

A 2009 systematic review found that organically produced foodstuffs are not richer in vitamins and minerals than conventionally produced foodstuffs. This systematic review found a lower nitrogen and higher phosphorus content in organic produced compared to conventionally grown foodstuffs. Content of vitamin C, calcium, potassium, total soluble solids, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, and sodium did not differ between the two categories.

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. 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. A 2011 literature review found that organic foods had a higher micronutrient content overall than conventionally produced foods.

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.

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis found that organic meat had comparable or slightly lower levels of saturated fat and monounsaturated fat as conventional meat, but higher levels of both overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Another meta-analysis published the same year found no significant differences in levels of saturated and monounsaturated fat between organic and conventional milk, but significantly higher levels of overall and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic milk than in conventional milk.

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. When evaluating environmental toxins such as heavy metals, the USDA has noted that organically raised chicken may have lower arsenic levels. Early literature reviews found no significant evidence that levels of arsenic, cadmium or other heavy metals differed significantly between organic and conventional food products. However, a 2014 review found lower concentrations of cadmium, particularly in organically grown grains.

Phytochemicals

A 2014 meta-analysis of 343 studies on phytochemical composition found that organically grown crops had lower cadmium and pesticide residues, and 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. Studies on phytochemical composition of organic crops have numerous deficiencies, including absence of standardized measurements and poor reporting on measures of variability, duplicate or selective reporting of data, publication bias, lack of rigor in studies comparing pesticide residue levels in organic and conventional crops, the geographical origin of samples, and inconsistency of farming and post-harvest methods.

Pesticide residues

Main article: Pesticide residue

The amount of pesticides that remain in or on food is called pesticide residue. In the United States, before a pesticide can be used on a food crop, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must determine whether that pesticide can be used without posing a risk to human health.

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. A 2014 meta-analysis found that conventionally grown produce was four times more likely to have pesticide residue than organically grown crops.

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, although 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.

The Environmental Protection Agency maintains 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. Although some residue may remain at the time of harvest, residue tend to decline as the pesticide breaks down over time. In addition, as the commodities are washed and processed prior to sale, the residues often diminish further.

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). Differences in the prevalence of bacterial contamination between organic and conventional animal products were also statistically insignificant.

Organic meat production requirements

United States

Organic meat certification in the United States requires farm animals to be raised according to USDA organic regulations throughout their lives. These regulations require that livestock are fed certified organic food that 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.ne of the major differences in organic animal husbandry protocol is the "pasture rule": 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 possible and reasonable.conomics

See also: Organic farming § Regional support for organic farming

Expensive organic vegetables at an Australian grocery store

Organic agriculture has higher potential costs due to lower yields and higher labor costs, leading to higher consumer prices. Demand for organic foods is primarily driven by concerns for personal health and for the environment. Global sales for organic foods climbed by more than 170 percent since 2002 reaching more than $63 billion in 2011 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. Organic products typically cost 10% to 50% more than similar conventionally produced products, to several times the price. Processed organic foods vary in price when compared to their conventional counterparts.

While organic food accounts for about 1% 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, significantly outpacing sales growth volume in dollars of conventional food products. World organic food sales jumped from US$23 billion in 2002 to $63 billion in 2011.

Asia

Production and consumption of organic products is rising rapidly in Asia, and both China and India are becoming global producers of organic crops and a number of countries, particularly China and Japan, also becoming large consumers of organic food and drink. 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.

China

• China's organic food production was originally for exportation in the early 2000s. Due to the food safety crisis since the late 2000s, China's domestic market outweighed the exportation market. The organic food production in China involves diverse players. Besides certified organic food production mainly conducted by private organic food companies, there are also non-certified organic farming practiced by entrepreneurs and civil society organizations. These initiatives have unique marketing channels such as ecological farmers' markets and community-supported agriculture emerging in and around Chinese major cities.
• China's domestic organic market is the fourth largest in the world. 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. As of 2015, organic foods made up about 1% of the total Chinese food market.
• China is the world's biggest infant formula market with $12.4 billion in sales annually; of this, organic infant formula and baby food accounted for approximately 5.5 per cent of sales in 2011. 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.

