Principles of Liability in Negligence in Business Activities

Principles of Liability in Negligence in Business Activities Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Ingrida Miseviciute Table of Contents Task 1 (AC3.1)1 Task 2 (AC3.2)2 Task 3 (AC3.3)3 Task 4 (AC4.1)4 Task 5 (AC4.2)5 References6 LO 3 Understand principles of liability in negligence in business activities Task 1 (AC 3.1) Liability in Tort Contractual liability Definition: A tort is a legal term describing a violation where one person causes damage, injury, or harm to another person. The violation may result from intentional actions, a breach of duty as in negligence, or due to a violation of statutes. Explanation: The party that commits the tort is called the tortfeasor. A tortfeasor incurs tort liability, meaning that they will have to reimburse the victim for the harm that they caused them. In other words, the tortfeasor who is found to be â€Å"liable† or responsible for a person’s injuries will likely be required to pay damages. Damages: Under most tort laws, the injury suffered by the plaintiff does not have to actually be physical. A tortfeasor may be required to pay damages for other types of harm, including emotional distress or a violation of personal rights. Types: Joint Liability Vicarious Liability Liability to/for Third Parties Plaintiff/victim Liability Strict Liability Parent Liability. Definition: Contractual liabilityis defined as liability that does not arise by way of negligence, but by assumption under contract or agreement. Explanation: A contract is a legal binding agreement between two or more persons. When you sign, or agree to the terms of a contract, then you have accepted the contractual liabilities set forth in the document. Damages: Liabilities are things that you can be held accountable for, and may have to repay or replace, in the event that they occur. For example, a renter’sagreement may state that, If upon moving out of the premises stated in the contract, any part of the premises is destroyed, you may be accountable for and have to pay to repair, or replace the damage. Types: Contractual liability can take many forms, but is basically holds you accountable for damages that are stated in the contract. For example, Commercial contracts, domestic contracts and so forth. Task 2 (AC3.2) Negligence is a failure to use reasonable care that results in harm to another party. There are four important elements to a negligence lawsuit that must be proven: The defendant owed a duty, either to the plaintiff or to the general public The defendant violated that duty The defendants violation of the duty resulted in harm to the plaintiff The plaintiffs injury was foreseeable by a reasonable person. Donohughe V Stevenson (1932) This famous case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged manufacturers to have a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the complaint took place in Scotland in 1928, when Ms May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer, purchased by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not of clear glass, Donoghue was not aware of the snail until she had consumed most of its contents. She later fell ill and was diagnosed with gastroenteritis by a doctor. Donoghue subsequently took legal action against the manufacturer of the ginger beer, Stevenson. She lodged a writ in the Court of Sessions (Scotland’s highest civil court) seeking  £500 damages. Because her friend had purchased the drink, Donoghue could not sue on the basis that a contract had been breached; her lawyers instead had to claim that Stevenson had a duty of care to his consumers and that he had caused injury through negligence – an area of civil law that was largely untested at that time. Stevenson’s lawyers challenged the action on the basis that no precedents existed for such a claim. However Donoghue was later granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which then had the judicial authority to hear appellate cases. The leading judgement, delivered by Lord Atkin in 1932, established that Stevenson should be responsible for the well-being of individuals who consume his products, given that they could not be inspected. The case was returned to the original court; Stevenson died before the case was finalised and Donoghue was awarded a reduced amount of damages from his estate. This case established several legal principles: Firstly, that negligence is a distinct tort. A plaintiff can take civil action against a respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property. Previously the plaintiff had to demonstrate some contractual arrangement for negligence to be proven, such as the sale of an item or an agreement to provide a service. Since Donoghue had not purchased the drink, she could prove no contractual arrangement with Stevenson – yet Atkin’s judgement established that Stevenson was still responsible for the integrity of his product. Secondly, manufacturers have a duty of care to consumers. According to Lord Atkin’s ratio decendi, â€Å"a manufacturer of products, which he sells †¦ to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him †¦ owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care†. This precedent has evolved and expanded to form the basis of laws that protect consumers from contaminated or faulty goods. Thirdly, Lord Atkin’s controversial ‘neighbour principle’. Here Atkin raised the question of which people may be directly affected by our actions, our conduct or things we manufacture. â€Å"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be: persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to have them in [mind] when I am I am [considering these] acts or omissions.