You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hi I need help with my final paper for college English 103, I have to argue....?
- Thread starter Big Booty
- Start date
Start with the dictionary definition of organic and how the fda defines organic. Talk about how many companies get around these standards and are able to stamp the organic label onto their food when in reality it would never meet the standards of many people purchasing it. You could also link this in with the free range standards and how this is also a term used very loosely. Then go into more specific examples like specific companies and specific products and what it is that most people would be unsatisfied with in the production of their product. Then probably include active groups and organizations that are fighting for higher organic standards ect. Just a start you will have better ideas once you get the ball rolling.
a assignment usually consists of a brief introduction of whats it is about
what to mention
the benifits of organic food (product differances)
the affects non organic foods having on the climate
health benifits
non organic food disadvantages
products used in non organic food like preservtives that are harmful and etc eg chemical used where as organis it isnt blah blha
u can mention GM food too and link it to non organic foods
costs and impact on the nature golbal warming etc
researchs analysis that have proven ornagic food is better etc
make sure your wording very persuasive and argumentative and clear and precisley to the point that you are making
hope that is some help to you
what to mention
the benifits of organic food (product differances)
the affects non organic foods having on the climate
health benifits
non organic food disadvantages
products used in non organic food like preservtives that are harmful and etc eg chemical used where as organis it isnt blah blha
u can mention GM food too and link it to non organic foods
costs and impact on the nature golbal warming etc
researchs analysis that have proven ornagic food is better etc
make sure your wording very persuasive and argumentative and clear and precisley to the point that you are making
hope that is some help to you
Chaely. (:
New member
Not sure how you should start it exactly - I always get papers and spend hours thinking of the perfect way to start it, which will be no help to you because you're probably in a hurry to get this done. But you should mention that organic food is better for the body and can help a person live so many years longer. Research statistics on organic food and explain how high fat and sugary foods can lead to diabetes, obesity, and other health problems and how organic food helps give someone more energy.
You gotta love wikipedia
Certification issues
Organic certification is not without its critics. Some of the staunchest opponents of chemical-based farming and factory farming practices also oppose formal certification. They see it as a way to drive independent organic farmers out of business, and to undermine the quality of organic food. [4] Other organizations such as the Organic Trade Association work within the organic community to foster awareness of legislative and other related issues, and enable the influence and participation of organic proponents.
[edit] Obstacle to small independents
Originally, in the 1960s through the 1980s, the organic food industry comprised mainly small, independent farmers, selling locally. Organic "certification" was a matter of trust, based on a direct relationship between farmer and consumer. Critics view regulatory certification as a potential barrier to entry for small producers, by burdening them with increased costs, paperwork, and bureaucracy.
The pressures of certification on the small farmer producing for the local food market are real and significant, particularly for mixed vegetable production. For instance, certified organic seed is expensive, and the selection is limited: currently, organic seed generally costs 30-50%[citation needed] more than that of uncertified seed, and only a handful of varieties of each crop are available, compared to dozens of varieties in uncertified seed. Seed producers face the same constraints in certification as do organic farmers, however, unlike farmers who choose to farm organically for an identified market, the majority of smaller scale demand is for uncertified seed. Also, the detailed record-keeping formats, from planting to harvest, are usually designed for larger, single-crop harvests; observed strictly, the paperwork can be onerous for farmers harvesting a wide variety of crop in small quantities on daily or weekly schedules. Balancing strict, rule-based certification with practical concerns such as these necessitates "case-by-case" exceptions for all but the biggest organic farmers to survive within the system. Regardless of the intentions, strict certification in practice favors large-scale production.[citation needed]
[edit] Manipulation of regulations
Critics of formal certification also fear an erosion of organic standards. Provided with a legal framework within which to operate, lobbyists can push for amendments and exceptions favorable to large-scale production, resulting in "legally organic" products produced in ways similar to current conventional food.[5] Combined with the fact that organic products are now sold predominantly through high volume distribution channels such as supermarkets, the concern is that the market is evolving to favor the biggest producers, and this could result in the small organic farmer being squeezed out.