Sri Lanka

In April 2021, Sri Lanka started its "100% organic farming" program, banning imports of chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides. In November 2021, it was announced that the country will lift its import ban, explained by both a lack of sudden changes to widely applied practices or education systems and contemporary economics and, by extension, food security, protests and high food costs. The effort for the first transition to a completely organic farming nation was further challenged by effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bhutan

In 2013 the government of Bhutan announced that the country will become the first in the world with 100% organic farming and started a program for qualification. This program is being supported by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). A 2021 news report found that "globally, only Bhutan has a complete ban on synthetic pesticides". A 2018 study found that "current organic by default farming practices in Bhutan are still underdeveloped".

Japan

In 2010, the Japanese organic market was estimated to be around $1.3 billion.

North America

As of October 2014, Trader Joe's is a market leader of organic grocery stores in the United States.

United States

• Organic food is the fastest growing sector of the American food industry.
• In 2005 the organic food market was only worth about US$13 billion. By 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) In 2020 the organic food market was worth over $56 billion.
• Organic food sales have grown by 17 to 20 percent a year in the early 2000s while sales of conventional food have grown only about 2 to 3 percent a year. 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.
• In 2003 organic products were available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and 73% of conventional grocery stores.
• 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.
• As of 2012, many independent organic food processors in the USA had been acquired by multinational firms.
• For a product to become USDA organic certified, the farmer cannot plant genetically modified seeds and livestock cannot eat genetically modified plants. Farmers must provide substantial evidence showing there was no genetic modification involved in the operation.

Canada

• Organic food sales surpassed $1 billion in 2006, accounting for 0.9% of food sales in Canada. By 2012, Canadian organic food sales reached $3 billion.
• British Columbians account for 13% of the Canadian population, but purchased 26% of the organic food sold in Canada in 2006.

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. 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.
• In 1987, the first Danish Action Plan was implemented which was meant to support and stimulate farmers to switch from conventional food production systems to organic ones . Since then Denmark has constantly worked on further developing the market by promoting organic food and keeping prices low in comparison to conventional food products by offering farmers subvention and extra support if they choose to produce organic food. Then and even today is the bench mark for organic food policy and certification of organic food in the whole world. The new European Organic food label and organic food policy was developed based on the 1987 Danish Model.

Austria

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

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.

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).

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.

Switzerland

As of 2012, 11 per cent of Swiss farms are organic. Bio Suisse, the Swiss organic producers' association, provides guidelines for organic farmers.

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. 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. Multiple surveys show that the majority of the population of Ukraine is willing to pay more to buy organic food. 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 2011, which in addition to traditional demands for certified organic food also banned the use of GMOs or any products containing GMOs. However, the law was not signed by the President of Ukraine and in September 2011 it was repealed by the Verkhovna Rada itself. The new Organic Production Law was adopted by Rada and signed by President Poroshenko in July 2018.

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). 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). As of 2011, 4.2% of UK farmland is organically managed.

Latin America

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. 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), 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.

Insects as food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insects_as_food

Whole, fried edible insects as street food in Germany

Whole, steamed silkworm pupae as street food in South Korea (beondegi)

Insects as food or edible insects are insect species used for human consumption. Over 2 billion people are estimated to eat insects on a daily basis. Globally, more than 2,000 insect species are considered edible, though far fewer are discussed for industrialized mass production and regionally authorized for use in food. Many insects are highly nutritious, though nutritional content depends on species and other factors such as diet and age.^] Insects offer a wide variety of flavors and are commonly consumed whole or pulverized for use in dishes and processed food products such as burger patties, pasta, or snacks. Like other foods, there can be risks associated with consuming insects, such as allergic reactions. As commercial interest in insects as food grows, countries are introducing new regulatory frameworks to oversee their production, processing, marketing, and consumption.dible insects

Frequently consumed insect species

Human consumption of 2096 different insect species has been documented (2111 if spiders are included).he table below ranks insect order by number and percentage of confirmed species consumed and presents each insect orders' percentage of known insect species diversity. With the exceptions of orders Orthoptera and Diptera, there is close alignment between species diversity and consumption, suggesting that humans tend to eat those insects that are most available.