† Task 3 (AC3.3) Vicarious liability is a situation in which one party is held partly responsible for the unlawful actions of a third party. The third party also carries his or her own share of the liability. Vicarious liability can arise in situations where one party is supposed to be responsible for (and have control over) a third party, and is negligent in carrying out that responsibility and exercising that control. If an employee injures someone in the course of their employment, the employer may be subject to vicarious liability. This simply means that the injured person may be able to win compensation for the harm from the employer, rather than the employee. This is not to say, though, that the employee can always count on getting away scot-free. Even if there is vicarious liability, the injured person does not necessarily give up any right he may have to pursue the employee individually. If, for some reason, the injured person is unable to get full compensation from the employer, then he might seek to recover the balance from the employee. In addition, the employer may well seek reimbursement for any amount paid to the injured person (although in practice this rarely occurs). Generally, employers dispute vicarious liability claims on the following grounds: The person who caused the harm was not an employee, but an independent contractor or other non-employee worker; The employee did not harm the injured person in the course of the employees employment. An illustration of the test is provided by two contrasting cases, [Limpus v London General Omnibus Company] and [Beard v London General Omnibus Company], both involving road collisions. In the former, a driver pulled in front of another rival omnibus, in order to obstruct it. Despite express prohibitions from the employer, they were found liable; this was merely an unauthorised mode of the employee carrying out his duties (driving), not an entirely new activity. By contrast, in the latter case, London General Omnibus Company were not liable where a conductor (employed to collect fares on board the bus) negligently chose to drive the vehicle instead; this was completely outside of his duties. LO 4 Be able to apply principles of liability in negligence in business situations Task 4.1(AC4.1) A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong which unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the act. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime, as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict. Tort law is different from criminal law in that: (1) torts may result from negligent but not intentional or criminal actions and (2) tort lawsuits have a lower burden of proof such as preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes a plaintiff may prevail in a tort case even if the person who caused the harm was acquitted in an earlier criminal trial. For example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in criminal court and later found liable for the tort of wrongful death. Torts may be categorized in several ways, with a particularly common division between negligent and intentional torts. The standard action in tort is negligence. Negligence is a tort which arises from the breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another from the perspective of a reasonable person. The majority determined that the definition of negligence can be divided into four component parts that the plaintiff must prove to establish negligence. The elements in determining the liability for negligence are: The plaintiff was owed a duty of care through a special relationship (e.g. doctor-patient) or some other principle. There was a dereliction or breach of that duty. The tortfeasor directly caused the injury [but for the defendants actions, the plaintiff would not have suffered an injury]. The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of that breach. The damage was not too remote; there was proximate cause to show the breach caused the damage. Elements of Negligence Proximate cause Proximate cause means that you must be able to show that the harm was caused by the tort you are suing for. The defence may argue that there was a prior cause or a superseding intervening cause. A common situation where a prior cause becomes an issue is the personal injury car accident, where the person re-injures an old injury. Duty of care It arises when one party creates a scenario that has the potential to harm the other party. Duty focuses on relationship between the two parties: The test whether the defendant owes a duty of care to plaintiff includes: Would a reasonable person have foreseen that the actions would have caused harm to the plaintiff? Reasonable person represents an objective standard. Breach of duty Breach of duty occurs when a â€Å"reasonable person† is not exercising the degree of care that would have expected from him/her in that situation. Reasonable person is an average person. It does not require perfection, but takes into account that an average person does not foresee every risk. The average person is not assumed to be flawless, but ordinarily careful and prudent. Actual Harm Actual harm could be in the form of physical or emotional injuries, property damages or financial loss. The main remedy against tortious loss is compensation in damages or money. According to the scenario, Chris was in an internet cafe. He got up to purchase a coffee and was slipped on some water that was on the floor and broke his arm. This depends upon the intention of Chris. If Chris slipped intentionally and did foresee this accident, then the cafe’ will not be responsible for the damages caused. If this is not the case, then the elements of negligence need to be applied to see if Chris can claim the damages. Negligence is important aspect to look at, means that the defendant (the cafe’) failed to act in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. For example, it is reasonable to expect that the cafe’ placed a warning signs in recently mopped areas or wet surface. If this is not done, then it means that the cafe’ did not fulfil the duty of care. Chris can claim damages as a result of it as he slipped and broke his arm. There are various implications on the scenario in terms of duty of care, negligence (intentional or otherwise) and it is up to the court to decide the outcome. Task 5 (AC4.2) Two clear elements must be established in order to establish a vicarious liability: Was the tortfeasor the defendant’s employee; and Was the tortfeasor acting in the course of his or her employment at the time the tort was committed. The existence of a relationship of employer and employee Many tests have been suggested for distinguishing between a contract of service and a contract for services. These include: Control test Ready Mix Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) Integration test – Stevenson Jordan Harrison Ltd v MacDonald Evans (1952) Organisation Test – Albrighton v Royal Prince Alfred Hopital (1980) â€Å"The ultimate question will always be whether a person is acting as the servant of another or on his own behalf and the