Recent advances in organic agriculture: innovations, challenges, and opportunities

Organic agriculture has become a more sustainable option compared to conventional agriculture, emphasizing biodiversity, healthy soils, and restrained pesticide applications. The purpose of this review is to integrate advances in cross-regional organic agriculture, with a special focus on how policy contexts, certification schemes, and technological advancements interact to influence adoption and sustainability levels. It highlights the developments, challenges, and sustainable outcomes of organic agriculture systems in four major regions of the world, including India, Europe, Malaysia, and the United States. Comparative analysis indicates that policy-based models, such as the EU’s Green Deal, which aims to have 25% of agricultural land under organic farming by 2030, have accelerated the adoption of organic agriculture. In contrast, U.S. systems, although yielding 10–18% less, have 22–35% higher profitability due to market incentives and USDA programs. It also seeks to contrast regional models of organic farming, providing a brief overview of policy regimes, certification systems, technological innovations, and disease management strategies in organic farming. In India, indigenous practices and Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) provide support to smallholder farmers. Europe stands in stark contrast to the overarching policy interventions outlined in the Green Deal. The United States focuses on market-led growth in the organic agriculture sector. Concurrently, Malaysia integrates government incentives, urban agriculture, and private-public partnerships, especially for highland regions like the Cameron Highlands, to encourage organic vegetable production. Despite the economic and environmental advantages of organic agriculture, it is facing regulatory complexity, the cost of certification, and yield gaps. Emerging evidence on artificial intelligence and precision technologies suggests enhanced efficiency in nutrient and pest management in organic systems. Together, these findings underscore the promise of organic agriculture, provided that future research targets low-cost biocontrols, climate-resilient varieties, and AI-based precision tools.

Introduction

Organic agriculture (OA) has gained increasing attention worldwide as a sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture. Defined as an ecological production system that enhances biodiversity, restores soil health, and minimizes synthetic inputs, organic agriculture aligns closely with global sustainability goals (Gamage et al., 2023). By the end of 2023, the world’s organic farming land had been managed by 4.3 million organic farmers. At the same time, retail sales of organic food reached approximately USD 148 billion in 2023 (FiBL, 2023a; FiBL, 2023b; FiBL Statistics, 2023). As of 2023, organic farming covered 19.5 million hectares of agricultural land in Europe, of which 17.7 million hectares were within the European Union (FiBL Statistics, 2023).

Organic food sales in the United States have increased consistently at an average annual rate of approximately 7%, rising 3.4% in 2023, indicating further growth of the organic market nationally and internationally (the USDA, 2025b; USDA-ERS, 2023; The Organic Trade Association, 2023; Skorbiansky, 2025; Carlson et al., 2023). Similar trends are evident in Europe, Malaysia, and India, where consumer preferences for pesticide-free, environmentally friendly produce have driven the adoption of organic practices (Parikh, 2023; USDA, 2025a; 2025b).

In 2023, among the top 10 countries for certified organic agricultural areas, the USA ranks 9th globally, with over 2 million hectares dedicated to organic cultivation (Figure 1). High-value crops and federal policy initiatives primarily support this growth. In contrast, Malaysia is not among the top 10. Still, it has shown consistent growth due to initiatives such as the Malaysia Organic Scheme (myOrganic), urban farming efforts, and support for export-oriented high-value crops (Somasundram et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2021). By 2023, Malaysia’s certified organic agricultural land area had reached approximately 1,386 hectares, according to FiBL statistics, and is projected to remain at this level by 2025.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Bar chart displaying the organic area in million hectares (Mha) from 2019 to 2023 across various countries. Australia leads with the largest area, followed by India, Argentina, and others. Each country has bars for each year, with 2023 shown in blue, 2022 in red, 2021 in green, 2020 in purple, and 2019 in light blue. Data represents the total organic agricultural area (including cropland, pasture, and rangeland). Source: FiBL Statistics, 2023 and https://statistics.fibl.org/world/area-world.html.

The gaps in organic farming are complex and interconnected, spanning from financial limitations to societal attitudes. The economic cost of the shift to organic farming is the most daunting challenge for farmers. The practice of organic agriculture sometimes demands significant initial investments in organic inputs, including biofertilizers, organic seeds, and natural methods of pest control, which are often more costly than their traditional counterparts. Moreover, the period of transition, typically lasting two to three years, during which farmers must follow organic practices without the option of selling their products as organic, can be accompanied by smaller yields and lower revenue (Dou et al., 2025; Mahedi et al., 2025).

Organic agriculture focuses on enhancing soil fertility, conserving biodiversity, and promoting ecological resilience. Techniques such as crop rotation, composting, green manuring, and biological pest control not only improve soil structure and nutrient content but also reduce the risk of soil erosion and contamination (Padel, 2001; Padel et al., 2025; Panday et al., 2024). Research has demonstrated that organic soils contain higher levels of organic carbon, which enhances their ability to sequester carbon and mitigate the impacts of climate change (Niggli et al., 2017).

However, despite the rapid global expansion of organic agriculture, a research gap remains in cross-regional synthesis that links certification systems, technological innovations, and policy effectiveness.

Review aim

This study aims to review the current state of organic farming, identify challenges, and compare regional models. It also provides an overview of policies, certification schemes, technological innovations, and strategies for managing plant diseases.

Review objectives

1. To review the present OA production methods and technologies across various countries.

2. To assess the knowledge gaps and current challenges faced by OA systems.

3. To highlight future directions and innovative approaches that can enhance OA and improve disease management strategies.

This review offers a comparative overview of organic agriculture systems in India, Europe, Malaysia, and the United States. It provides a snapshot of organic agriculture across selected regions, focusing on representative examples to illustrate general trends, challenges, and innovations, rather than offering extensive data coverage of the mentioned countries and subregions for clarity. Our purpose is to provide a comparative overview of OA across regions with well-established systems, such as the EU and the USA, and emerging systems, including India and Malaysia.

Organic agriculture in India, Malaysia, Europe, the USA

India

India’s success is rooted in its rich agro-biodiversity and traditional knowledge systems. However, the country faces challenges such as high certification costs and limited availability of untreated seeds, as well as risks of contamination from genetically modified crops (Sivaraj et al., 2017). Despite these challenges, several successful organic agriculture models have emerged, each employing diverse strategies (Figure 2). For example, the “Integrated Organic Farming Systems (IOFS)” model combines crop-livestock integration and crop rotation to optimize resource use and enhance soil health (Krishnaprabu, 2019; Devi et al., 2024). Another model, “Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF),” is a cost-effective approach that utilizes local resources like manure and biofertilizers (Duddigan et al., 2022). Additionally, community-supported agriculture (CSA) is gaining traction in urban and semi-urban areas, establishing direct connections between producers and consumers (Tay et al., 2024).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Flowchart illustrating an integrated organic farming system across one to two hectares. Key components include a sustainable crop production unit using organic inputs; a livestock unit providing manure; vermicomposting transforming waste into soil amendments; a biogas plant providing renewable energy; agroforestry integrating nitrogen-fixing trees; apiculture for pollination; and sustainable aquaculture practices using fishpond sludge. Organic certification and market linkages add value through farmer organizations. The system emphasizes ecological balance and sustainability Krishnaprabu, 2019; Devi et al., 2024; Tay et al., 2024).

Recent studies propose strategic models aimed at empowering Indian farmers through the adoption of organic agriculture. For instance, a survey of “Socioeconomic Models” found that farmers in Tamil Nadu reported improved livelihood security after adopting organic practices. Key factors contributing to this success include educational background, media exposure, and extension support (Philip and Sivaraj, 2018). Within this framework, the Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) model serves as a cost-effective alternative to formal certification, allowing smallholders to access organic markets (Devi et al., 2024). Furthermore, the concept of Market-Led Organic Agriculture emphasizes direct procurement and value addition, thereby promoting farmer profitability (Naik et al., 2024). India holds the record for having the highest number of farmers (producers) engaged in organic farming, among 187 countries. India accounts for 30% of the global total of organic producers, covering 2.30 million hectares. The total area under organic cultivation stands at 2,759,660 hectares, with 1,160,650 farmers practicing under the PGS system and 1,599,010 under India Organic certification, along with 1,703 processors and 745 traders (NCONF, 2025).

