It is debatable whether organic agriculture as a whole is conventionalizing, as historical data are almost absent. However, a short overview of a few organic sectors in the Netherlands shows that the influence of conventional agro-food commodity chains is increasing and that the use of off-farm inputs is high.So current practices in organic agriculture (OA) may have negative effects on issues like energy use, nutrient losses and recycling, even though the practices are compliant with the existing EU-regulation on OA. This reduces the distinguishability of OA, thereby threatening long-term market perspectives and public support. Whether conventionalization is problematic depends on the opinion of what 'organic agriculture' actually entails. It is argued that no conclusions can be drawn about core values of OA in a normative (ethical) sense from sociological research on values of various stakeholders and their motives for being active in the organic chain. Only normative values may function as a guide towards the future, inspiring practices in OA as well as long-term market perspectives and regulatory developments. The OA principles formulated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)on ecology, health, care and fairness do provide such a normative value basis and appear to be firmly rooted in the values of OA identified in the literature. Looking at the consequences of conventionalization in some sectors of OA in the Netherlands, we can conclude that they conflict with all IFOAM principles, in some way, especially with the Principles of Ecology and Health. If the OA sector wants to adhere to these core values and promote long-term market perspectives as well as public support, a development is required that limits conventionalization or mitigates its negative effects. The use of off-farm inputs is an important factor in conventionalization itself and has negative effects on the core organic values. Given the influence of international trade and economic competition, this development will require regulative action at international level that is focused on a reduced use of off-farm inputs (either conventional or organic inputs transported over a long distance).

No abstract

The objections of organic agriculture against genetic engineering as presented in the 2002 Position Statement of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) are analysed. The objections can be grouped into three categories: risks to human health and the environment, socio-ethical objections, and incompatibility with the principles of sustainable agriculture. As to threats to human health and the environment it is argued that scientists contradict each other. Socio-ethical objections indicate that farmers should also be free to choose for or against genetic engineering and therefore the free-choice criterion needs to be specified. The argument of violating the independence of the farmer depends on the present economic situation (e.g. power of multinationals) and does not seem to be a consequence of genetic engineering as such. But as genetic engineering is mainly practised by multinational organizations the argument cannot be seen separate from the economic situation. Genetic pollution is a serious issue, but only because the organic movement is against genetic engineering on principle. Once the philosophical and ethical principles behind the organic concept of sustainability are specified (the third category), almost all the objections listed in IFOAM's Position Statement can be reformulated into good reasons for rejecting genetic engineering. The basic principles are: a holistic methodological approach to living nature, the self-organization (self-regulation) of living nature, and the integrity of living organisms.

Producers, traders and consumers of organic food regularly use the concept of the natural to characterize organic agriculture or organic food. Critics sometimes argue that such use lacks any rational (scientific) basis and only refers to sentiment. We carried out research to (I) better understand the content and the use of the concepts of nature and the natural in organic agriculture, (2) to reconstruct the value basis underlying the use of the concept of the natural in organic agriculture, and (3) to draw implications for agricultural practice and policy. A literature study and the authors' own experience were used to produce a discussion document with explicit statements about the meaning of natural in the different areas of organic agriculture. These statements were validated by means of qualitative interviews with stakeholders.The concept of nature or the natural appeared to be value-laden. The value basis is a normative reconstruction that cannot just be derived from the use of the word natural by organic stakeholders. For this reconstructed concept the word naturalness is used. Naturalness thus becomes an ethical value for organic agriculture, an inspirational guide for organic stakeholders. The value of naturalness refers to a basic respect for the intrinsic value of nature, i.e., the value nature has, independent of the benefits it may have for humans. This manifests itself in three ways: (I) in the use of natural substances, (2) in respecting the self-regulation ofliving organisms and ecosystems, and (3) in respecting the characteristic (species-specific) nature ofliving organisms. If organic stakeholders limit themselves to using natural substances it is called the no-chemicals approach. If they also respect the self-organization ofliving organisms the authors call it the agro-ecological approach. If also the normative element of naturalness is included, it is called the integrity approach.

Abstract