answer to that question may be indicated in ways which are not always the same and which do not always have the same significance†. Conclusion as to whether defendant is an employer or contractor. If the defendant is an independent contractor the employer can’t be vicariously liable for the acts of that contractor. The employer will only be liable (as a primary liability) if the employer’s tortious duty is, in law, non-delegable: Kondis v STA; Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. Was the employee acting within the course of employment? General rule is that whilst acting in the course of employment the employer is not vicariously liable for independent wrongful acts of employees (Bugge Brown). In determining the scope of the employment relationship the actions of the employee must be reasonably incidental to employment i.e. the employer is not vicariously liable if the employee is on a frolic of their own (Joel v Morison). (Situations to consider the necessary authorities) Wrongful mode of completing authorised act – employer vicariously liable (Bugge Brown) Express prohibition by employer not necessarily a defence if the employee’s act was still a mode of doing what he employee was employed to do – employer vicariously liable (Century Insurance Company v Northern Island Road Transport). Acting outside scope of employment relationship – employer not vicariously liable (Koorang Investments v Richardson). Driving cases For example, there are a number of truck driving cases where the court has had to decide whether the driver was acting within the course of his employment when driving the vehicle outside a designated route. Essentially, the pattern seems to be that if the drivers job is to get from Point A to Point B, and his detour from the designated route was simply another way of getting to Point B, then he is acting within the course of his employment. On the other hand, if the driver takes a detour for some other, non-business purpose (such as picking up a girlfriend and taking her shopping) then he would likely be regarded as acting outside the course of his employment. According to the scenario, Trevor is a driver who drives a lorry for a Haulage firm. He delivers deliveries for the company which suggests that he is an employee of the firm. Whilst at work, he detours the lorry and meets his girl friend. This is a non business purpose which means he is acting outside the scope of his duties. As he leaves his girlfriend’s house to continue deliveries, he negligently crashes into a car park. As stated above, two conditions must be met in order to establish a vicarious liability: was the tortfeasor the defendant’s employee; and Was the tortfeasor acting in the course of his or her employment at the time the tort was committed. In this case, the tortfeasor was Chris and the defendant is the Haulage firm. Chris was an employee and also he was acting in the course of his employment to meet his girlfriend and later on crashes his lorry. The vicarious liability is established and hence Chris is liable and not the haulage firm. References Tort Liability (2014). Available: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/tort-law-liability.html. [Last accessed 10 March, 2014] Donoghue V Stevenson (1932). Available: http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-donoghue-v-stevenson-1932/. [Last accessed 12 March, 2014]. Negligence (2014). Available: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/negligence.html?opt=cutm_expid=36075225.Uj6X3hD9S1KR79nt0Iy0tA.1utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F#.UySBAj9_sSM. [Last accessed 12 March, 2014] Accidents and injuries (2014). Available: http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/accident_claims/500045.html. [Last accessed 13 March, 2014] Vicarious Liability (2014). Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in_English_law. [Last accessed 13 March, 2014] Breach of duty (2014). Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_duty_in_English_law. [Last accessed 14 March, 2014] Tort (2014). Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort. [Last accessed 14 March, 2014] Eustace, D, (2007) Negligent Misstatement – Dillon Eustace. Keenan, D., and Smith, K., (2006) Law for Business (13th Edition) Pearson Education Limited. McKendrick, E. Contract Law (2000). fourth edition. McMillan. Basington. Poole, J. Casebook on Contract Law (2001). 5th edition. London. Vickneswaren, K., (1997) Obligations: Contract Law (1st Edition) Old Bailey Press: London.

Wal-Mart Resources

Unit 2 Assignment 1 Introduction Wal-Mart uses a tremendous amount of information resources to build their marketing decision support systems and customer relationship management environment. Wal-Mar’s main objective is to provide their customers with the best value they can find anywhere while providing friendly and efficient customer service. Its strategies are based on reducing costs to quality products so they are able to achieve â€Å"everyday low prices† (Walmart. om, 2013). Wal-Mart has to be able to monitor and analyze all the processes and information possible in order for them to attain a competitive price advantage, lure in new customers, and retain faithful and loyal current customers. Information technology is essential today in helping companies to achieve these goals and Wal-Mart utilizes a great deal of the available information through systems and operations that the retail business encompasses (Walmart. om, 2013). Listed in this paper are the many ways Wal-Mart enlists its information from customers and how it is used by marketing managers to help make marketing decisions and enrich its customer relationship management environment. Information Collected Collected By Wal-Mart Wal-Mart collects information from its customers in a number of ways through the customer’s interaction, whether by in-store activity or website activity.Wal-Mart discloses that it gathers information on customers whenever they create an account on one of their websites, make an online or in-store purchase, use a gift registry, create a mobile shopping list, or submit personal information to Wal-Mart along with any related content of the communication. In addition, they also collect information whenever the customer conducts a transaction where Wal-Mart collects information as required by law.This could include hunting and fishing licenses, request customer