Malaysia

Malaysia’s organic agriculture sector has made significant strides by implementing innovative strategies, including urban agriculture and integrated pest management (IPM). Malaysia’s interest in organic practices gained momentum in the 1990s, with formal recognition in policy emerging in the early 2000s (Somasundram et al., 2016). Initially, the focus was on key crops such as rice and palm oil (Vasudevon, 2013; Parveez et al., 2020). Over time, projects in peri-urban and urban agriculture, including the GK Organic Farm, have played a crucial role in promoting polyculture and agroforestry systems. GK Organic Farm, located in Malaysia, is one of the region’s most prominent certified organic farms, renowned for its integration of sustainable soil management, organic composting, and community-supported agriculture practices. These projects integrate vegetable, herb, and aquaculture farming with eco-tourism initiatives (Keyvanfar et al., 2020).The growth of organic agriculture in Malaysia has also been supported by certification processes under the Malaysian Organic Scheme (MOS) and financial incentives provided through national agricultural plans. As a result, the area of organic land increased from 250 hectares in 2005 to over 1,200 hectares by 2010 (Tiraieyari et al., 2014). Case studies on Malaysian organic practices further illustrate these developments. Organic farms identify many integrated practices that are both sustainable and productive. For instance, GK Organic Farm employs polyculture practices, intercropping sweet potatoes and water spinach to enhance biodiversity and promote organic pest control (Yeng, 2016). Composting and vermicomposting are practiced extensively, converting farm waste into nutrient-dense compost and reducing reliance on external inputs (Ramaloo et al., 2018; Keyvanfar et al., 2020). Non-chemical approaches are also prioritized in pest and disease control, such as the use of natural predators and biopesticides derived from neem and other native plants (Srinivasan, 2012). Community participation is also essential, with programs such as the Bandar Harapan Enterprise providing training in organic agriculture to marginalized groups and promoting sustainable sources of income (Aini et al., 2005).

More recently, the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) has developed and implemented integrated organic farming models that enhance system resilience through nutrient cycling and biodiversity-based innovations. These models incorporate animal husbandry, specifically the rearing of goats and chickens within the farming system, to support closed-loop nutrient management. Animal excreta are composted with farm waste to generate on-site nutrient inputs, reducing dependency on external fertilizers and contributing to farm sustainability and self-reliance.

MARDI’s model has been implemented in both lowland and highland agroecosystems. In lowland settings, the model integrates six key components: (1) crop production as the main economic driver, (2) ruminants such as cattle and goats, (3) high-density farming, (4) pollination services through stingless bees (Trigona spp.), (5) zero waste management practices, and (6) alternative income sources such as mushroom cultivation. The model is underpinned by agroecological principles, including the use of attractive and repellent plant species to regulate pest populations, which is referred to as agricultural eco-engineering.

At highland locations, such as the Cameron Highlands, the model emphasizes the agricultural eco-engineering concept of planting. Beneficial plant species are established at crop borders and between rows to serve as companion crops. This strategic planting not only enhances ecological interactions and supports pest regulation but also reduces the need for organic and biological pesticides, thereby lowering production costs while maintaining yield stability. Together, these approaches represent a comprehensive agroecological strategy for sustainable organic farming in Malaysia’s diverse environments.

Europe

The European Union (EU) has positioned itself as a global leader in organic agriculture through various policy-oriented strategies, including the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) (Figure 3). These initiatives aim to transition the EU towards climate neutrality and sustainable food systems by 2050 (Purnhagen et al., 2021; Schebesta, 2023). One of the primary objectives of these strategies is to increase the share of organic agriculture to 25% of total utilized agricultural land (UAA) by 2030. However, as of 2021, organic agriculture represented only 10% of UAA, with notable disparities among member states (Krajewski et al., 2024).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Diagram showing factors influencing organic agriculture in Spain. Central circle highlights 3 million hectares dedicated to organic farming. Surrounding factors include diverse organic crops, government support, EU Green Deal alignment, organic livestock, regional leadership, aquaculture integration, and export-driven market. Key statistics and initiatives are mentioned for each factor.

In 2025, Spain regained its position as the leader in organic agriculture within the European Union, surpassing France, which had held the top spot since 2020. By 2023, Spain had achieved 2,991,881 hectares of organic land, representing an 11.8% increase from the previous year, according to the FiBL/IFOAM report. France ranked second with 2.77 million hectares, followed by Italy in third place. On a global scale, Spain is now ranked sixth in terms of total organic area, following Australia, India, Argentina, Uruguay, and China (Willer et al., 2025). From its inception, Spanish organic production has been focused on export, primarily driven by high consumer demand from Central Europe. It is estimated that approximately 80% of organic produce is exported, mainly to EU countries (89.2%), with the largest markets being Germany, France, and the UK (Bisquert and Meira, 2019; Weiss, 2013; FAO, 2025).

Spain has one of the most advanced organic agriculture models in Europe, marked by significant growth and substantial state support. As of 2023, over 3 million hectares, approximately 12.5% of Spain’s arable land, are dedicated to organic agriculture, with Andalusia having the most significant area under cultivation. This model encompasses a diverse range of crops, including olive trees, nuts, cereals, and vineyards, as well as organic livestock and emerging aquaculture practices (Figure 3). Fueled by the EU’s Green Deal and Spain’s CAP Strategic Plan for 2023–2027, the country aims to increase its organic land coverage to 25% by 2030. Regional initiatives, such as Valencia’s Ecological Production Plan, further promote the adoption of sustainable and certified organic production, positioning Spain as a leader in this field (Castillo-Díaz et al., 2024).

The Organic Agriculture Law is governed by the EU Organic Agriculture Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 (European Commission, 2022a). This regulation prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It also promotes biodiversity, soil conservation, and higher animal welfare standards (Krajewski et al., 2024). Economic assistance plays a crucial role, with the EU providing approximately 3 billion euros annually through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and rural development programs. This support averages around 200 euros per hectare for certified organic fields (European Commission, 2022b). Additionally, Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) have emerged as a prominent model, particularly in countries like Italy, Spain, and Greece. These local production methods enhance economic resilience and reduce the environmental footprint (Krajewski et al., 2024).

The adoption of organic agriculture varies across the EU, with Austria, Estonia, and Sweden leading the way, each surpassing 20% of their Utilized Agricultural Area (UAA) devoted to organic farming (Table 1). In contrast, Italy, Czechia, and Latvia are expected to see steady growth and may reach over 20% by 2030. Meanwhile, Malta and Ireland are currently lagging, with organic share percentages of less than 5% due to limited agricultural land, high population density, and insufficient policy prioritization (Krajewski et al., 2024).The Netherlands has a robust organic agriculture sector, characterized by substantial research output, and ranks among the leading EU countries in terms of organic research and production area (Eurostat, 2024; FiBL statistics, 2023). Despite advancements in organic farming, several challenges persist. One significant issue is the yield gap, as organic yields typically achieve only about 80% of those in conventional systems, particularly for high-input crops such as wheat and potatoes (De Ponti et al., 2012). Economic constraints also impact farmers during the transition to organic practices, leading to income uncertainty (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). Sound policy enforcement remains essential, necessitating increased economic incentives, targeted plans for regions with underperformance, and consumer education programs to stimulate market demand (Purnhagen et al., 2021). While organic production in the EU is expected to grow, coverage is projected to reach only 12.1% by 2030, which is significantly lower than the anticipated 25%. Bridging this gap will require enhanced investments in research, education, and tailored policy adaptations specific to different regions (Krajewski et al., 2024).

Table 1

Table 1. Comparison of organic certification systems India, Malaysia, Europe, and the USA.

USA

The United States has positioned itself as a global leader in organic agriculture, with large-scale, commercial practices regulated under the USDA National Organic Program (NOP). By 2021, organic farming covered approximately 4.89 million acres (Skorbiansky, 2025). The USDA Economic Research Service reports that certified organic U.S. land increased from 1.8 million acres (728,434.16 hectares) in 2000 to 4.9 million acres (198,2959.65 hectares) in 2021 (Skorbiansky, 2025). A significant focus within organic agriculture is the organic agriculture (OA) model, which emphasizes restoring soil health and enhancing carbon sequestration (LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018). Organic farming systems have shown superior drought resilience, with yields that can exceed those of conventional agriculture by up to 100% under water-limited conditions. This is attributed to improved soil structure, better water retention, and increased mycorrhizal activity (Lotter, 2003). Additionally, diverse cropping systems (DCS), such as crop rotation, cover cropping, and intercropping, enhance biodiversity and reduce dependency on chemicals, with California leading the way in organic vegetable and fruit production (King and Hofmockel, 2017). Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs have also strengthened local food systems; by 1997, over 1,000 CSAs were serving approximately 100,000 households nationwide (Paul, 2019). However, small-scale farmers face several challenges, including high certification costs, limited access to organic inputs, and insufficient extension support, as many agents lack training in organic methods (Larson and Duram, 2000; Constance and Choi, 2010; Mpanga et al., 2021). The USDA’s NOP, established in 2000, provides a standardized regulatory framework that mandates annual farm inspections, enforces the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, and offers support programs such as subsidies and crop insurance for farmers transitioning to organic practices (Lotter, 2003). Despite these initiatives, ongoing concerns persist regarding the accessibility of certification for smallholders and the exclusion of certain agricultural practices from organic standards, underscoring the need for increased federal funding for research and outreach programs (Mpanga et al., 2021) (Table 1).