Human insect consumption by taxonomic order

Insect order	Common name	Number of confirmed species consumed by humans	Percentage of insect species consumed by humans (%)	Percentage of total insect species (%)
Coleoptera	Beetles	696	33	38
Lepidoptera	Butterflies, moths	362	17	16
Hymenoptera	Bees, wasps, ants	321	15	12
Orthoptera	Grasshoppers, locusts, crickets	278	13	2
Hemiptera	Cicadas, leafhoppers, planthoppers, scale insects, true bugs	237	11	10
Odonata	Dragonflies	61	3	1
Blattodea	Termites, cockroaches	59	3	1
Diptera	Flies	37	2	15
Others	-	45	2	6

Geography of insect consumption

Number of edible insect species per country

Insect species consumption varies by region due to differences in environment, ecosystems, and climate. The number of insect species consumed by country is highest in equatorial and sub-tropical regions, a reflection of greater insect abundance and biodiversity observed at lower latitudes and their year-round availability.

For a list of edible insects consumed locally see: List of edible insects by country.

Edible insects for industrialized mass production

To increase consumer interest in Western markets such as Europe and North America, insects have been processed into a non‐recognizable form, such as powders or flour. Policymakers, academics, as well as large-scale insect food producers such as Entomofarms in Canada, Aspire Food Group in the United States, Protifarm and Protix in the Netherlands, and Bühler Group in Switzerland, focus on seven insect species suitable for human consumption as well as industrialized mass production:

• Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor) as larvae
• Lesser mealworms (Alphitobius diaperinus) as larvae, mostly marketed under the term buffalo worms.

  

  Pancakes made from insect powder, served with strawberries and skyr

• House cricket (Acheta domesticus)
• Tropical house cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus)
• European migratory locust (Locusta migratoria)
• Black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens)
• Housefly (Musca domestica)

• 
  Freeze-dried mealworms as food (or food ingredient)
  
  
• 
  House crickets as food (or ingredient)
   
• 
  Migratory locusts as food (or ingredient)

Nutritional profile

Freeze-dried mealworms and buffalo worms (lesser mealworm)

The nutritional profiles of edible insects are highly variable given the large number of species consumed. In addition to species differences, nutritional content can be affected by geographic origin and production method (wild or farmed), diet, age, development stage, and sex. For instance, female house crickets (Acheta domestica) contain more fat than males, while males contain more protein than females.

Some insects (e.g. crickets, mealworms) are a source of complete protein and provide similar essential amino acid levels as soybeans, though less than casein. They have dietary fiber, essential minerals, vitamins such as B12, riboflavin and vitamin A, and include mostly unsaturated fat.

Locusts contain between 8 and 20 milligrams of iron for every 100 grams of raw locust, whereas beef contains roughly 6 milligrams of iron in the same amount of meat. Crickets are also very efficient in terms of nutrients. For every 100 grams of substance crickets contain 12.9 grams of protein, 121 calories, and 5.5 grams of fat. Beef contains more protein, containing 23.5 grams in 100 grams of substance, but also has roughly triple the calories and four times the amount of fat as crickets do in 100 grams.

Nutritional value per 100 g	Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor)	Buffalo worms (Alphitobius diaperinus)	House crickets (Acheta domesticus)	Migratory locust (Locusta migratoria)
Energy	550 kcal / 2303 kJ	484 kcal / 2027 kJ	458 kcal / 1918 kJ	559 kcal / 2341 kJ
Fat Of which saturated fatty acids	37,2 g 9 g	24,7 g 8 g	18,5 g 7 g	38,1 g 13,1 g
Carbohydrates Of which sugars	5,4 g 0 g	6,7 g 0 g	0 g 0 g	1,1 g 0 g
Protein	45,1 g	56,2 g	69,1 g	48,2 g
Salt	0,37 g	0,38 g	1,03 g	0,43 g

Organoleptic characteristics

Chapulines, a popular edible grasshopper of Mexico.

The organoleptic characteristics of edible insects vary between species and are influenced by environment. For instance, aquatic edible insects such as water boatmen (family Corixidae) and dragonfly larvae have a fish flavor, while diving beetles taste more like clams. Environment is not always a predictor of flavor, as terrestrial edible insects may also exhibit fish-like flavors (e.g. crickets, grasshoppers). Over 400 volatile compounds responsible for the aroma and flavor of edible insects have been identified. Pheromone chemicals contribute to pungent aromas and flavors in some species and the presence of organic acids (like formic acid in ants) makes some species taste sour. Organoleptic characteristics are dependent on the development stage of the insect (egg, larva, pupa, nymph, or adult) and may change significantly as an insect matures. For example, texture can change from soft to crunchy as an insect develops from larva to adult due to increasing exoskeletal chitin. Cooking method is considered the strongest influence on the final flavor of edible insects. Wet-cooking methods such as scalding or steaming, remove pheromones and odor compounds, resulting in a milder flavor, while dry-cooking methods such as frying and roasting, introduce more complex flavors.