Manipulation of certification regulations as a way to mislead or outright dupe the public is a very real concern. Some examples are creating exceptions (allowing non-organic inputs to be used without loss of certification status) and creative interpretation of standards to meet the letter, but not the intention, of particular rules. For example, a complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against Bayliss Ranch, a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent, charged that tap water had been certified organic, and advertised for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water introduced during the distilling process, were certified organic, and promoted as an organic base that could then be used in a claim of organic content. The case was dismissed by the USDA, as the products had been actually used only in personal care products, over which the department at the time extended no labeling control. The company subsequently adjusted its marketing by removing reference to use of the extracts in food products. Several months later, the USDA extended its organic labeling to personal care products; this complaint has not been refiled.[6]
In December 2005, the 2006 agricultural appropriations bill was passed with a rider allowing 38 synthetic ingredients to be used in organic foods. Among the ingredients are food colorings, starches, sausage and hot-dog casings, hops, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, and gelatin. This allowed Anheuser-Busch in 2007 to have its Wild Hop Lager certified organic "even though [it] uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides."[7][8]
[edit] Misrepresentation of the term organic
The word organic is central to the certification (and organic food marketing) process, and this is also questioned by some. Where organic laws exist, producers cannot use the term legally without certification. To bypass this legal requirement for certification, various alternative certification approaches, u
Certification issues
Organic certification is not without its critics. Some of the staunchest opponents of chemical-based farming and factory farming practices also oppose formal certification. They see it as a way to drive independent organic farmers out of business, and to undermine the quality of organic food. [4] Other organizations such as the Organic Trade Association work within the organic community to foster awareness of legislative and other related issues, and enable the influence and participation of organic proponents.
[edit] Obstacle to small independents
Originally, in the 1960s through the 1980s, the organic food industry comprised mainly small, independent farmers, selling locally. Organic "certification" was a matter of trust, based on a direct relationship between farmer and consumer. Critics view regulatory certification as a potential barrier to entry for small producers, by burdening them with increased costs, paperwork, and bureaucracy.
The pressures of certification on the small farmer producing for the local food market are real and significant, particularly for mixed vegetable production. For instance, certified organic seed is expensive, and the selection is limited: currently, organic seed generally costs 30-50%[citation needed] more than that of uncertified seed, and only a handful of varieties of each crop are available, compared to dozens of varieties in uncertified seed. Seed producers face the same constraints in certification as do organic farmers, however, unlike farmers who choose to farm organically for an identified market, the majority of smaller scale demand is for uncertified seed. Also, the detailed record-keeping formats, from planting to harvest, are usually designed for larger, single-crop harvests; observed strictly, the paperwork can be onerous for farmers harvesting a wide variety of crop in small quantities on daily or weekly schedules. Balancing strict, rule-based certification with practical concerns such as these necessitates "case-by-case" exceptions for all but the biggest organic farmers to survive within the system. Regardless of the intentions, strict certification in practice favors large-scale production.[citation needed]
[edit] Manipulation of regulations
Critics of formal certification also fear an erosion of organic standards. Provided with a legal framework within which to operate, lobbyists can push for amendments and exceptions favorable to large-scale production, resulting in "legally organic" products produced in ways similar to current conventional food.[5] Combined with the fact that organic products are now sold predominantly through high volume distribution channels such as supermarkets, the concern is that the market is evolving to favor the biggest producers, and this could result in the small organic farmer being squeezed out.
Manipulation of certification regulations as a way to mislead or outright dupe the public is a very real concern. Some examples are creating exceptions (allowing non-organic inputs to be used without loss of certification status) and creative interpretation of standards to meet the letter, but not the intention, of particular rules. For example, a complaint filed with the USDA in February 2004 against Bayliss Ranch, a food ingredient producer and its certifying agent, charged that tap water had been certified organic, and advertised for use in a variety of water-based body care and food products, in order to label them "organic" under US law. Steam-distilled plant extracts, consisting mainly of tap water introduced during the distilling process, were certified organic, and promoted as an organic base that could then be used in a claim of organic content. The case was dismissed by the USDA, as the products had been actually used only in personal care products, over which the department at the time extended no labeling control. The company subsequently adjusted its marketing by removing reference to use of the extracts in food products. Several months later, the USDA extended its organic labeling to personal care products; this complaint has not been refiled.[6]
In December 2005, the 2006 agricultural appropriations bill was passed with a rider allowing 38 synthetic ingredients to be used in organic foods. Among the ingredients are food colorings, starches, sausage and hot-dog casings, hops, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, and gelatin. This allowed Anheuser-Busch in 2007 to have its Wild Hop Lager certified organic "even though [it] uses hops grown with chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides."[7][8]
[edit] Misrepresentation of the term organic
The word organic is central to the certification (and organic food marketing) process, and this is also questioned by some. Where organic laws exist, producers cannot use the term legally without certification. To bypass this legal requirement for certification, various alternative certification approaches, u
Organic is a bogus term. All food is organic. Start there. People should start calling it premium food or something.
Anyway, do you absolutely have to argue on that side? If you do, I'd start with the idea that there should be some sort of pedigree food has to meet in order to use the "organic" title. Consumers aren't really in the position to demand anything, but they can make their own decisions about what is healthy and good for the economy (locally grown).
I guess I come into here a little biased because I believe that "organic" food is just another marketing tactic.
Anyway, do you absolutely have to argue on that side? If you do, I'd start with the idea that there should be some sort of pedigree food has to meet in order to use the "organic" title. Consumers aren't really in the position to demand anything, but they can make their own decisions about what is healthy and good for the economy (locally grown).
I guess I come into here a little biased because I believe that "organic" food is just another marketing tactic.