Comparative policy synthesis

Regionally, policy structures influence the adoption of organic agriculture through unique mechanisms. In Europe, policy-led incentives, most notably the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies, which range from $218 to $490 USD per hectare, are the main drivers of growth, compensating farmers for the transition and ecosystem services they provide. The United States also relies on market incentives, such as consumer price premiums, private investment in certification, and federal crop insurance programs administered by the USDA NOP. The OA focus has resulted in robust retail expansion. Still, it has also caused imbalances between large-scale commercial farms and smallholders. In India, it is socially and institutionally led, supported by initiatives such as PKVY and PGS, which reduce certification entry barriers for smallholders and reinforce producer-consumer linkages. Malaysia is an example of a hybrid model, with public sector incentive-based measures (e.g., myOrganic certification) complemented by private partnerships and eco-tourism-driven marketing approaches. Collectively, these models identify that. In contrast, market-driven mechanisms, such as US state-driven subsidies, like those in the EU, will promote mass adoption but rely on budget sustainability. In contrast, market-driven mechanisms, such as those in the US, ensure commercial viability but risk excluding small producers. Mixed incentive systems, as seen in India and Malaysia, can potentially offer more inclusive and context-sensitive channels for scaling organic agriculture.

Organic certification systems

Organic certification is a vital part of the organic agriculture movement, ensuring that agricultural products adhere to established standards of environmental stewardship, health, and ethical production. Certification processes can differ by region, with systems such as the USDA NOP in the United States and the EU Organic Regulation governing organic food production and trade (Figure 4) (Skrodzka, 2017; Brito et al., 2022). Various frameworks in the United States, Malaysia, India, and Europe are summarized below (Table 2).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Flowchart illustrating the organic certification process in seven steps: Application Submission, Preliminary Review, On-site Inspection, Residue Testing, Certification Decision, Issuance of Organic Certificate, and Annual Surveillance. Each step details specific actions and geographical requirements for India, USA, EU, and Malaysia. The chart highlights the continuous process of compliance from application to monitoring.

Table 2

Table 2. Comparative analysis of organic certification systems in Malaysia, India, the USA, and Europe.

The differences in certification systems across regions are summarized in Table 2. In India, fragmented supply chains and low domestic demand hinder adoption (PGS-India/NPOP). Compliance challenges also differ for smallholding farmers in India; they face high costs and limited market access (IFOAM - Organics International). In the USA, USDA NOP-certified farms encounter extensive record-keeping, strict auditing, and label compliance issues, which can be burdensome for small and medium-scale operations (Simonsen and Lillywhite, 2014; Mpanga et al., 2021; National Organic Coalition, 2023). The certification process also requires documentation of all farm activities, including sources of inputs, crop histories, pest management records, and sales logs, which must be retained for a minimum of five years for audit purposes. Such regulatory compliance augments administrative expense and time spent, especially for smallholders (USDA-AMS, 2023). However, these requirements became necessary following a major fraud case in which conventional grain was sold as organic, resulting in a $140 million scandal (U.S. State Attorney's Office, Northern District of Iowa, 2019). In response, the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service made strict rules on traceability, record audits, and supply-chain verification to prevent policy violations (USDA-AMS, 2023). In Malaysia, compliance with MOS standards, alongside international certifications such as USDA-NOP or IFOAM, presents challenges in maintaining consistent record-keeping and meeting multiple regulatory requirements simultaneously (Somasundram et al., 2016). European farmers must navigate both EU-wide organic regulations and additional national private standards, leading to higher administrative costs and potential discrepancies across member states (Barrett et al., 2001). These requirements also entail large-scale record-keeping of inputs and certification documents, contributing to compliance costs for small-scale producers (European Commission, 2022a; 2022b; FiBL, 2023a; 2023b).

Organic certification framework in the USA

The USDA National Organic Program (NOP), established in 2002, regulates organic production, handling, and labeling in the United States through third-party certification and rigorous oversight (USDA-AMS, 2023; USDA, 2025a; 2025b). NOP regulations specifically prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), ionizing radiation, and sewage sludge in organic production (USDA-AMS, 2023). For livestock, the requirements include providing organic feed, ensuring access to the outdoors, and avoiding the use of antibiotics or growth hormones (Skrodzka, 2017). For propagation stock, the USDA-NOP requires certified organic seed and planting stock. However, suppose no equivalent organic variety is available on the market. In that case, untreated conventional seed may be used if it is free from substances and coatings prohibited by organic production (USDA-AMS, 2023). The certification process involves collaboration with USDA-approved certifying agents (ACAs), an annual inspection, and the maintenance of records for a minimum of five years (Brito et al., 2022).

The U.S. uses three main certification mechanisms for organic farming: (1) Third-Party Certification (TPC), which is the most extensive system where independent certifiers verify compliance with USDA organic standards (Hatanaka et al., 2005). (2) Internal Control Systems (ICS), which enable group certification for smallholder farmers to reduce costs (Meinshausen et al., 2019), and (3) Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), a decentralized, community-based model that relies on trust and peer verification (Roggio and Evans, 2022).

While the certification system is effective, it faces several challenges. One major issue is the cost, as certification fees can range from $700 to $3,000 annually, creating a financial burden that limits the participation of small and medium-sized farms in the organic market (Brito et al., 2022; National Organic Coalition, 2023; Skrodzka, 2017). The complexity of documentation is another challenge, as farmers must keep detailed records of inputs, soil amendments, and pest control measures (Brito et al., 2022). Additionally, consumer confusion over labels such as “organic,” “natural,” and “non-GMO” undermines trust. In contrast, the growing presence of large corporate organic farms that practice industrial organic methods raises concerns about the dilution of organic values (Anastasiou et al., 2019; Grasseni, 2025). This confusion is further exacerbated by the development of equivalent marketing terms, such as “sustainable” and “regenerative,” which are not covered under the USDA organic regulations but are widely used interchangeably in the retail marketplace. Additionally, only items labeled as “100% Organic” or “Organic” (containing at least 95% organic ingredients) can bear the USDA Organic Seal. In comparison, those carrying the label “Made with organic ingredients” (containing ≥70% organic ingredients) and those with certain organic elements (<70%) are not permitted to use the seal, creating further confusion for shoppers (USDA-AMS, 2023).

Organic certification framework in India

Indian organic certification is a crucial vehicle for regulating production, ensuring market access, fostering consumer trust, and promoting sustainable agricultural practices (Aulakh and Ravisankar, 2017; Sharma and Gautam, 2025). The National Program for Organic Production (NPOP) and the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) regulate it, aligning India’s certification system with global standards and prioritizing the needs of smallholder farmers. NPOP, established in 2001 and administered by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), mandates third-party certification for organic exports to destinations such as the EU, USA, and Japan, with more than 28 accredited certifying bodies operating in India (Verma et al., 2022). Approved by global institutions such as IFOAM, the EU Organic Regulation, and the USDA-NOP, NPOP certification enables Indian organic commodities to be exported to international markets. It encompasses a wide range of farming areas, including crops, livestock, wild harvest, processing, and organic aquaculture (Gupta et al., 2020; NPOP, 2025). Yet, with high certification costs of between Indian Rs 25,000 and Rs 50,000 (annually, together with rigorous residue testing standards), small-scale farmers are financially constrained from participating (Sailaja and Manohari, 2021).

To address these issues, the Indian government introduced the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS-India) under the Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) in 2015. This system serves as a cost-effective, community-based alternative to third-party certification (Katto-Andrighetto et al., 2019). Unlike the NPOP which relies on external auditors, PGS-India employs a farmer-group certification approach. In this model, farmers certify one another’s adherence to common organic principles. Additionally, PGS-India features an accelerated certification process that usually takes 3 to 6 months to complete, compared to the 2 to 3 years required by NPOP (Hill, 2016). However, PGS-India faces challenges, such as low market visibility, as leading retailers and institutional buyers often prefer third-party certification. Furthermore, the adoption of PGS-India varies by state, resulting in inconsistencies in enforcement (Hill, 2016; Sailaja and Manohari, 2021).

In addition to government-led certification programs, various state-level and private initiatives also impact India’s organic certification scheme. Jaivik Bharat, launched in 2017 by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), serves as an umbrella brand that aims to standardize organic labeling (Mishra et al., 2020). Private organizations such as EcoCert and INDOCERT provide certification services for both domestic and export markets of organic products (Kaur and Shah, 2018; Sherief et al., 2021). Furthermore, state-driven initiatives, such as the Sikkim Organic Mission, have taken significant steps in this area, with Sikkim becoming India’s first fully organic state. It has established a regulatory system to support organic farmers (Humphrey, 2024).