The table below provides common flavor descriptors for a selection of edible insects. Flavors will vary with preparation method (e.g. raw, dried, fried, etc.). Insect development stage is provided when possible.

Flavor descriptors of a selection of edible insects

Insect	Scientific name	Development stage	Flavor
Agave worm (white)	Aegiale hesperiaris	Larvae	Cracklings
Agave worm (red)	Comadia redtenbacheri	Larvae	Spicy
Ants	Family Formicidae	Adult	Sweet, nutty
Carpenter ant	Camponotus spp.	Adult	Charred lemon
Wood ant	Formica spp.	Adult	Kaffir lime
Black witch moth	Ascalapha odorata	Larvae	Herring
Cockroach	Order Blattodea	-	Mushroom
Cricket	Superfamily Grylloidea	Adult	Fish
Corn earworm	Helicoverpa zea	Larvae	Sweet corn
Dragonfly	Infraorder Anisoptera	Larvae	Fish
Grasshopper	Suborder Caelifera	Adult	Fish
Honey bee	Apis spp.	Brood	Butter, milk, herbal, vegetal, meaty, mushroom
Mealworm	Tenebrio molitor	-	Nutty (larvae); whole wheat bread (adult)
Mealybug	Family Pseudococcidae	-	Fried potato
Stinkbug	Family Pentatomidae	Adult	Apple
Termite	Infraorder Isoptera	Adult	Nutty
Treehopper	Family Membracidae	-	Avocado, zucchini
Wasp	Suborder Apocrita	-	Pine nut
Water boatmen	Family Corixidae	-	Caviar (egg); fish, shrimp (adult)

Farming, production, and processing

See also: Insect farming

Cricket Shelter Modular Edible Insect Farm, designed by Terreform ONE

Crickets being raised for human consumption

Edible insects are raised as livestock in specialized insect farms. In North American as well as European countries such as the Netherlands or Belgium, insects are produced under strict food law and hygiene standards for human consumption.

Conditions such as temperature, humidity, feed, water sources, and housing, vary depending on the insect species. The insects are raised from eggs to larvae status (mealworms, lesser mealworms) or to their mature form (crickets, locusts) in industrialized insect farms and then killed via temperature control. Culled insects may be freeze-dried and packed whole, or pulverized to insect powder (insect flour) to be used in other food products such as baked goods or snacks.

In addition to nutritional composition and digestibility, insect species are selected for ease of rearing by the producer based on factors such as disease susceptibility, feed conversion efficiency, rate of development, and generational turnover.

Insect food products

The following processed foods are produced in North America (including Canada), and the EU:

• Insect flour: Pulverized, freeze-dried insects (e.g., cricket flour).
• Insect burger: Hamburger patties made from insect powder / insect flour (mainly from mealworms or from house cricket) and other ingredients.
• Insect fitness bars: Protein bars containing insect powder (mostly house crickets).
• Insect pasta: Pasta made of wheat flour, fortified with insect flour (house crickets or mealworms).
• Insect bread (Finnish Sirkkaleipä): Bread baked with insect flour (mostly house crickets).
• Insect snacks: Crisps, flips or small snacks (bites) made with insect powder and other ingredients.

Food and drink companies such as the Australian brewery Bentspoke Brewing Co and the South African startup Gourmet Grubb have introduced insect-based beer, a milk alternative, and insect ice cream.

• 
  Insect energy bar made with processed crickets
   
• 
  Insect snacks (bites) with cultivated cricket flour and oat

Food safety

Diagram of risk factors associated with the consumption of edible insects.

Like other foods, the consumption of insects presents health risks stemming from biological, toxicological, and allergenic hazards. In general, insects harvested from the wild pose a greater risk than farmed insects, and insects consumed raw pose a greater risk than insects that are cooked before consumption. Feed substrate and growing conditions are the main factors influencing the microbiological and chemical hazards of farmed insects.

The table below combined the data from two studies published in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety and summarized the potential hazards of the top five insect species consumed by humans.