service, contact Wal-Mart, submit a Wal-Mart related testimonial, review, story, rating, or any other user-generated content that may be generated on the website, or participate in a contest, sweepstake, promotion, or survey (Wal-Mart. com, 2013). Collected By Other Sources Wal-Mart may receive personal information from other entities that can help the correct or supplement their records, improve the quality or personalization of their services, and help prevent or defer fraud.They may also collect information from consumer reporting agencies or other service providers if you attain certain other financial products (Wal-Mart. com, 2013). Automated Information Collection Wal-Mart also gathers technical information such as the customer’s internet protocol address, device operating system and browser type, the address of a referring website, and the path the customer takes through the Wal-Mart website.Wal-Mart uses â€Å"cookies† to recognize you as you use or return to their website. Wal-Mart also uses web beacons that allows them to know if a certain page was visi ted, an email was opened, or if ad banners on their website and other websites were effective (Wal-Mart. com, 2013). Marketing Information Used Wal-Mart uses information for different purposes but for this paper we will discuss how they use information for marketing purposes. Fill requests for products and services and communicate with the customer about those requests * Administer surveys, sweepstakes, contests, and promotions * Provide customer service * Help improve and customize their service offerings, websites, and advertising * Send information about products, services, and promotions Information Systems Point of Service/Sale System Wal-Mart uses SUSE @ Linux Enterprise Point of Service/Sale system that is supplied by the Novell group vendor (Information, 2007).This system is made up of three primary components: Administration Server, Branch Server, and Point of Service Client Images. The SUSE Linux Enterprise Point of Service Administration runs Wal-Mart’s main office in Bentonville, Arkansas. It records sales from all the stores but also contains a database of goods sold through other sales outlets such as Wal-Mart online shopping. This data also comprises of information like the number of items bought by a user and similar products purchased along with other online statistics.The Branch Server boots the Point of Service clients from the local network, registers new client devices at the website, distributes operating system updates to the client devices, and also stores the sales information as a backup in real time simultaneously as the Administration Server. The Point of Service Client is the indirect interaction between customers when they make any purchases at Wal-Mart. These devices process and record purchases and allows real time coverage of sales and inventory information for all sales.Having this type of information gives marketing managers the tools necessary to make informed decisions about what promotions to run and on what product s in real time. Retail Link Retail Link was developed in 1992 by Wal-Mart’s very own Information Technology Department (Hays, 2004). Using this software Wal-Mart can look at the take up rate for sale items, changes in the number of customer purchases, and the amount the average customer spends during a promotion. Marketing managers will know what products were being bought and what items that the customer may have added on during that purchase.Having that information may give the marketing department the idea to do a promotion with those two items paired up together. Retail Link software can also display to vendors various key information such as the repurchase cycle time of the product, purchase quantity per basket, and provide information such as sales history and sales performance. This allows vendors and Wal-Mart’s marketing managers the ability to simulate what-if situations that can help them make more informed marketing decisions (Hays, 2004).The information gat hered in these systems give marketing managers the intelligence needed to figure out which marketing initiatives have worked in the past, are currently working, or may work in the future in order to prevent wastage of money from ineffective promotions. Wal-Mart uses these systems in order to provide customer satisfaction, everyday low pricing, and to enhance the shopper’s experience (Walmart. com, 2013). Conclusion Wal-Mart collects information on its customers numerous ways. Some sources are transactions, customer service operations, surveys, and website registrations just to name a few.They could, however, come from other sources such as outside companies that help Wal-Mart update its records. Wal-Mart wants to communicate to its customers for feedback through email newsletters, special offers, and new product announcements. Wal-Mart also participates in interest-based advertising, which means the customer may see advertising on its website tailored to how the customer brow ses or shops. This type of information is essential today in accomplishing the goals Wal-Mart has of everyday low pricing and its customer first approach. References Hays, C. L. (2004, November 14). What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits.Retrieved from NY Times: http://www. nytimes. com/2004/11/14/business/yourmoney/14wal. html? oref=login;oref=login Information, W. (2007, January 24). Wal-Mart Taps Microsoft, Novell For Linux Deployment. Retrieved from Information Week: http://business. highbeam. com/137376/article-1G1-158268344/walmart-taps-microsoft-novell-linux-deployment-walmart Walmart. com. (2013). Annual Reports. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from Walmart. com: http://stock. walmart. com/annual-reports Wal-Mart. com. (2013, March 3). Privacy Policy. Retrieved March 3, 2013, from Wal-Mart. com: http://corporate. walmart. com/privacy-security/walmart-privacy-policy

Organic Foods Pdf Essay