Organic certification framework in Europe

The EU’s organic certification system is regulated by harmonized rules across all member countries, ensuring consistency in organic production, processing, and labeling (Brzezina et al., 2017). EU Regulation 2018/848 outlines the framework for this certification, prohibiting the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in organic agriculture. This regulation also requires the use of certified organic seeds and planting material whenever it is available; only if an equivalent organic seed is not commercially available may untreated conventional seeds be utilized under temporary derogation. Yet, several EU member states, such as Austria, Denmark, and France, have increasingly limited or phased out this derogation by creating national organic seed databases and supply-chain enforcement systems (Solfanelli et al., 2021; European Commission, 2022a; 2022b; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture [FiBL], 2023).

It also mandates third-party certification from recognized agencies within each member state (Migliorini and Wezel, 2017). Animal welfare standards are a key component of the certification process. Organic livestock must have access to pasture, experience limited use of antibiotics, and organic feed (Migliorini and Wezel, 2017). Products that contain at least 95% organic content are required to display the EU organic logo, which helps ensure consumer transparency and differentiate these products in the market (Willler et al., 2024). Additionally, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) plays a crucial role in supporting organic certification by providing financial incentives to promote organic farming.

Organic subsidies ranging from €200 to €450 per hectare, depending on the country and crop type, help offset the costs associated with certification and production challenges (Fusco, 2021). The Rural Development Program (RDP) offers supplementary financial assistance to aid conventional farmers in transitioning to organic practices. Furthermore, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) integrates organic agriculture into broader agroecological programs, linking certification incentives to policies that promote climate resilience and biodiversity conservation (Brzezina et al., 2017). However, despite these initiatives, variations in CAP payments across regions result in uneven adoption of organic certification in Europe. Some member states offer greater financial incentives than others, leading to unequal development of organic agriculture (Murphy et al., 2022).

In addition to the EU-wide certification, several member states have implemented more stringent private and national organic labels, adding another layer of differentiation to the organic market. For instance, Germany offers schemes such as Bioland, Naturland, and Demeter, which impose stricter requirements for biodiversity and soil fertility beyond EU standards. These labels appeal to consumers seeking stronger environmental and ethical assurances (Sahm et al., 2013). Similarly, France’s Agriculture Biologique (AB) label has sustainability requirements that exceed EU legislation, ensuring compliance with higher organic standards (Schader et al., 2012). Scandinavian countries also have national organic certification schemes, including Denmark’s Ø-label and Sweden’s KRAV certification, which mandate higher environmental sustainability practices (Pekala, 2020). While these private and national labels enhance customer trust and promote higher organic agricultural standards, they can also lead to market segmentation and increase compliance costs for farmers who seek multiple certifications to access different markets (Murphy et al., 2022).

To strengthen the EU organic certification system, it is essential to provide subsidies for small farmers, which will help lower financial barriers. Additionally, increasing domestic organic production can reduce reliance on imports. Improving fraud prevention through blockchain-based traceability would enhance transparency, while promoting biodiversity-focused organic practices instead of monocultures would ensure sustainability (Hilten et al., 2020). Moreover, raising consumer awareness and ensuring transparent labeling will further build trust in EU organic standards.

Organic certification framework in Malaysia

The Malaysia Organic Scheme (MOS), established in 2002 by the Department of Agriculture (DoA), serves as the primary organic certification system in the country. It establishes national standards for organic agriculture, processing, and labeling, ensuring compliance with MS 1529:2001, which outlines the practices involved in organic farming (Somasundram et al., 2016). The certification process involves thorough assessments, including evaluating soil quality, implementing pest and disease management protocols, conducting residue testing, and performing farm inspections to verify adherence to organic principles (Mohamed Haris et al., 2018). Obtaining MOS certification requires third-party verification, which means that farms must maintain accurate record-keeping and traceability to ensure transparency within the organic supply chain (Rahmat et al., 2021). In addition to the MOS, farmers in Malaysia aiming for international market access can obtain certifications such as IFOAM and USDA-NOP. These certifications enable exports to the European Union and the United States (Rahmat et al., 2021). Malaysia is increasingly relying on international certification bodies, including Ecocert, to cater to diverse consumer preferences (Khoh, 2012). Furthermore, Halal-organic certification has gained importance, as it combines Islamic dietary requirements with organic food production standards, addressing the rising demand for ethically and sustainably produced Halal food (Ali and Suleiman, 2016; Ibrahim et al., 2019). These diverse certification options provide flexibility for farmers while ensuring the credibility of organic products in both domestic and international markets.

Some successful organic agriculture models

Effective organic agriculture models depend on a combination of strong policy frameworks, market integration, and technological advancements (Table 3). In Europe, the organic sector is heavily influenced by policy, while the United States follows a market-driven strategy. In contrast, countries such as India and Malaysia emphasize community involvement and access to international markets.

Table 3

Table 3. Some successful organic agriculture models in different countries in Asia, Europe and the USA.

Globally, organic farming practices vary based on policy frameworks, market dynamics, and environmental conditions. In Europe, countries such as Denmark and Germany have adopted policy-driven approaches, including subsidies and public procurement mandates, to encourage organic agriculture (EU Commission, 2022a). In the United States, states like California have developed market-driven organic sectors, while Vermont prioritizes smallholder agriculture and community-supported farming (USDA-AMS, 2023; 2025b). In India, initiatives such as Sikkim’s 100% organic state program and Andhra Pradesh’s Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) demonstrate the effectiveness of government-led interventions and community-based approaches (Parikh, 2023; Gupta et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Malaysia has combined policy support, NGO initiatives, and private sector engagement to promote organic vegetable farming, particularly in the Cameron Highlands and peri-urban areas, where these efforts have been successful despite challenges such as land tenure and certification. Research indicates that factors such as environmental concern, education, and institutional support play significant roles in the adoption of sustainable practices among Malaysian farmers (Tiraieyari et al., 2014; Somasundram et al., 2016).

Plant disease management in organic agriculture

Conventional agriculture harms the environment by causing soil degradation, which diminishes soil structure, fertility, and biodiversity due to the excessive use of chemical pesticides. This deterioration often increases the risk of root diseases because it reduces the population of the beneficial microbiome, necessitating interventions such as genetic resistance and soil fumigation (Van Bruggen and Finckh, 2016). In contrast, organic agriculture avoids the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, thereby promoting more sustainable farming practices (Lampkin, 1990). Research shows that root diseases are generally less severe than foliar diseases in soils managed organically (Table 4). However, the reasons for this difference, including factors such as nitrogen supply and microbial diversity, are rarely investigated (van Bruggen et al., 2016). Disease management must be integrated with soil nutrient and environmental management. This creates both challenges and opportunities to understand the complexities of biodiversity in organic farming systems (van Bingen and Termorskuizen, 2003). Numerous detailed reviews on the management of plant diseases in organic agriculture have been published in recent years (Rawat et al., 2021; van Bruggen, 2015; van Bruggen et al., 2016; van Bruggen and Finckh, 2016).

Table 4

Table 4. Key plant diseases in organic agriculture and their management approaches.

Plant disease management in organic farming focuses on maintaining soil health and biodiversity through practices such as composting, using green manures, and crop rotation. Biocontrol agents, including Trichoderma and Pseudomonas fluorescens, effectively suppress soil-borne pathogens (Rawat et al., 2021). Successful management of apple scab using resistant cultivars and sulfur sprays illustrates how integrated organic practices can effectively control major diseases in important crops (Finckh et al., 2015). For example, Fusarium wilt in tomatoes can be managed using neem cake, farmyard manure (FYM), and T. harzianum (van Bruggen and Finckh, 2016). Another study highlights the importance of ecological knowledge and integrated practices in organic farming for controlling downy mildew in cucurbits. This control is achieved through the use of microbial antagonists and strict field sanitation, as organic farming (OF) promotes beneficial microbiomes in the soil (van Bruggen, 2015). Microbiome engineering offers significant benefits for organic disease management, as composting and biofertilizers can enhance plant resistance to root rot diseases by modifying rhizosphere dynamics (Akanmu et al., 2021). While conventional methods, such as neem extracts and ash, can also aid in disease management, they often face stringent certification challenges in developing countries because locally formulated biopesticides frequently lack standardized formulations, quality control, and documented efficacy data as required by organic certification agencies (Ferdous et al., 2021). Overall, holistic organic agriculture methods, such as crop rotation, field sanitation, and the careful use of copper, can effectively control diseases like late blight and fire blight when applied consistently (Rawat et al., 2021). However, it is essential to note that in some European Union (EU) jurisdictions, the use of copper in organic farming has been restricted or phased out due to environmental concerns (Tamm et al., 2022).