Insect order	Common name	Hazard category	Potential hazard
Coleoptera	Beetle	Chemical	Hormones
			Cyanogenic substances
			Heavy metal contamination
Lepidoptera	Silkworm	Allergic
		Chemical	Thiaminase
	Honeycomb moth	Microbial	High bacterial count
		Chemical	Cyanogenic substances
Hymenoptera	Ant	Chemical	Antinutritional factors (tannin, phytate)
Orthoptera	House cricket	Microbial	High bacterial count
Hemiptera		Parasitical	Chagas disease
Diptera	Black soldier fly	Parasitical	Myiasis

The hazards identified in the above table can be controlled in various ways. Allergens can be labelled on the package to avoid consumption by allergy-susceptible consumers. Selective farming can be used to minimize chemical hazards, whereas microbial and parasitical hazards can be controlled by cooking processes.

As a further guarantee for consumers, quality labeling has been introduced by the Entotrust programme, an independent and voluntary product certification of insect-based foods, which allows producers to communicate the safety and sustainability of their activities.

Challenges

There are challenges associated with the production, processing, and consumption of insects as food.

Production

Mass production in the insect industry is a concern due to a lack of technology and funds to efficiently harvest and produce insects. The machinery would have to house proper enclosure for each life cycle of the insect as well as the temperature control as that is key for insect development.

Processing

The availability of wild-harvested insects can be seasonally dependent. This presents a challenge, as many wild-harvested insects have a short shelf life, sometimes of only a day or two. Identifying methods of processing and storing that extend the shelf life of seasonal insects will improve the efficiency of their harvest and consumption.

Regulation and authorisation

EU

In the European Union, edible insects – whole or in parts, e.g., legs, wings, or heads – fall within the definition of novel food, given by the European Commission. Dossiers for several insect species are currently under review by the European Food Safety Authority.

In August 2018, EFSA published a first risk profile for the house cricket as food. According to a risk assessment published by EFSA on 13 January 2021, the yellow mealworm is safe for human consumption. On 2 July 2021, EFSA published another scientific opinion stating that migratory locust in frozen, dried or ground state is safe for human consumption. On 17 August 2021, EFSA published a safety assessment with view to house crickets (Acheta domesticus) stating that frozen and dried formulations from whole house crickets are safe for consumption. On 4 July 2022, EFSA published an opinion confirming the safety of frozen and freeze-dried formulations of the lesser mealworm (Alphitobius diaperinus in larval state) for human consumption.

Following EFSA's assessment, the European Commission has authorized the following edible insects as novel food in the EU:

• Dried Tenebrio molitor larvae (mealworms) with the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/882 of 1 June 2021 (in force on 22 June 2021).
• Frozen, dried and powdered forms of migratory locust (Locusta migratoria) with the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1975 of 12 November 2021 (in force on 5 December 2021).
• Frozen, dried and powdered forms of house cricket (Acheta domesticus) with the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/188 of 10 February 2022.
• Frozen, paste, dried and powder forms of lesser mealworm larvae (Alphitobius diaperinus) with the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/58 of 5 January 2023.

Switzerland

On 1 May 2017, Switzerland approved the following insect species as food:

• House cricket (Acheta domesticus)
• European locust (Locusta migratoria)
• Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor as larvae)

Under certain conditions, these may be offered to consumers whole, pulverized, or processed in food products.

UK

After the Brexit transition period, the regulation regarding edible insects changed in the United Kingdom on 21 January 2021, making them non-marketable without authorization. Insect food products that had been on the market had to be recalled. Insect food products have to be authorized by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in a novel food authorization process. In February 2022, UK insect industry association Woven Network CIC submitted a first dossier for the authorization of house crickets (Acheta domesticus) as novel food to the FSA.

USA and Canada

In the USA and Canada, insects for human consumption are not classified as novel food and the import and sale is permitted. In the US, insect food products must comply with FDA standards and food labelling regulations (including allergy risk labelling).

Within the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), the FDA states that "The term 'food' means (1) articles used for food or drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article." Thus, with insects falling under said category, they must be safe and may not bear any added poisonous or added deleterious substance that is unsafe. Said items may not be prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions, and must be produced in accordance with current Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), regulations for manufacturing/processing, packing, or holding human food. The FD&C Act also includes requirements that pertain to the labeling of food and preventive controls, as applicable. Manufacturers have a responsibility to ensure that the food they produce for the United States market is safe and complies with the FD&C Act and FDA's implementing regulations.