Abstract: During the last decade, consumers’ trust in food quality has decreased drastically, mainly because of growing ecological awareness and several food scandals (e. g. BSE, dioxins, bacterial contamination). It has been found that intensive conventional agriculture can introduce contaminants into the food chain. Consumers have started to look for safer and better controlled foods produced in more environmentally friendly, authentic and local systems. Organically produced foods are widely believed to satisfy the above demands, leading to lower environmental impacts and higher nutritive values. So far, studies have partly con? rmed this opinion. Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues but, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars than conventional crops. Organic crops also contain statistically more mineral compounds and usually have better sensory and long-term storage qualities. However, there are also some negatives: plants cultivated in organic systems generally have 20% lower yields than conventionally produced crops. Several important problems need to be addressed in the coming years: environmental, bacterial and fungal contamination of organic crops and, the most essential issue, the impact of organic food consumption on animal and human health.  © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry Keywords: organic plant crops; quality; yield; composition; nutrition; vitamins; phenolics; sugars; nitrates; nitrites; pesticides; dry matter; health; sensory qualities. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE QUALITY OF ORGANIC PLANT FOOD PRODUCTS There are several important factors in?uencing the quality of food products that also are relevant to organically produced plant products. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the basic factors are the quality of the environment (abiotic factors) and the levels of pest and pathogen damage (biotic factors) to which plants are subjected. The main components of the environment (air, water, soil) have to be unpolluted if the crops obtained are expected to be of high nutritive quality. Many environmental contaminants enter the food production chain (soil–plant–animal–human organism), causing signi? cant problems in human health. 1 These contaminants include heavy metals, pesticide residues, nitrogen compounds, mycotoxins, chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), aromatic hydrocarbons (e. g. benzo[a]pyrene), plant growth stimulators (e. g. choline chloride), antibiotics, hormones, radioactive isotopes and plastic substances (monomers). Climate and weather are also important factors, as well as soil type and pH, soil cultivation, fertilisation and conditions of crop storage after harvest. ? Biotic factors can have also a signi? cant impact on crop quality. The main biotic factors are cultivar choice, bacterial and fungal contamination (disease) and pest damage. Cultivars of the same crop species can differ signi? cantly in nutritive quality. For example, the content of ? carotene in carrots (Daucus carota L. ) can vary between 7. 19 and 13. 84 mg g? 1 depending on the cultivar. 2 The main potential source of bacterial contamination in plant crops is animal manure used in organic farming. Contamination can take place via the roots or by water splashing onto the leaf surfaces. The most important organisms are several species of facultative anaerobic bacteria (Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium botulinum, Mycobacterium paratuberculosis), protozoa (Toxoplasma gondii), tapeworms, viruses and prions. The results obtained so far are contradictory. Some studies indicate higher bacterial contamination in organic crops, while others show the opposite. 3 Mycotoxins (produced by fungi) originate mostly in the ? eld but can also develop during storage. Owing to the fact that fungicides are not used Correspondence to: Ewa Rembialkowska, Organic Foodstuffs Division, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw Agricultural University, Nowoursynowska 159 C, PL-02-776 Warszawa, Poland E-mail: ewa rembialkowska@sggw. pl (Received 24 October 2006; revised version received 29 January 2007; accepted 8 February 2007). Figure 1. Factors in? uencing the quality of organic food products. in organic agriculture, some authors believe that organically produced foods will contain higher concentrations of mycotoxins. However, literature reviews show that mycotoxin concentrations are usually similar or reduced in organic compared with conventional products. 4 The most notorious mycotoxins are those produced by Fusarium species on cereal crops and maize. One of the reasons for lower Fusarium infections in organic grains could be the lower nitrogen concentrations in the tissues. 5 Insect pests also exert an in? uence on crop quality. Because of the ban on synthetic pesticides in organic agriculture, insects often damage fruits and vegetables, thereby diminishing their yield and harming their appearance. However, it is not clear whether they also reduce their nutritive quality. In contrast, there is evidence that organically grown plants contain more phytochemicals (which are natural insecticides) and are therefore more resistant to insect damage. 6 They can also play a positive role in human health, because several phytochemicals, being plant defence compounds, are connected with possible health bene? ts (Brandt K, oral presentation at QLIF Congress, Newcastle, 2005). Regulations on organic plant production allow actions that avoid many negative features of crop quality if they are consistently performed by producers. In order to ful? l these demands and to offer highquality products to consumers, an ef? cient and airtight certi? cation and control system must be implemented. In most countries such systems are quite ef?cient, though a rapid increase in the number of organic farms could lead to problems with a subsequent loosening of regulatory control. Therefore the main rule should be ‘trust is good, but control is better’. Moreover, the ? nal quality of organic food products is in? uenced by the effective implementation of 2758 the regulations on animal production and organic food processing. Only precise ful? lment of all these regulations can guarantee the best organic food quality (Fig. 1). IMPACT OF REGULATION ON ORGANIC PLANT PRODUCTION The regulations for organic plant production are clear and detailed. 