Plant breeding and seed development for organic systems

Organic farmers grow food differently, so they require different seeds for their crops. In contrast to traditional cultivars bred for highly controlled environments with synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, organic system cultivars must withstand weeds, pests, and fluctuating nutrient availability without assistance. Perfectly bred seeds grow well without pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, as they are tailored to their specific climate and soil. Organic food should begin with organic practices; however, most organic farmers currently use seeds that are not certified organic. While certified organic seeds are mandated under the USDA National Organic Program and the EU, a provision exists for the use of untreated conventional seeds where an equal organic variety is not found. Farmers are typically requested by certifiers to have at least three commercial sources verified before such an exception is granted. The State of Organic Seed (OSA) provides a recurring report from the Organic Seed Alliance, tracking organic seed systems in the U.S. OSA publishes this progress report and action plan for expanding the organic seed supply, while developing seed grower networks and policies that work towards decentralizing ownership and power in seed systems every five years. The organic foods market is still growing rapidly, its sales reaching more than $56 billion in 2020 (a 12% expansion from 2019). This suggests that the demand for organic seeds is expected to rise soon. Yet, numerous industrial-scale organic farms continue to use untreated conventional seeds due to limited access to organic seeds and the added expense. This “conventional seed loophole” is an ongoing challenge that must be addressed through incentives to grow organic seeds, as well as policy reform.

Recent advancements in plant breeding technology have enabled the development of disease-resistant varieties suitable for organic production (Van Esse et al., 2020). For instance, Qaim (2020) demonstrates that new breeding technologies, such as marker-assisted selection, allow the incorporation of genes for resistance to fungal, bacterial, and viral diseases into susceptible cultivars. Brzozowski and Mazourek (2018) emphasize that organic systems need cultivars to address specific regional challenges. For example, cucumber lines bred for resistance to downy mildew have shown success in organic trials. Based on a genome-wide association study, we identified several tomato accessions that exhibit high resistance to Septoria leaf spot disease. Additionally, we found molecular markers linked to quantitative trait loci associated with this resistance within organic tomato production systems (Pandey et al., 2023). Similarly, Zhang et al. (2018) discuss leveraging wild relatives and landraces to enhance blast resistance in rice and improve quantitative resistance in tomatoes to achieve durable resistance. Molecular studies (Deng et al., 2020) have further revealed how resistance R genes and signaling networks can be utilized to develop broad-spectrum and durable resistance. Practically, resistance breeding in winter wheat has already shown economic benefits, as resistant cultivars reduce reliance on fungicides without sacrificing yield over multiple seasons (Lüttringhaus et al., 2021).

The USDA-Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) has had a positive impact on U.S. agriculture by funding projects that enhance the production of organic crops and livestock (https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 2025). OREI encourages innovation in areas such as soil management, pest and disease management, and animal nutrition while improving access to organic markets (https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/). Key impacts of OREI include enhanced profitability and productivity, as well as innovation and diversification. The initiative provides region-specific solutions to address unique challenges, such as soil acidity in the South and pest pressure in the Northeast. Additionally, OREI promotes improved sustainability practices by fostering research that supports soil health, biodiversity, water conservation, and pollution reduction. Some examples of research findings from OREI-funded projects are outlined below.

The TOMI 3 project, launched in September 2024 and funded by the USDA, aims to help organic tomato growers manage foliar diseases while enhancing fruit quality and protecting the environment (https://eorganic.info/node/12999). It focuses on improving biocontrol agents, establishing regional breeding programs for desirable traits, developing decision-support tools for disease management, and providing training for farmers and Extension educators. The TOMI1 and TOM2 projects were completed. This initiative builds on ten years of research to address issues such as inconsistent biocontrol effectiveness and the need for more suitable tomato varieties for organic conditions (https://eorganic.info/node/12999). Tomato plants respond differently to the beneficial fungus Trichoderma harzianumin relation to the foliar pathogen Botrytis cinerea, depending on their genotype. This study compared the responsive Solanum pimpinellifolium LA 1589 to the unresponsive S. lycopersicum ‘Wisconsin 55’ using RNA sequencing (Luis et al., 2025). They found that LA 1589 treated with T. harzianum exhibited reduced disease lesions, increased height, and greater root biomass compared to the control. Notably, upregulating specific pathways while downregulating salicylic acid was crucial for enhancing resistance to B. cinerea. These findings improve the understanding of Trichoderma’s biocontrol efficacy and provide insights into selecting genotypes with enhanced growth and resistance to pathogens (Luis et al., 2025).

Previous work by Hoagland et al. (2015), conducted under the OREI program, established a participatory organic tomato breeding project in the U.S. Midwest. This project, utilizing grower surveys and multi-year field testing, selected tomato genotypes that are flavorful and resistant to several diseases, including late blight, early blight, and Septoria leaf spot, as the primary breeding source. Open-pollinated and heirloom cultivars like ‘Arkansas Traveler’ and ‘Wisconsin 55,’ and F1 hybrids like ‘Mountain Magic’ performed well under organic management. Several breeding populations demonstrated consistent disease resistance, providing a foundation for future participatory breeding efforts with local farmers. The project highlighted the importance of direct farmer involvement and region-based selection in creating cultivars that are better adapted to organic systems (Hoagland et al., 2015; https://eorganic.info/node/12999).

To improve the productivity and market potential of organic small grains sown in both spring and fall, the research team at Pennsylvania State University, along with collaborators from the Northeast US, is conducting a study (https://portal.nifa.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/1032780-improving-the-productivity-resilience-and-diversity-of-organic-small-grain-production-in-the-northeast.html). This research aims to enhance the ecological and economic resilience of organic grain production systems. It is crucial to understand the relationships between integrated crop management practices and the quality of food and feed outcomes, especially in relation to fungal populations and poultry health. In another study, 36 carrot breeding lines and cultivars were evaluated over four years in two locations under organic and conventional management (Colley et al., 2025). Their results show that the management system affects carrot performance, but year-to-year variations have a greater impact than the system itself. While genetic improvements from conventional systems can benefit organic production, selection in organic systems may yield faster gains. If selection isn’t pursued in organic systems, testing cultivars under these conditions is still recommended to ensure optimal performance (Colley et al., 2025).

Innovative technologies in organic agriculture

The need for sustainability has primarily driven developments in organic agriculture technology, climate change adaptation, and the quest for greater efficiency without relying on chemicals (Table 5). One of the most promising trends in this field is precision organic agriculture, which integrates artificial intelligence, remote sensing, and automated decision support tools to enhance organic farming operations (Rahmann et al., 2017; Eissa, 2024; Kaur et al., 2024). Another significant innovation is eco-functional intensification, which aims to increase farm productivity while minimizing reliance on chemical inputs. This technique emphasizes natural soil regeneration, biodiversity conservation, and more effective crop rotation, leading to more sustainable organic farming systems (Niggli et al., 2017). The use of biofertilizers, biostimulants, and pheromone-based pest control is also becoming increasingly common in organic agriculture as alternatives to synthetic fertilizers. These products, which are derived from microbial inoculants, seaweed extracts, and compost teas, have been found to improve nutrient availability, enhance plant resistance to stress, and reduce dependence on external inputs (Padel, 2001).

Table 5

Table 5. The future of organic farming: Innovative technologies for reshaping agriculture.

Artificial intelligence in organic agriculture

The integration of AI in organic agriculture enhances sustainability and precision through technologies such as machine learning, computer vision, robotics, and IoT sensors (Eissa, 2024; Phairoj and Tongkam, 2024; Puengsungwan, 2020). These advancements optimize pest control, soil monitoring, and irrigation, resulting in reduced input waste, improved yield forecasts, and effective responses to challenges such as labor shortages, climate variability, and soil degradation (Mansoor et al., 2025). AI-powered tools can analyze real-time data from multispectral cameras, satellite imagery, and IoT sensors to predict pest infestations before they happen (Nyakuri et al., 2025; Kaur et al., 2024). Additionally, AI-based models have decreased the risk of late-stage disease outbreaks by 40% by enabling proactive management strategies (Karunakanth et al., 2018; Phairoj and Tongkam, 2024). On the policy front, global knowledge-sharing initiatives, such as the Technology Innovation Platform of IFOAM (TIPI), have facilitated the exchange of advanced research in organic agriculture (Niggli et al., 2017; Clark, 2020). Additionally, innovations like robotic weeding, flame weeding, and the use of trap crops have been developed to manage weeds without relying on herbicides (Karafillis and Papanagiotou, 2011).In specific instances, trap crops like Slender leaf legume in the genus Crotalaria were utilized to control parasitic weeds, such as Striga spp., by promoting suicidal germination, decreasing the number of seeds present in the soil, and enhancing soil health (Mwakha et al., 2020), thus aligning this method with organic farming practices.