In Canada, insects are subject to the same standards and guidelines as other foods sold in stores or online.

Singapore

Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has approved 16 species of insects, such as crickets, silkworms and grasshoppers, for human consumption in the second half of 2023.

The approval of the insects for consumption will be subject to food safety requirements, including treatment processes to kill pathogens and ensuring that they are packed and stored safely to prevent contamination.

Awareness

World Edible Insect Day, held on 23 October, was introduced by Belgian entrepreneur Chris Derudder in 2015 to raise awareness globally for the consumption of edible insects, with a focus on Europe, North America, and Australia.

Fusiform face area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusiform_face_area 

 

Fusiform face area
Human brain, bottom view. Fusiform face area shown in bright blue.
Computer-enhanced fMRI scan of a person who has been asked to look at faces. The image shows increased blood flow in cerebral cortex that recognizes faces (FFA).

The fusiform face area (FFA, meaning spindle-shaped face area) is a part of the human visual system (while also activated in people blind from birth) that is specialized for facial recognition. It is located in the inferior temporal cortex (IT), in the fusiform gyrus (Brodmann area 37).

Structure

The FFA is located in the ventral stream on the ventral surface of the temporal lobe on the lateral side of the fusiform gyrus. It is lateral to the parahippocampal place area. It displays some lateralization, usually being larger in the right hemisphere.

The FFA was discovered and continues to be investigated in humans using positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. Usually, a participant views images of faces, objects, places, bodies, scrambled faces, scrambled objects, scrambled places, and scrambled bodies. This is called a functional localizer. Comparing the neural response between faces and scrambled faces will reveal areas that are face-responsive, while comparing cortical activation between faces and objects will reveal areas that are face-selective.

Function

The human FFA was first described by Justine Sergent in 1992 and later named by Nancy Kanwisher in 1997 who proposed that the existence of the FFA is evidence for domain specificity in the visual system. Studies have recently shown that the FFA is composed of functional clusters that are at a finer spatial scale than prior investigations have measured. Electrical stimulation of these functional clusters selectively distorts face perception, which is causal support for the role of these functional clusters in perceiving the facial image. While it is generally agreed that the FFA responds more to faces than to most other categories, there is debate about whether the FFA is uniquely dedicated to face processing, as proposed by Nancy Kanwisher and others, or whether it participates in the processing of other objects. The expertise hypothesis, as championed by Isabel Gauthier and others, offers an explanation for how the FFA becomes selective for faces in most people. The expertise hypothesis suggests that the FFA is a critical part of a network that is important for individuating objects that are visually similar because they share a common configuration of parts. Gauthier et al., in an adversarial collaboration with Kanwisher, tested both car and bird experts, and found some activation in the FFA when car experts were identifying cars and when bird experts were identifying birds. This finding has been replicated, and expertise effects in the FFA have been found for other categories such as chess displays and X-rays. Recently, it was found that the thickness of the cortex in the FFA predicts the ability to recognize faces as well as vehicles.

A 2009 magnetoencephalography study found that objects incidentally perceived as faces, an example of pareidolia, evoke an early (165-millisecond) activation in the FFA, at a time and location similar to that evoked by faces, whereas other common objects do not evoke such activation. This activation is similar to a face-specific ERP component N170. The authors suggest that face perception evoked by face-like objects is a relatively early process, and not a late cognitive reinterpretation phenomenon.

One case study of agnosia provided evidence that faces are processed in a special way. A patient known as C. K., who suffered brain damage as a result of a car accident, later developed object agnosia. He experienced great difficulty with basic-level object recognition, also extending to body parts, but performed very well at recognizing faces. A later study showed that C. K. was unable to recognize faces that were inverted or otherwise distorted, even in cases where they could easily be identified by normal subjects. This is taken as evidence that the fusiform face area is specialized for processing faces in a normal orientation.

Studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging and electrocorticography have demonstrated that activity in the FFA codes for individual faces and the FFA is tuned for behaviorally relevant facial features. An electrocorticography study found that the FFA is involved in multiple stages of face processing, continuously from when people see a face until they respond to it, demonstrating the dynamic and important role the FFA plays as part of the face perception network.