7 The European Union (EU) regulation published in 19918 contains parts that relate directly to the composition of organic plant products. The most important aspects of this regulation include:7 †¢ a ban on genetic engineering and genetically modi? ed organisms (GMOs); †¢ lower nitrogen levels – a maximum limit for manure application of 170 kg N ha? 1 year? 1 ; †¢ a ban on synthetic pesticides; †¢ a ban on synthetic mineral fertilisers; †¢ a ban on growth promoters. Organic farmers must follow the above regulations if they want to pass the inspection procedure every year and receive a certi? cation document. If all requirements are complied with, several qualitative results can be expected. The most important conclusions from scienti? c comparisons are given below. CONTAMINANTS Nitrates and nitrites A large amount of data shows that the content of nitrates and nitrites is distinctly higher in conventionally cultivated than in organic crops. This is important, because nitrates can easily be converted into nitrites, which can cause a dangerous illness called methaemoglobinaemia in babies, infants and elderly people. 9 J Sci Food Agric 87:2757–2762 (2007) DOI: 10. 1002/jsfa Quality of organic plant products. Moreover, nitrites can react with amines to create nitrosamines, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic substances causing cancer of the digestive tract and leukaemia. 10 This process is dangerous not only for young children but also for adults of any age. Based on a large amount of data, the nitrate content of organic and conventional crops has been compared. On average, the nitrate content of organic crops was 49% that of conventional crops. 11 These and other data provide a basis for stating that organic methods lead to an approximately 50% reduction in the intake of nitrates and nitrites by humans. Pesticides Governments place legal limits, known as the Maximum Residue Level (MRL), on the level of pesticides that can be present in food. The MRL is usually estimated by testing individual pesticides on rats. Governments maintain that consumption of pesticides below the MRL is not a health risk. However, at lower levels, pesticides are known or suspected to cause many diseases and health problems, including cancer. 12 The main problem is that the MRL for pesticides is usually estimated by testing individual pesticides on rats for a relatively short period. Virtually nothing is known about the effects of consuming combinations of potentially hundreds of different pesticides over the course of a lifetime. We do not and cannot know explicitly what is causing what, so precaution is the main tool available to us (Howard V, oral presentation at QLIF Congress, Newcastle, 2005). The levels of pesticide residues found in organic crops are de? nitely lower than those present in conventional crops (Howard V, oral presentation at QLIF Congress, Newcastle, 2005). It can be expected that eating organic foods will result in lower pesticide levels in human milk and body tissues. There is some evidence con? rming this hypothesis. Researchers in France found that the level of pesticide residues in the milk of breast-feeding women decreased signi? cantly with an increase in the proportion of organic food in the daily diet (from 25 to 80%). 13 All available results show that the content of pesticide residues is signi? cantly lower in organic crops, which creates safer health conditions for consumers eating organically. Heavy metals Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, arsenic, mercury and zinc are introduced into the food chain from various sources, including industry, transportation, communal wastes and agriculture. For example, mineral phosphoric fertilisers used in conventional agriculture can introduce cadmium into crops, but the metal industry and transportation also cause cadmium contamination of soils and crops. Therefore there are no clear results in studies comparing the levels of J Sci Food Agric 87:2757–2762 (2007) DOI: 10. 1002/jsfa heavy metals in organic and conventional crops. Some data point to higher levels in conventional crops, while others show the opposite. 11 A problem to be solved is whether organic farming (composting, increasing the organic matter in soil, pH, etc. ) can diminish the intake of heavy metals by cultivated plants. DESIRABLE COMPOUNDS IN PLANTS Vitamins, phenolic compounds and mineral compounds The nutritive value of foods depends mainly on them having the appropriate content of compounds indispensable for proper functioning of the human organism. The content of phyto-compounds in plant foods is a topic of great interest in food science nowadays. A growing body of evidence indicates that secondary plant metabolites (phytochemicals) play a critical role in human health and may be nutritionally important. 14 There are two main theories explaining the factors in? uencing the levels of compounds in plants. 15 The carbon/nitrogen (C/N) balance theory states that, when nitrogen is easily available, the plant will ? rst make compounds with high nitrogen content, e. g. proteins for growth and nitrogen-containing secondary metabolites such as alkaloids, glucosinolates and non-protein amino acids such as the Allium ? avour precursors. When nitrogen availability is limiting for growth, the metabolism changes more towards carboncontaining compounds, e. g. starch, cellulose and non-nitrogen-containing secondary metabolites such as phenolics and terpenoids. The second, newer theory is the growth/ differentiation balance hypothesis (GDBH). 15 It states that the plant will always assess the resources available to it and optimise its investment in processes directed towards growth or differentiation. The term ‘differentiation’ encompasseses increased formation of defence compounds as well as accelerated maturation and seed development. The C/N balance theory is a special and typical case of the GBDH theory, since low nitrogen availability is the most common growth-limiting condition in natural ecosystems. 15 To verify the above theories, several authors investigated the content of some vitamins and phyto-compounds in organically and conventionally produced crops. In order to summarise different data, for each organic–conventional comparison a % difference was calculated: [(organic ? conventional)/conventional] ? 100 The collected data for several desirable components are presented in Table 1. The role of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) in the human organism is basic for several metabolic functions, mainly because it is one of the major cellular direct antioxidants (along with glutathione) and is a 2759 E Rembialkowska Table 1. Contents of desirable components in organic crops relative to those in conventional crops Component Vitamin C Phenolic compounds Iron Magnesium Phosphorus Mean % difference +28. 7 +119. 