Organic food continues to gain market share, despite troubles in the economy as a whole. This is especially true in Europe and in environmentally conscious enclaves like college towns — but what is perhaps most exciting to some observers is that organic foods have also penetrated much of mainstream culture, appearing in force at major supermarkets, big box retailers, and at fast-food joints. Most everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the USDA organic label now, but what's really behind that iconic seal?

More From Delish

Here we take a look at some of the myths and surprising facts about organic foods:

Organic Isn't Always the Smartest Choice

As food writer Mark Bittman recently wrote in the New York Times, to some, organic "seems to have become the magic cure-all, synonymous with eating well, healthfully, sanely, even ethically." However, according to Bittman, "Eating organic offers no guarantee of any of that. And the truth is that most Americans eat so badly — we get 7% of our calories from soft drinks, more than we do from vegetables; the top food group by caloric intake is 'sweets'; and one-third of [the] nation's adults are now obese."

To some observers, the most eco-friendly, and healthy, option is to eat lower on the food chain, since meat has a disproportionate impact on the planet and can contribute to health problems. Simply eating more plants and whole grains can also be a cheaper option than buying organic foods, which, we know, can often be more expensive than conventional alternatives. Eating less processed and prepared foods, and cooking more at home, can provide similar benefits.

It's also true that an organic label provides no information about where an item was produced, leading some critics to complain that it would be greener for them to buy an apple from the orchard up the street than to get an organic one at a grocery that has been flown in from New Zealand. Sometimes eating locally and in season can be the greenest option, although some also warn that the "food miles" debate can be overstated, particularly when it comes to the high production resources needed for meat. (According to research from Cornell University, beef production requires a ratio of energy expended to protein content of 54:1, compared with just 4:1 for chicken.)

For us at The Daily Green, the takeaway message is that we don't have to be organic purists to eat better. We try to eat local, seasonal, and organic foods, choosing each product as it makes sense for us and falls within our budget. We relish the fact that more choices are becoming available, and we vote with our food dollars for tastier, greener fare.

Like many movements, the modern organic food revolution has experienced some growing pains. It's no secret that raising food sans industrial pesticides and genetic engineering started as a hippie notion, an outgrowth of the back-to-the-land movement and the countercultural '60s. But organic food has become much more popular and mainstream in recent years, accounting for 3 to 4% of U.S. food sales and climbing. One can now find organic products in practically every venue coast to coast. In Europe organic products are even more popular. In the UK, for example, 40% of baby food consumed is now organic.

Before the Green Revolution transformed agribusiness with the promise of greater automation and efficiency, of course, everything was de facto organic. But today's organic foods are much more sophisticated than what your grandparents planted. The movement isn't just about what farmers don't use, it also is supported with a growing body of research and scientific knowledge. Today's organic farmers don't just beg for mercy from pests and disease, they have an increasing arsenal of soil-building, pest-deterring techniques that are far from backward or antiscientific.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

And organic products are being marketed and sold by some of the world's largest companies. According to a handy chart made (and last updated in June) by Professor Phil Howard at Michigan State University, Hershey's bought organic chocolate maker Dagoba in 2006. Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006; Coke picked up Odwalla in 2001; Nestle owns Tribe Mediterranean Foods; Kellogg owns Morningstar Farms, Kashi, Gardenburger and Bear Naked; and ConAgra owns Lightlife. General Mills, Cargill, Kraft, Cadbury, M&M Mars and others also own a host of natural brands. The conglomerate Hain Celestial Group is a major player in the sector.

More From Delish

A number of consumers have cried foul after big company Dean Foods took over Silk soymilk, and then quietly changed the product from organic to conventional. Dean's move was symbolic to those who resent what they feel has been a corporate takeover of their ideals. Still, others praise the fact that organic foods are now more available and mainstream-friendly. Some argue that organic should become more affordable as a result, while some skeptics question the real benefits for consumers in an age of business consolidation.

The Daily Green's founder, Deborah Barrow, argued that mergers and acquisitions are the natural progression of a sector's growth, and said some consolidation is probably necessary in a world still dominated by Wal-Mart and Nestle. Business critics challenge that it seems unlikely for profit-motivated, multinational organizations to stay focused on core organic principles.

At a recent tour of Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture in Westchester County, New York, a guide told us that the fresh produce grown on the picturesque show farm isn't certified organic. "We go beyond the organic standards here, and have a more holistic approach to raising the best, freshest food possible," she explained. When asked about the organic program, she said, "We have some issues with it."

It is perhaps not surprising that some farmers would have problems with the USDA organic standards, even those who are committed to sustainable production. Farming is complicated, difficult work, and there is a lot of variability in terms of climate, geography, and local issues. So some people believe USDA organic is too "one size fits all." Still, to its credit, the organic rules weren't developed overnight — they were hashed out by a diverse array of stakeholders in a process that took roughly 10 years. The goal was a program that works for producers as well as consumers, though not everyone is totally satisfied.

To some small farmers, the costs of getting certified organic are too high. Others complain that it takes too much bureaucratic red tape. "If I was to get certified organic I'd spend all my time doing paperwork and no time actually farming," one local farmer told me at a New York City farmers' market. Other critics argue that organic isn't inclusive enough in measuring food miles, seasonality, or animal welfare, or they don't trust government agencies or certifiers.

Grace Gershuny of GAIA Services in Vermont criticizes the organic program as too focused on chasing fickle consumer attitudes, instead of working for farmers on the ground who are trying to do the right thing. She disparages it as a "marketing program," and argues, "Established players want to tighten their standards to limit competition by potential new entrants. It has nothing to do with protecting consumer interests, and works against consumers by maintaining high prices and limited supply for products that may not be demonstrably superior."