Several innovations, including machine learning algorithms such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs), can detect early signs of plant diseases by analyzing leaf color, texture changes, and chlorophyll content (Singh et al., 2021). Robotic technologies equipped with computer vision and deep learning algorithms can identify, classify, and remove weeds without harming crops (Wang et al., 2023). Several other computer vision and AI-based technologies are being adapted for organic systems through mechanical, thermal, and robotic approaches (Duckett et al., 2018). For example, multispectral image-based detection combined with robotic actuation, such as Agri-Bot, Agri-Drone, and Agri-AVG, enables precision mechanical weeding without the use of chemicals (Shinde et al., 2024). Autonomous platforms integrating deep-learning detection with mechanical removal mechanisms are being developed and field tested (Qu and Su, 2024). Another example is a motorized tracked weeding robot for organic onion fields, which achieved high-precision crop row identification via the YOLOv8-seg model integrated with data augmentation techniques (Yang et al., 2024). Recent advances have also demonstrated AI-driven, multi-sensor frameworks that combine visual, spectral, and soil data for sustainable weed and disease management, compatible with organic standards (Bangale and Kumar, 2024; Petrovic et al., 2025).

Soil health is another critical factor in organic agriculture, and AI is increasingly utilized for real-time soil analysis and fertility predictions. AI-powered models use big data analytics to assess soil moisture levels, pH, organic matter content, and microbial diversity (Samutrak and Tongkam, 2024; Maghirang et al., 2025). Furthermore, AI plays a crucial role in optimizing the organic food supply chain by enhancing traceability, logistics, and demand forecasting. Blockchain-powered AI platforms and predictive demand models help track organic produce from farm to consumer, thereby reducing fraud (Garrone et al., 2014; van Hilten et al., 2020; Turker, 2025).

Sustainability in organic agriculture

Agriculture accounts for approximately 38% of Earth’s land and is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, agrochemical pollution, and soil erosion (Figure 5). Most of these issues stem from arable land, which makes up roughly 12% of the Earth’s surface (Amundson et al., 2015; Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Organic agriculture represents a sustainable approach, characterized by its balanced practices, although it inevitably involves trade-offs. In terms of productivity, organic farming typically yields about 19.2% less than conventional methods across all crops (Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Gamage et al., 2023). However, this yield gap is significantly reduced in specific circumstances, such as in drought-affected areas, low-input systems, or when cultivating certain crops like legumes and perennials (Bhullar et al., 2021). From an environmental standpoint, organic agriculture provides several benefits, including reduced greenhouse gas emissions, enhanced biodiversity, improved soil and water quality, and lower energy consumption per unit area (Parizad and Bera, 2023). Economically, organic farms often prove more profitable despite lower yields, mainly due to the price premiums they can command and reduced input costs (Gamage et al., 2023; Parizad and Bera, 2023; Robinson, 2024).To promote sustainable organic agriculture, policy tools such as subsidies, technical assistance, research funding, and educational initiatives are essential (Ume and Bahta, 2024).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Radar chart comparing organic and conventional farming across ten criteria: soil health, pesticide use, yield, biodiversity, water efficiency, profitability, nutritional quality, minimizing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon sequestration (Seufert et al., 2012; Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Alvarez, 2022; Boschiero et al., 2023). Organic farming scores higher in soil health, soil organic matter, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse gas emissions, whereas conventional farming excels in yield and pesticide use. Scale is from zero to one hundred.

Socially, organic agricultural practices contribute positively to the well-being of farmers. They help improve livelihoods, create jobs, increase wages, promote mental health, and support rural development. This impact is further confirmed by a study conducted in Europe, which analyzed data from the EUROSTAT and Eurobarometer databases to assess the effects of organic agriculture on the quality of life within the agricultural community (Stanimir, 2020).

Organic systems provide essential ecosystem services, including pollination, pest regulation, and carbon sequestration (Sandhu et al., 2010). They tend to have higher levels of soil organic matter, microbial populations, and nutrient cycling, all of which contribute to long-term agricultural resilience (Lynch, 2015). Additionally, organic farms use 15–20% less energy per unit of production compared to conventional systems. Financially, organic agriculture has significant advantages, primarily due to price premiums that are typically 29% to 32% higher than those of traditional produce (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Organic farms are also more likely to perform better during climate extremes, such as drought, thanks to their improved soil structure and enhanced water retention (Azarbad, 2022).

Organic farming promotes environmental sustainability by minimizing the use of synthetic chemicals and reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers. Several techniques, including crop rotation, organic amendments, and integrated pest management, help restore ecosystem balance and enhance soil health (Lee et al., 2015). Meta-analyses of organic versus conventional systems in Europe and the USA indicate that organic farming typically favors greater biodiversity and superior soil health; however, in some cases, yields are lower (Tuomisto et al., 2012). From an economic perspective, organic farming has the potential for greater returns due to premium prices. Still, it also has drawbacks, including higher input costs, certification expenses, and potential yield decreases. Farmers in India and Malaysia face challenges in accessing certified organic inputs and capital, which hinder profitability (Raghavendra et al., 2025; Smith et al., 2019). Findings from Europe and the USA indicate that organic products tend to command reasonable market prices; however, the transition costs and ongoing maintenance costs of adhering to organic standards are significant deterrents (Mondelaers et al., 2009). Organic farming contributes to social adaptability by supporting community welfare, fair labor practices, and food safety (Czyżewski and Kryszak, 2022).

Challenges in organic agriculture

Globally, organic agriculture now encompasses over 76.4 million hectares across 191 countries, with regions such as Oceania leading in land area and Europe at the forefront of policy-driven expansion (Willer et al., 2024). While organic systems offer potential environmental and economic benefits, their implementation faces several challenges, including high certification costs, yield gaps, and limitations in market access (Padel et al., 2025). OA faces several key challenges, including limited access to knowledge and markets, high certification costs, yield gaps, and policy biases favoring conventional farming (Ponisio et al., 2015; Canwat and Onakuse, 2022), though organic agriculture offers significant benefits, including reduced pollution, improved soil health, and enhanced biodiversity (Mäder et al., 2002). It promotes better nutrition for consumers and reduces farmers’ exposure to harmful chemicals. However, challenges such as lower yields compared to conventional farming, high certification costs, and market access issues hinder its widespread adoption. The varying organic standards and research gaps complicate the situation. To address these challenges, we should integrate innovative practices and technologies, such as new pest management and soil fertility strategies, to enhance yields and resilience (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Comparative studies on the long-term impacts of organic versus conventional systems can provide valuable insights (Scialabba and Hattam, 2002). Additionally, supportive policies and effective market strategies are crucial. These steps can help maximize the potential of organic agriculture and contribute to a more sustainable food system. In India, organic certification is essential for ensuring the credibility of organic products; however, it hinders their widespread adoption. The high costs associated with accreditation disproportionately affect smallholder farmers, who face annual fees, residue testing expenses, and compliance verification issues (Panday et al., 2024). Furthermore, approximately 85% of certified organic produce is exported, resulting in low domestic demand due to limited consumer awareness (Barik, 2017). Regulatory measures further complicate the process, as bureaucratic delays in obtaining and renewing NPOP certification exacerbate the difficulties faced by farmers (Verma et al., 2022). Similarly, in Europe, certification fees vary by country and certifying body. For instance, the Soil Association (UK) charges between USD 1,200-1,500 as a base annual fee for small food businesses (Soil Association, 2025). In contrast, CERES (a Germany-based certifier) lists transaction certificate costs ranging from USD 35 to USD 100, depending on the number of product documents (CERES, 2023).

In Malaysia, organic agriculture remains limited in scale, with only 0.01% of the total agricultural land, but not due to certification costs. The Malaysian government, through the myOrganic Certification Program, offers certification completely free of charge. Additionally, farmers receive free technical support and training from the Department of Agriculture for crops (Suhaimee et al., 2016; DOA, 2025), the Department of Veterinary Services for animal husbandry practices in livestock farms, and the Department of Fisheries for aquaculture, covering fish and other aquatic organisms. Despite growing consumer interest, over 60% of organic products in Malaysia are imported due to limited domestic production capacity and stringent certification barriers (Rahmat et al., 2021). These factors diminish the competitiveness of local farmers. Additionally, consumer confusion regarding organic labels complicates market growth, as many people mistakenly believe certified organic products are labeled as “natural” or “chemical-free” (Rahmat et al., 2021). In contrast, while organic agriculture in the United States often follows a commercial, large-scale model, small and mid-sized farms face challenges related to high certification costs and lower initial yields during the transition phase (Mpanga et al., 2021). Climate risks also pose significant challenges, particularly in regions that rely on monoculture systems (Brito et al., 2022). To address these barriers, policy reforms are necessary to streamline certification processes, provide financial assistance to smallholders, and enhance domestic market awareness to support sustainable organic agriculture.