3 +21. 1 +29. 3 +13. 6 Range (%) ? 38 to +135. 5 ? 56. 6 to +734. 2 ? 73 to +240 ? 35 to +1206 ? 44 to +240 Number of studies 21 15 16 17 18 production and reduces carbohydrate production. Moreover, the increased protein produced in response to high nitrogen levels contains lower amounts of certain essential amino acids such as lysine and therefore has a lower quality with respect to human nutrition. Source: Ref. 17 and author’s own calculations. cofactor for certain enzymes. Vitamin C also supports detoxication and resistance of the human organism. The higher content of vitamin C in organic crops is bene? cial to health, because vitamin C inhibits the in situ formation of carcinogenic nitrosamines, thus diminishing the negative impact of nitrates on the human organism. 10 Therefore organic vegetables can play an important anticarcinogenic role. Plant-based phenolic metabolites are particularly interesting because of their potential antioxidant activity and medical properties, including anticarcinogenic activity. 15 According to Benbrook,16 organic farming has elevated antioxidant levels in about 85% of the cases studied to date and, on average, levels are about 30% higher compared with foods grown conventionally. Mineral compounds containing iron, magnesium and phosphorus are fundamental for human health. According to Worthington,17 the higher mineral content in organic crops may be connected with the higher abundance of micro-organisms in organically managed soil. These micro-organisms produce many compounds that help plants to combine with soil minerals and make them more available to plant roots. Unfortunately, there have been only a few studies on other vitamins such as ? -carotene, B1 and B2 and the results are contradictory. Therefore no general conclusions can be drawn about these compounds. Total sugars A higher total sugar content in plant crops not only improves their taste but is also an important component of their technological quality, e. g. in the case of sugar beet. Studies clearly indicate a higher content of total sugars, mainly sucrose, in organically produced vegetables and fruits such as carrots, sugar beet, red beetroot, potatoes, spinach, Savoy cabbage, cherries, redcurrants and apples. 11,18 Proteins Several studies analysed in review papers11 show that the quantity of crude protein is lower in organic than in conventional crops but that the quality is better as measured by essential amino acid content. According to Worthington,17 nitrogen from any kind of fertiliser affects the quantity and quality of protein produced by plants. Provision of a large amount of nitrogen to a plant increases protein 2760 SENSORY QUALITY OF ORGANIC FOODS Many studies have proved quite unequivocally that vegetables and fruits from organic farms have a better taste and smell. This was found for carrots and potatoes, celery and red beetroot, head cabbage and tomatoes as well as for apples, cherries and redcurrants. 11 Organic fruits contained more total sugars, which probably in?uenced the better taste perception by consumers. Better taste and smell have also been found for bread made from organic grain, which also had better crumb elasticity. 6 Interesting studies have been conducted on animal food preference in which animals were given organic or conventional fodder. Most studies have proved a clear animal preference for foods produced organically; such studies have been conducted on rats, mice, hens and rabbits. 19 Preference for organic fodder was also observed in cases where, according to chemical analyses, both organic and conventional fodder ful? lled all physiological needs of the animals tested. 20 The reason for this was probably the difference in taste between organic and conventional fodder. STORAGE QUALITY OF ORGANIC PLANT CROPS Transpiration losses and decay processes, as well as changes in nutritive value, normally take place during the storage period of potatoes and other vegetables. However, these changes can proceed at different rates and to differing degrees. Most of the available data indicate that the decay process is slower in organic crops, which therefore show better storage quality after the winter period. A review study based on many sources21 concluded that the storage quality of vegetables and fruits was better in the case of plants grown on organic farms (Table 2). The better storage quality of organic crops Table 2. Storage losses of carrots, potatoes and various fruits and vegetables from organic (ORG) and conventional (CONV) farmsa Carrots Potatoes Fruits and vegetables ORG CONV ORG CONV ORG CONV Number of quoted studies Storage loss (% of initial mass) a 15 33 15 40 22 22 22 30 53 28 53 38 Average data based on literature review. 21 J Sci Food Agric 87:2757–2762 (2007) DOI: 10. 1002/jsfa Quality of organic plant products Table 3. Positive nutritive attributes of organic plant products No. 1 2 3 4 5 Attribute Organic crops contain fewer nitrates, nitrites and pesticide residues than conventional crops. There is no clear difference in the content of heavy metals between organic and conventional crops Organic plant products contain, as a rule, more dry matter, vitamin C, phenolic compounds, essential amino acids and total sugars. However, the level of ? -carotene is often higher in conventional plant products Organic plant products contain statistically more iron, magnesium and phosphorus. They also tend to contain more chromium, iodine, molybdenum, selenium, calcium, boron, manganese, copper, potassium, sodium, vanadium and zinc Organic plant products usually have better sensory quality. They have a clearer smell and taste and are sweeter and more compact because of their higher dry matter content Preference for organic products is typical not only for humans but also for animals such as rats, rabbits and hens. This preference was also observed in cases where, according to chemical analyses, both organic and conventional fodder ful? lled all physiological needs of the animals tested Vegetables and fruits from organic production maintain better quality during winter storage, showing lower mass losses due to transpiration, decay and decomposition processes. A possible reason for this is their higher content of dry matter, minerals, sugars and other bioactive compounds 6 Table 4. Negative and unclear aspects of organic plant products No. 1 Negative aspect Plants cultivated in organic systems