Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 108 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organic Agriculture

Lotter, Donald W.·2003·Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

Abstract

Sustained high rates of growth in sales of certified organic products (OPs) in the U.S. and worldwide, averaging 20–25% yr−1 since 1990, have spurred concomitant growth and activities in production, processing, research, regulation and trade agreements, and exports. The global OP market value in 2001 is estimated to be $20B, and the OP share of total food sales is near 2% in the US and 1–5% in EU countries. Processed OPs have shown particularly rapid growth, often over 100% yr−1. Commercial certified organic agriculture (OA) has spread to over 130 countries worldwide. Demand for OPs is driven by belief that OPs are more healthful, tasty, and environmentally friendly than conventional products (CPs). Evidence for these beliefs is reviewed. While many of the health claims for OPs remain unresolved, there is sufficient evidence to give OPs the edge in healthfulness. Comparative research is needed, particularly bioassays on animals and analyses of the functional components of foods (nutraceuticals). OP/CP taste comparisons are often inconclusive. Evidence for significant environmental amelioration via conversion to OA is very substantial-pesticides are virtually eliminated and nutrient pollution substantially reduced loss of biodiversity, wind and water erosion, and fossil fuel use and greenhouse warming potential are all reduced in OA relative to comparable conventional agriculture (CA) systems. The agroecological characteristics of OA are reviewed-weed, invertebrate, disease, and soil fertility management practices. Yield reductions of OA systems relative to CA average 10–15%, however these are generally compensated for by lower input costs and higher gross margins. Large-scale conversion to OA would not result in food shortages and could be accomplished with a reduction in meat consumption. OA systems consistently outperform CA in drought situations, out-yielding CA by up to 100%. Also reviewed are: methodologies for comparing productivity and sustainability of OA/CA; the core concept that OA is a structurally different system than CA; the characteristics, sociology, and practices of US organic farmers and farms; OA's origins, its pioneers, major institutions; international certification standards and the new (2000) USDA National Organic Program Final Rule; institutional and media support for and biases against OA; OA's increased involvement with social accountability and animal ethics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1300/j064v21n04_06

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 108 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Lotter, D. W.
Venue
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
Published
2003-04
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
59-128
ISSN
  • 1044-0046 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-7578
OpenAlex
W4211256075
Cited by
259
References
108
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organic Agriculture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1300/j064v21n04_06
The paper
Lotter, D. W. (2003). Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1300/j064v21n04_06

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.