Challenges such as a lack of farmer training, consumer unawareness, and variable regulatory standards can impede social gains. Research in Malaysia emphasizes the need for capacity development and building trust among surrounding communities to facilitate the more robust adoption of sustainable practices (Tiraieyari et al., 2014). Limited market access to certified organic outlets and high competition from non-organic products pose challenges for market expansion in India, Europe, and the USA (Pandey and Singh, 2012; Peng, 2019). Organic inputs, such as compost, biofertilizers, and certified seeds, are more costly, making them unaffordable for small-scale farmers, especially in Malaysia and India. On the other hand, preserving certification integrity and transparency is crucial to establishing consumer trust, particularly in the European and US markets, where misleading labeling can make products appear less trustworthy (Thallam, 2023).

Conclusion

Organic agriculture offers a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative to conventional farming, which often relies on chemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers. Various models of OA practices adopted worldwide demonstrated their adaptability and effectiveness. In India, initiatives such as the Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) and Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) support small farmers through participatory approval systems, including PGS. In the United States, the USDA’s National Organic Program (USDA-NOP) manages a centralized system that ensures uniform certification nationwide, thereby enhancing market confidence. European countries have taken a policy-driven approach, with the European Union establishing ambitious goals under its Farm to Fork strategy (Wesseler, 2022), aiming to convert 25% of agricultural land to organic cultivation by 2030. Meanwhile, Malaysia has formalized its certification through the Malaysia Organic Scheme, which features the myOrganic label for consumer recognition (Somasundram et al., 2016). This initiative promotes OA through consumer awareness, government incentives, and national action plans for food safety (Solaiman and Salaheen, 2019). Despite these local successes, common challenges persist, including the costs associated with certification, low technical capabilities, market limitations, and yield gaps. To address these issues, it is crucial to improve localized certification systems, invest in farmer training, and enhance market connections. Comparative evidence shows that EU subsidy-driven growth, U.S. market-led expansion, and India’s PGS low-cost model each have context-specific strengths and limitations. Hybrid frameworks combining financial incentives with market access could promote global adoption (Castillo-Díaz et al., 2024). As international awareness of environmental and health concerns increases, coordinated policy support, consumer activism, and robust infrastructure will be vital for scaling up organic agriculture. Strengthening policy institutions that cover smallholder farmers’ certification, market connections, and organic input subsidies will be critical in increasing adoption. More intensive international cooperation among researchers, policymakers, and farmers will be crucial to align organic standards and drive global adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. To attain these objectives, future research should be focused on 1) studies related to the assessment of AI and precision organic agriculture technologies, 2) low-cost microbial biocontrol formulation development, and 3) breeding for climate-resilient varieties. Some of the policy recommendations include harmonizing international certification standards, subsidizing smallholders through government-backed programs, and implementing digital tracking tools to enhance label transparency. Similarly, global collaboration, primarily through initiatives such as IFOAM’s Technology Innovation Platform (TIPI) and organic partnerships led by the FAO, will play a crucial role in sharing innovations, fostering research collaboration, and building a resilient global organic agriculture network.

Author contributions

SM: Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. HBM: Data curation, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TBA: Methodology, Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)- National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) award # 2023-51102-40782, and USDA-FAS award # FX24BF-10777R009.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Author disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated organizations, the publisher, the editors, or the reviewers. Any product mentioned in this article or any claims made by its manufacturer are not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Agricultural Marketing Service (2025). Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP) (United States Department of Agriculture). Available online at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification/topp (Accessed October 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

Aini, Z., Sivapragasam, A., Vimala, P., and Mohamad Roff, M. N. (2005). “Compost and composting,” in Organic vegetable cultivation in Malaysia Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: Perpustakaan Komuniti Petaling Jaya, 73–92. Available online at: https://worldveg.tind.io/record/34569/ (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Akanmu, A. O., Babalola, O. O., Venturi, V., Ayilara, M. S., Adeleke, B. S., Amoo, A. E., et al. (2021). Plant disease management: leveraging on the plant-microbe-soil interface in the biorational use of organic amendments. Front. in. Plant Sci. 12. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.700507

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Al-Aswad, R. M. A. and Al-Azzawi, Q. K. Z. (2021). Control of downy mildew disease on cucumber caused by the fungus Psuedoperonospora cubensis by using environmentally friendly materials. Euphrates J. Agric. Sci. 13, 98–110.

Google Scholar

Ali, M. H. and Suleiman, N. (2016). Sustainable food production: insights of Malaysian halal small and medium-sized enterprises. Int. J. Production Econ 181, 303–314. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alvarez, R. (2022). Comparing productivity of organic and conventional farming systems: a quantitative review. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 68, 1947–1958. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2021.1946040

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amundson, R., Berhe, A. A., Hopmans, J. W., Olson, C., Sztein, A. E., and Sparks, D. L. (2015). Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science 348, 1261071. doi: 10.1126/science.1261071

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Anastasiou, K., Miller, M., and Dickinson, K. (2019). The relationship between food label use and dietary intake in adults: a systematic review. Appetite 138, 280–291. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.025

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arifin, N. A., Ismail, N. A., Bakar, M. A., Syahlan, S., and Zulkifli, F. (2024). Barriers to myGAP certification: a study of farmer knowledge, intentions, and challenges in Kelantan, Malaysia. Borneo Akademika 8, 53–62. Available online at: https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/98231/ (Accessed May 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Aulakh, C. S. and Ravisankar, N. (2017). Organic agriculture in the Indian context: a perspective. Agric. Res. J. 54, 149–164. doi: 10.5958/2395-146X.2017.00031.X

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Avasthe, R. K., Babu, S., Singh, R., Yadav, G. S., and Kumar, A. (2020). Productivity and profitability assessment of organically grown vegetables embedded in rice based cropping sequences in Sikkim Himalayas, North East India. J. Environ. Biol. 41, 111–117. doi: 10.22438/jeb/41/1/MRN-1146

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Azarbad, H. (2022). Conventional vs. organic agriculture–which one promotes better yields and microbial resilience in rapidly changing climates? Front. Microbiol. 13. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.903500

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aziz, N. F., Chamhuri, N., and Batt, P. J. (2021). Barriers and benefits arising from the adoption of noble certification for smallholder oil palm producers in Malaysia: a systematic review of literature. Sustainability 13, 10009. doi: 10.3390/su131810009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bangale, R. and Kumar, M. (2024). “Robot-Based Weed Identification and Control System,” in Precision Agriculture for Sustainability (Apple Academic Press, Palm Bay, FL), 169–194. doi: 10.1201/9781003435228-11/robot-based-weed-identification-control-system-rashmi-bangale-mohit-kumar. (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barik, A. K. (2017). “Organic Farming in India : Present Status, Challenges and Technological Breakthrough,” in 3rd Conference on Bio-resource and Stress Management International, 8-11 November, 2017, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. pp. 101–110.

Google Scholar

Barrett, H. R., Browne, A. W., Harris, P. J. C., and Cadoret, K. (2001). Smallholder farmers and organic certification: Accessing the EU market from the developing world. Biol. Agric. Horticulture 19, 183–199. doi: 10.1080/01448765.2001.9754920

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bastas, K. K. (2015). Fire blight disease management in organic apple and pear breeding. 2nd ICSAE 2015, International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, September 30 - October 03, 2015, Konya, Turkey. Proceedings book, vol. I & II., pp. 957–969.

Google Scholar

Bhatt, B., Gupta, S. K., Mukherjee, S., and Kumar, R. (2024). A comprehensive review on biochar against plant pathogens: Current state-of-the-art and future research perspectives. Heliyon 10, e37204. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37204

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhullar, G. S., Bautze, D., Adamtey, N., Armengot, L., Cicek, H., Goldmann, E., et al. (2021). “What is the contribution of organic agriculture to sustainable development?,” in A synthesis of twelve years, (2007-2019) of the “long-term agriculture systems comparisons in the tropics (SysCom)” (Department of International Cooperation, Frick, Switzerland). Available online at: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/39536/ (Accessed May 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Bisquert, K. M. and Meira, P. Á. (2019). “The Agroecological Movement in Galicia (Spain),” in Culture and Environment: Weaving new connections (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publisers), pp. 107–126. doi: 10.1163/9789004396685_007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boschiero, M., De Laurentiis, V., Caldeira, C., and Sala, S. (2023). Comparison of organic and conventional cropping systems: A systematic review of life cycle assessment studies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 102, 107187. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107187

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brito, T. P., de Souza-Esquerdo, V. F., and Borsatto, R. S. (2022). State of the art on research about organic certification: a systematic literature review. Organic Agric. 12, 177–190. doi: 10.1007/S13165-022-00390-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brzezina, N., Biely, K., Helfgott, A., Kopainsky, B., Vervoort, J., and Mathijs, E. (2017). Development of organic agriculture in Europe at the crossroads: Looking for the way forward through system archetypes lenses. Sustainability 9, 821. doi: 10.3390/su9050821

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brzozowski, L. and Mazourek, M. (2018). A sustainable agricultural future relies on the transition to organic agroecological pest management. Sustainability 10, 6. doi: 10.3390/su10062023

