Such actions have propelled Korea into a well-being movement the last decade. More and more Koreans exercise, especially in the form of hiking and yoga. Additionally, Koreans are trying to eat healthier, which for many mean eating organic.
Outside of this trend, the most prominent reason Koreans- and other residents of Korea- should eat organic has to do with large amount of pesticides used in produce. According to the Korean Organic Farmers Association, South Korea has one of the highest pesticide/chemical use out of industrialized countries. Korean farms use 15 times more pesticides than the United States. Although the government has intervened, and has the ambitious goal of 50 percent less pesticides by this year, there are still a number of harmful side affects. As a result of the high pesticide use, Korea has a 25 percent cancer rate. Additionally, many children suffer from skin diseases that stem from high pesticide use in food production.
Consequently, the biggest organic buyers tend to be concerned mothers who have children and ageing parents at home. Most women are urban housewives who purchase food for family members.
Interestingly, the term organic has different meanings depending on where you eat. In America, USDA standards of organic depend on how much of the food was created and produced through organic means. In order to qualify as even remotely organic, processed products must contain at least 70 percent of organic ingredients. The labeling standards for Korea are much more focused on the use of chemicals.
The latest labeling system has recently downsized from four categories to three: grown without chemicals and chemical fertilizers for three years (green), grown without agricultural chemicals (blue) and grown with 1/2 chemicals (orange). Unfortunately, most of the "green" farming done in South Korea is "environmentally friendly (2.5 percent)," rather than organic (.2 percent). Under the definition of "environmentally friendly," farmers can still use chemical pesticides and fertilizers, but in smaller quantities.
The majority of local organic products consist of rice and vegetables. Apparently, over 500 metric tons of organic rice are produced each year. Most fruit, however is "environmentally friendly" rather than organic.
Korea's organic food is regulated by the National Agriculture Products Quality Management Service (NAQS) as well as the Korean Food and Drug Administration (KFDA). Although NAQS was the only agency allowed to certify farmers, now the Korean Organic Farmers Association as well as a handful of other non-governmental parties certify farms.
Even with governmental regulations, a number of dubious claims surround the authenticity of Korean organic food. Some reports suggest that organic companies have at times misrepresented their organic status, which led to lost confidence in Korean organics.
The most problematic issue is the definition of Korean organic food. According to an article by Chong-Woon Hong, who is part of the Agricultural Science Institute, there is no precise consensus on the definition of organic farming in Korea. Ultimately, the broad definition focuses on the use of organic materials rather than chemicals and fertilizers.
There are a handful of stores and companies you can purchase organic food and products through. Most E-marts and Lotte department stores carry companies like Pulmone and other organic produce. Along with department stores, iCoop (iccop.or.kr) is a great way alternative to purchasing food in a grocery store. Rather, it's a cooperative of Korean farmers and producers who sell sustainable, local organic food. The food is cheaper versus grocery store purchases, and it includes free delivery. Additionally, there are organic stores like Huckleberry's, which is an organic grocery store that specializes in some imported organic food that include pesticide-free, non-GMO and cage-free options of the organic spectrum.
Regardless if organic produce and products are 100 percent organic, eating Korean organic appears to be better than the alternative, eating potentially-cancerous causing produce.
Lindsey Huster a writer who usually hails from Chicago. She enjoys listening to music,wearing cardigans and generally anything vegetarian.
I am SO happy that you posted this. I'm moving to Seoul in a month from California, and have been immensely curious to know how big the organic movement is in Korea. Do you happen to know if there are any farmer's markets at all in Seoul, especially ones that feature organic (or 'environmentally friendly') produce? Wishful thinking maybe, but it doesn't hurt to dream :)
ReplyDeleteHi Dan, As a noted food blogger in Korea, you should understand that when you delve into some subjects you should pay more care into what you say or post. Organic food is one of those subjects where you need to be more careful of what you personally say and what you allow to be 'guest' posted.
ReplyDeleteLindsay says in her July 22 post, "As a result of the high pesiticide use, Korea has a 25% cancer rate. Additionally, many children suffer from skin diseases that stem from high pesticide use in food production."