Another study found that there is stronger activity in the FFA when a person sees a familiar face as opposed to an unfamiliar one. Participants were shown different pictures of faces that either had the same identity, familiar, or faces with separate identities, or unfamiliar. It found that participants were more accurate at matching familiar faces than unfamiliar ones. Using an fMRI, they also found that the participants that were more accurate in identifying familiar faces had more activity in their right fusiform face area and participants that were poor at matching had less activity in their right fusiform area.

In 2020, scientists showed the area is also activated in people born blind.

History

Function and controversy

The fusiform face area (FFA) is a part of the brain located in the fusiform gyrus with a debated purpose. Some researchers believe that the FFA is evolutionary purposed for face perception. Others believe that the FFA discriminates between any familiar stimuli.

Psychologists debate whether the FFA is activated by faces for an evolutionary or expertise reason. The conflicting hypotheses stem from the ambiguity in FFA activation, as the FFA is activated by both familiar objects and faces. A study regarding novel objects called greebles determined this phenomenon. When first exposed to greebles, a person's FFA was activated more strongly by faces than by greebles. After familiarising themselves with individual greebles or becoming a greeble expert, a person's FFA was activated equally by faces and greebles. Likewise, children with autism have been shown to develop object recognition at a similarly impaired pace as face recognition. Studies of late patients of autism have discovered that autistic people have lower neuron densities in the FFA. This raises an interesting question, however: Is the poor face perception due to a reduced number of cells or is there a reduced number of cells because autistic people seldom perceive faces? Asked simply: Are faces simply objects with which every person has expertise?

Chinese characters similar to those used in Fu et al., which elicit a response in the FFA

There is evidence supporting the FFA's evolutionary face-perception. Case studies into other dedicated areas of the brain may suggest that the FFA is intrinsically designed to recognize faces. Other studies have recognized areas of the brain essential to recognizing environments and bodies. Without these dedicated areas, people are incapable of recognizing places and bodies. Similar research regarding prosopagnosia has determined that the FFA is essential to the recognition of unique faces. However, these patients are capable of recognizing the same people normally by other means, such as voice. Studies involving language characters have also been conducted in order to ascertain the role of the FFA in face recognition. These studies have found that objects, such as Chinese characters, elicit a high response in different areas of the FFA than those areas that elicit a high response from faces. This data implies that certain areas of the FFA have evolutionary face-perception purposes.

Evidence from infants

The FFA is underdeveloped in children and does not fully develop until adolescence. This calls into question the evolutionary purpose of the FFA, as children show the ability to differentiate faces. Three-day-old babies have been shown to prefer the face of their mother. Babies as early as three months old have shown the ability to distinguish between faces. During this time, babies may exhibit the ability to differentiate between genders, with some evidence suggesting that they prefer faces of the same sex as their primary caregiver. It is theorized that, in terms of evolution, babies focus on women for food, although the preference could simply reflect a bias for the caregivers they experience. Infants do not appear to use this area for the perception of faces. Recent fMRI work has found no face selective area in the brain of infants 4 to 6 months old. However, given that the adult human brain has been studied far more extensively than the infant brain, and that infants are still undergoing major neurodevelopmental processes, it may simply be that the FFA is not located in an anatomically familiar area. It may also be that activation for many different percepts and cognitive tasks in infants is diffuse in terms of neural circuitry, as infants are still undergoing periods of neurogenesis and neural pruning; this may make it more difficult to distinguish the signal, or what we would imagine as visual and complex familiar objects (like faces), from the noise, including static firing rates of neurons, and activity that is dedicated to a different task entirely than the activity of face processing. Infant vision involves only light and dark recognition, recognizing only major features of the face, activating the amygdala. These findings question the evolutionary purpose of the FFA.

Evidence from emotions

Studies into what else may trigger the FFA validates arguments about its evolutionary purpose. There are countless facial expressions humans use that disturb the structure of the face. These disruptions and emotions are first processed in the amygdala and later transmitted to the FFA for facial recognition. This data is then used by the FFA to determine more static information about the face. The fact that the FFA is so far downstream in the processing of emotion suggests that it has little to do with emotion perception and instead deals in face perception.

Recent evidence, however, shows that the FFA has other functions regarding emotion. The FFA is differentially activated by faces exhibiting different emotions. A study has determined that the FFA is activated more strongly by fearful faces than neutral faces. This implies that the FFA has functions in processing emotion despite its downstream processing and questions its evolutionary purpose to identify faces.

Additional images

• 
  Fusiform face area shown in red