Joan Shaffer, a spokesperson for the U.S. Agriculture Department, confirmed to the New York Times that the organic system "is a marketing program that sets standards for what can be certified as organic. Neither the enabling legislation nor the regulations address food safety or nutrition."

So what's a consumer to think? Visit a co-op in Berkeley or Vermont and you might hear some "dark green" folk turning their studded noses up at USDA certified organic. The label might not please everyone, but it is one of the more rigorous consumer programs out there in any category. It certainly is no rubber stamp, either.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture standards, a food product can be labeled as "100% Organic," "Organic," or "made with organic ingredients." To be 100% Organic, the item can contain only organically produced ingredients. "Organic" means that 95% of the ingredients listed must be organically grown.

Except... a few years ago the USDA formalized its list of ingredients that are exempt from the above, as a result of petitions from suppliers alleging that they are too difficult to source in organic forms. So there is a list of 38 ingredients that don't have to be organic even if a food is labeled as such. These include celery powder, sausage casings, some colorings, fish oils, hops, and others. The ultimate goal is to have all these ingredients sourced organically, although we are currently in a transition period.

More From Delish

In addition, there is still heated debate about how, and if, organic rules should be applied to other products besides food. The program is overseen by the USDA, which does not have jurisdiction over cosmetics (that's the FDA) or clothing. There are a number of other certification systems that touch on these areas, including fair trade and sweatshop-free, but currently it isn't clear how manufacturers can apply the term "organic" to other things (some have gone so far as to voluntarily meet the food-grade standards, while others argue that different sectors need different rules).

Unfortunately, this all means that even the well-known term "organic" has some limitations. (Yes we know it has a different meaning in chemistry, but this is the term the current movement has inherited.)

Supporters of the big agribusiness status quo routinely attack organic foods by trotting out old arguments that they couldn't possibly feed the whole world. This is a particular favorite of Alex and Dennis Avery of the conservative Hudson Institute (which is funded by Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Novartis, and others in the sector). However, there are a number of problems with this argument.

For one thing, agribusiness is in business to make money, not to "feed the world." If they really wanted to "feed the world," all it would take is $13 billion, according to some estimates. That's the amount Americans and Europeans spend on perfume every year. Monsanto alone made $4.23 billion in profits in 2007 and expects to make roughly $10 billion in profits in 2012. If its primary goal was to "feed the world," it would certainly be easier to divert some of its considerable profit to strategies we know work (you know, like giving people food) than to develop some purported silver bullets that might not turn out to be so great. In secret. Without the input of the folks you supposedly want to help.

Further, some experts have estimated that half the food grown in the world is wasted. Most of the rest is unfairly distributed. Given that we do such a poor job on these fronts it seems a bit irresponsible to assume that improving yields in the short term will somehow make hunger go away. In real numbers, there are more hungry people now in the world than there were before the start of the Industrial Revolution, so technology does not always equal more full bellies.

But a fundamental thing that people often miss in this argument, and one that's hard to stress enough, is that organic agriculture is not antitechnology. Author Michael Pollan made this point recently, arguing that "we wouldn't be doing developing nations a favor by exporting a fossil fuel-dependent ag system when it's clear that fossil fuels are only going to become more scarce and expensive." Instead, today's organic farmers are taking advantage of the latest knowledge on fighting pests and improving soil, and as the fruits of such labors become more popular, R&D budgets will swell, further improving organic technology.

In 2007, scientists at the University of Michigan published research that concluded: "Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries as low-intensive methods on the same land." The scientists said this "refute[s] the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population."

An ongoing long-term study at the University of California at Davis has shown that yields of organic systems have been comparable, and in some cases, higher than conventional systems for all crops tested — tomato, safflower, corn, and beans. Interestingly, organic corn has shown higher variability than conventional, with lower yields some years and higher in others. However, over 15 years, soil fertility was enhanced in the organic systems, while it degraded considerably in conventional systems. In a serious drought in 1999, according to the Rodale Institute, yields of organic soybeans were 30 bushels/acre, compared to only 16 bushels/acre for conventional. This suggests that the healthy, holistic approach of organics may help plants become better able to survive challenges.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

According to a review of a large number of studies across several decades (published by the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture as The Economics of Organic Grain and Soybean Production in the Midwestern United States), in all cases organic production was equivalent to, and in many cases better than, conventional.

The more we learn about organic agriculture, which is evolving rapidly, the more a picture of abundance — not sacrifice — emerges.

The controversy over whether organic foods are better for You the Consumer than conventional alternatives recently got stirred up by a British Food Standards Agency report, which argued that there isn't enough evidence to make a determination. Critics have pointed out that there are many problems with that British review, however.

The British study also did not look at total antioxidant content, and it made no mention of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, and other nasty stuff that can appear in conventional food, and which is one of the main reasons why people buy organic: so they will get less of this toxic stuff. (The study also made no mention of animal welfare or environmental effects, though this post is about nutrition.)

A March 2008 review of more than 100 studies in the scientific literature, conducted by The Organic Center, confirmed the "nutritional superiority of plant-based organic foods." The review concluded that organic foods were nutritionally superior in 145 matched pairs, or in 61% of the cases, while conventional foods were more nutrient dense in 87 matched pairs, or 37%. There were no differences in 2% of the matched pairs. Further, the organic samples contained higher concentrations of important polyphenols and antioxidants in about three-quarters of the 59 matched pairs representing those four phytonutrients.

Clearly, we need more research on the possible health benefits of organic foods. That's not the only reason why people are buying them, but it is an important one, and we need more data. Still, we think it's fair to say that critics are clearly wrong when they try to argue that there is "no evidence whatsoever" that organics are better than conventional foods. We need more evidence, but there are some early signs that organic supporters may have been right all along.