Really? According to the Environmental working group (www.ewg.org), "No studies have systematically compared organic food regimens against conventional fare to examine either short term or long term health. The research is simply too expensive, time consuming and difficult to do."
The article continues, "There is no definitive evidence to suggest that eating organic food is directly linked to lower risk of cancer, heart disease, or other ailments."
In response to whether organic is healthier:
Direct of the USDA's Beltsville Nutrition Center, Joseph spence says, "We haven't seen benefits demonstrated from organic food and we have looked...Despite all the claims that have been made, it's really difficult to find any studies that show different nutritional content of organically grown foods."
I know Lindsay's entry is a bit old, but 'organic' is a theme which cycles through food news quite a bit.
danei_2001@yahoo.com
Thanks for the updated info. We've got one of the old 4-label tags on our fridge from when we tore it out of some publication about 4 years ago.
ReplyDeleteNever mind the anonymous post.. I'd certainly never quote either the FDA or the USDA on anything, especially not food! (And yes, I say that as an American.)
the website listed here is wrong it is icoop.or.kr
ReplyDeleteYour link is wrong. its www.icoop.or.kr
ReplyDeleteTo attribute the cancer rates to pesticide use alone is wild. There are a multitude of potential causes for the higher than internationally average cancer rates here. Amongst them are; an aging population, high prevlence of smoking, large alcohol consumption per capita, high salt intake through consumption of pickled food, recent industrialisation and resultant pollution, potential genetic predisposition to cancer and of course the fact that they might just be better at diagnosing cancer than other nations. This last one accounts for the extremly low cancer rates in many developing countries where it is simply never diagnosed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with anynomous your assertion that the 25% cancer rate is a result of high pesticide use is wild. There are a multitude of potential causes for this. Amongst them are; high rates of smoking, high per capita consumption of alcohol, high salt consumption due to the prevelence of pickled food (stomach cancer rates here are the highest in the world), an aging population. I could go on about recent industrialisation, genetics and cancer detection rates but you get the picture. Attributing something so complex to a single thing is just plain wrong. How do you know it is not their black hair that is causing it......
ReplyDeleteAgreed with adabeie. The FDA and USDA has no interest in promoting organic sustainable farming. Before 1920 coronary heart disease was rare in America. Today heart disease causes at least 40 percent of all US deaths. If, as we have been told, heart disease is caused by consumption of saturated fats, on would expect to find a corresponding increase in animal fat in the American diet. Actually, the reverse is true. During the sixty-year period from 1910-1970, the proportion of traditional animal fat in the American diet declined from 83 percent to 62 percent, and butter consumption plummeted from 18 pounds per person per year to four. During the past eighty years, dietary cholesterol intake has increased only 1 percent. During the same period the percentage of dietary vegetable oils in the form of margarine, shortening and refined oils increased about 400 percent while the consumption of sugar and processed foods increased about 60 percent.
ReplyDeleteEating organic, unaltered whole foods is the best way to maintain your health. For more evidence study the cancer rates before chemicals where introduced into the public food supply. There's plenty of research and studies that have linked the effects of chemicals and altered food to poor health and cancer. Obviously there will be opposition to such findings, but I say look at the research from both sides, look at who's funding the research, and use common sense to come to your own conclusions. Not everyone can conduct their own research project, but they can look at both sides of the argument and make a common sense judgments based on the evidence and history.
I don't doubt that organic vegetables are healthy, but poster number 2 who warns against organic propaganda is absolutely right. Those kind of pro-organic arguments are not scientifically valid because they often go into the ancient trap of making correlation equal to causation. The first step should be to find a peer reviewed article from a medical journal suggesting significant health benefits from eating organic food.
ReplyDeleteSo why do I believe organic vegetables are healthy? Because I believe vegetables are healthy, and I doubt pesticides have much of a health benefit. However, I found it ridiculous to blame today's health problems on non-organic food, as I am sure other factors such as a healthy diet (regardless of organicness) and physical activity is much more important.