have, as a rule, signi?cantly (on average 20%) lower yields than conventionally produced crops. This increases their price and creates for many consumers a barrier to buying organic foods Unclear aspect Environmental contamination (heavy metals, PCBs, dioxins, aromatic hydrocarbons) can be similar in organic and conventional crops, because the impact of industrial, transport and communal sources is similar on organic and conventional farms located in the same area Bacterial (mainly Salmonella and Campylobacter) Contamination can sometimes be higher in organic produce, but scienti?c evidence of this is still not clear Mycotoxins can contaminate both organic and conventional foods, but scienti? c data are contradictory The impact of organic food consumption on human health and wellbeing remains essentially unknown in spite of some positive indications, so the subject needs further study 2 3 4 was probably associated with a higher content of dry matter in their ? esh, resulting in less extensive decay and decomposition. Lower losses in organic production have not only nutritive but also economic bene? ts. In conventional systems, high yields are produced but signi?cant losses during storage reduce the economic bene? ts. CONCLUSIONS Recent food crises (BSE, foot and mouth disease, food contamination by dioxins, toxic fungi, Salmonella and Campylobacter bacteria) have caused consumers to look for more authentic and safer foods. Organic food production is widely recognised as being more friendly to the environment, more controlled and better for animal welfare. On the other hand, many data indicate that a lot of food contaminants have their source in conventional methods of agriculture, animal production and food processing. The negative effect of the continuing enthusiastic use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides in agriculture is potentially huge. Therefore safer methods of agricultural production, mostly organic methods, are very important. Studies conducted in various countries have indicated several positive attributes of organic plant J Sci Food Agric 87:2757–2762 (2007) DOI: 10. 1002/jsfa products (Table 3) but also a few negative and unclear aspects (Table 4). To summarise the positives, organic food should be recommended for all, but especially for young babies, pregnant and breast-feeding women, elderly and chronically ill people and vegetarians. The last group obviously consumes a lot of vegetables, which can contain too high levels of carcinogenic substances when produced conventionally. The lower content of nitrates and higher content of phenolic compounds and vitamin C in organic crops are especially important for health. Nitrates are easily converted in the digestive tract into poisonous nitrites, which are the precursors of carcinogenic nitrosamines. This process is hampered by vitamin C, and carcinogenesis is retarded by phenolic compounds and other dietary phytochemicals present at higher levels in organically produced crops. Therefore organic vegetables can play an important anticarcinogenic role. REFERENCES 1 Rembialkowska E, Organic agriculture and food quality, in Ecological Agriculture and Rural Development in Central and Eastern European Countries, Vol. 44 of NATO Science Series, ed. by Filho WL. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 185–204 (2004). 2761 E Rembialkowska ? ? 2 Schuphan W, Biochemische Sortenprufung an Gartenmohren ? ? als neuzeitliche Grundlage fur planvolle Zuchtungsarbeit. Z? chter 2:25–43 (1942). U 3 Franz E, van Bruggen AHC and Semenov AM, Risk-analysis of human pathogen spread in the vegetable industry: a comparison between organic and conventional production chains, in Bayesian Statistics and Quality Modelling in the AgroFood Production Chain, ed. by van Boekel MAJS, Stein A and van Bruggen AHC. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 81–94 (2004). 4 FAO, Food Safety as Affected by Organic Farming (Twentysecond FAO Regional Conference for Europe). [Online]. (2000). Available: www. fao. org/docrep/meeting/x4983. htm. 5 Van Bruggen AHC and Termorshuizen AJ, Integrated approaches to root disease management in organic farming systems. Aust Plant Pathol 32:141–156 (2003). 6 Bjorn G and Fruekilde AM, Cepa onions (Allium cepa L) grown conventionally and organically – similarities and differences. Gron Viden 153:1–6 (2003). (in Danish). 7 Hansen B, Alroe HF, Kristensen ES and Wier M, Assessment of food safety in organic farming. DARCOF Working Paper 52 (2002). 8 EU, Council Regulation No. 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. OJL 198, 22. 7 P. 1 (1991). ? 9 Szponar L and Kierzkowska E, Azotany i azotyny w srodowisku oraz ich wplyw na zdrowie czlowieka. Post Hig Med Do? w s 44:327–350 (1990). 10 Mirvish SS, Vitamin C inhibition of N-nitroso compounds formation. Am J Clin Nutr 57:598–599 (1993). 11 Rembialkowska E, Wholesomeness and Sensory Quality of Potatoes and Selected Vegetables from the Organic Farms. Fundacja ? Rozwoj SGGW, Warszawa (2000). 12 BMA, The BMA Guide to Pesticides, Chemicals and Health. Report of Science and Education. British Medical Association, London (1992). 13 Aubert C, Pollution du lait maternel, une enquete de terre vivante. Quatre Saisons Jardinage 42:33–39 (1987). 14 Lundeg? rdh B and M?rtensson A, Organically produced plant a a foods – evidence of health bene? ts. Acta Agric Scand B 53:3–15 (2003). 15 Brandt K and Molgaard JP, Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? J Sci Food Agric 81:924–931 (2001). 16 Benbrook CM, Elevating Antioxidant Levels in Food through Organic Farming and Food Processing. An Organic Center of Science Review. Organic Center for Education and Promotion (2005). 17 Worthington V, Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. J Alternative Compl Med 7:161–173 (2001). 18 Zadoks JC, Development of Farming Systems. Pudoc, Wageningen (1989). 19 Williams CM, Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green? Proc Nutr Soc 61:19–24 (2002). ? 20 Woese K, Lange D, Boess Ch and Bogl KW, A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods – results of a review of the relevant literature. J Sci Food Agric 74:281–293 (1997). 21 Bulling W, Qualit? tsvergleich von ‘biologisch’ und ‘konventionell’ a erzeugten Feldfruchten. Regierungsprasidium, Stuttgart (1987). 2762 J Sci Food Agric 87:2757–2762 (2007) DOI: 10. 1002/jsfa.

A Trees Importance and Environmental Benefit