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Canwat, V. and Onakuse, S. (2022). Organic agriculture: A fountain of alternative innovations for social, economic, and environmental challenges of conventional agriculture in a developing country context. Cleaner Circular Bioeconomy 3, 100025. doi: 10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100025

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlson, A., Greene, C., Raszap Skorbiansky, S., Hitaj, C., Ha, K. A., Cavigelli, M., et al. (2023). “U.S. Organic Production, Markets, Consumers, and Policy 2000–21,” USDA Miscellaneous 333551 (Washington, DC, USA: United States Department of Agriculture). doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.333551

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Castillo-Díaz, F. J., Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., Batlles-delaFuente, A., and Camacho-Ferre, F. (2024). Strategic evaluation of the sustainability of the Spanish primary sector within the framework of the circular economy. Sustain. Dev. 32, 3147–3162. doi: 10.1002/sd.2837

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

CERES GmbH (2023). “Certification fees and conditions (version 3.3.0),” in CERES – Certification of Environmental Standards GmbH. Available online at: https://www.ceres-cert.de/docs/transfer/3-3-0_EN.pdf (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Clark, S. (2020). Organic agriculture and climate change: The need for innovation. Sustainability 12, 7012. doi: 10.3390/su12177012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Colley, M. R., Dawson, J. C., Zystro, J., Hoagland, L., Liou, M., Myers, J. R., et al. (2025). Influence of organic and conventional management systems on carrot performance and implications for organic plant breeding. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 150, 65–85. doi: 10.21273/JASHS05459-24

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Constance, D. H. and Choi, J. Y. (2010). Overcoming the barriers to organic adoption in the United States: A look at pragmatic conventional producers in Texas. Sustainability 2, 163–188. doi: 10.3390/su2010163

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Crowder, D. W. and Reganold, J. P. (2015). Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States America 112, 7611–7616. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423674112

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Czyżewski, B. and Kryszak, Ł. (2022). “Sustainable agriculture policies for human well-being,” in Integrated efficiency approach (Springer Nature, Switzerland). doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-09796-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deng, Y., Ning, Y., Yang, D. L., Zhai, K., Wang, G. L., and He, Z. (2020). Molecular basis of disease resistance and perspectives on breeding strategies for resistance improvement in crops. Mol. Plant 13, 1402–1419. Available online at: https://www.cell.com/molecular-plant/fulltext/S1674-2052(20)30313-0 (Accessed October 12, 2025).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

De Ponti, T., Rijk, B., and van Ittersum, M. K. (2012). The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Devi, M. H., Mohanty, S. R., and Kollah, B. (2024). “Organic Agriculture: Approach and Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture,” in Greenhouse Gas Regulating Microorganisms in Soil Ecosystems: Perspectives for Climate Smart Agriculture (Springer International Publishing, Singapore, Cham), 299–315. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-70569-4_18

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DOA (2025). Malaysian Organic Certification Scheme (myOrganic). Available online at: https://www.kpkm.gov.my/en/incentive-and-grant/malaysian-organic-certification-scheme-myorganic (Accessed May 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Dolatabadian, A., Neik, T. X., Danilevicz, M. F., Upadhyaya, S. R., Batley, J., and Edwards, D. (2025). Image-based crop disease detection using machine learning. Plant Pathol. 74, 18–38. doi: 10.1111/ppa.14006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dou, T., Zhang, K., Shi, X., Liu, W., Yu, F., and Liu, D. (2025). Crop–mushroom rotation: A comprehensive review of its multifaceted impacts on soil quality, agricultural sustainability, and ecosystem health. Agronomy 15, 563. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15030563

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duckett, T., Pearson, S., Blackmore, S., Grieve, B., Chen, W. H., Cielniak, G., et al. (2018). Agricultural robotics: the future of robotic agriculture. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06762 26. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1806.06762

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duddigan, S., Collins, C. D., Hussain, Z., Osbahr, H., Shaw, L. J., Sinclair, F., et al. (2022). Impact of zero budget natural agriculture on crop yields in Andhra Pradesh, SE India. Sustainability 14, 1689. doi: 10.3390/su14031689

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eissa, M. (2024). Precision agriculture using artificial intelligence and robotics. J. Res. Agric. Food Sci. 1, 35–35. doi: 10.5455/JRAFS.20240404014009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

European Commission (2022a). Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labeling of organic products and repealing regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2007/834/oj/eng (Accessed May 29, 2025).

Google Scholar

European Commission (2022b). Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labeling of organic products (Official Journal of the European Union). Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018R0848 (Accessed May 29, 2025).

Google Scholar

Eurostat (2024). Developments in organic farming. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Developments_in_organic_farming (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

FAO (2025).Family agriculture knowledge platform. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/family-agriculture/detail/en/c/326551/ (Accessed April 30, 2025).

Google Scholar

Ferdous, Z., Zulfiqar, F., Datta, A., Hasan, A. K., and Sarker, A. (2021). Potential and challenges of organic agriculture in Bangladesh: a review. J. Crop Improvement 35, 403–426. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2020.1824951

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

FiBL (2023a). Almost 11 percent of agricultural land in the EU organically farmed (FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture). Available online at: https://www.fibl.org/en/info-centre/news/almost-11-percent-agricultural-land-eu-organically-farmed (Accessed October 5, 2025).

Google Scholar

FiBL (2023b). A. Organic market back on track (FiBL – Research Institute of Organic Agriculture). Available online at: https://www.fibl.org/en/info-centre/news/organic-market-back-on-track (Accessed October 5, 2025).

Google Scholar

FiBL statistics (2023). Available online at: https://statistics.fibl.org/world/area-world.html (Accessed May 29, 2025).

Google Scholar

Finckh, M. R., Van Bruggen, A. H., and Tamm, L. (2015). Plant Diseases and Their Management in Organic Agriculture (St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Society). Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281116015_Plant_Disesaes_and_Their_Managment_in_Organic_Agriculture (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Fradin, E. F., Zhang, Z., Juarez Ayala, J. C., Castroverde, C. D., Nazar, R. N., Robb, J., et al. (2009). Genetic dissection of Verticillium wilt resistance mediated by tomato Ve1. Plant Physiol. 150, 320–332. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.136762

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fusco, G. (2021). Twenty years of common agricultural policy in Europe: a bibliometric analysis. Sustainability 13, 10650. doi: 10.3390/su131910650

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gamage, A., Gangahagedara, R., Gamage, J., Jayasinghe, N., Kodikara, N., Suraweera, P., et al. (2023). Role of organic agriculture for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Agric. System 1, 100005. doi: 10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100005

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Garrone, P., Melacini, M., and Perego, A. (2014). Opening the black box of food waste reduction. Food Policy 46, 129–139. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.014

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grasseni, C. (2025). Re-territorialising skills? Insights from ethnography on solidarity-economy food activism. Sustain. Sci. 20, 1639–1651. doi: 10.1007/s11625-024-01527-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, N., Tripathi, S., and Dholakia, H. H. (2020). “Can zero budget natural farming save input costs and fertiliser subsidies,” in Report. The Council on Energy, Environment and Water New Delhi, India, 1–30. Available online at: https://www.ceew.in/sites/default/files/can-zero-budget-natural-farming-save-input-costs-and-fertilizer-subsidies.pdf (Accessed May 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Hatanaka, M., Bain, C., and Busch, L. (2005). Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30, 354–369. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hiddink, G. A., van Bruggen, A. H., Termorshuizen, A. J., Raaijmakers, J. M., and Semenov, A. V. (2005). Effect of organic management of soils on suppressiveness to Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici and its antagonist, Pseudomonas fluorescens. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 113, 417–435. doi: 10.1007/s10658-005-5402-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hill, J. K. (2016). Organic agriculture in India and participatory guarantee systems (PGS): A case study from West Bengal. Jharkhand J. Dev. Manage. Stud. 14, 7037–7055.

Google Scholar

Hinzpeter, K. (2025). The organic sector in Bavaria: challenges, opportunities and prospects. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany. Available online at: https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35697/1/Hinzpeter_Kilian.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2025). Doctoral dissertation.

Google Scholar

Hoagland, L., Navazio, J., Zystro, J., Kaplan, I., Vargas, J. G., and Gibson, K. (2015). Key traits and promising germplasm for an organic participatory tomato breeding program in the US Midwest. HortScience 50, 1301–1308. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.50.9.1301

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Humphrey, D. L. (2024). Performing purity: the ethical worlds of public servants in Sikkim's organic conversion. University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. Doctoral dissertation. doi: 10.17630/sta/1153. (Accessed October 12 2025).

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ibrahim, M. A., Hall, C. M., and Ballantine, P. W. (2019). “Food retailing: Malaysian retailers’ perception of and attitude toward organic certification,” in Case studies in food retailing and distribution (Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, United Kingdom), 159–178. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102037-1.00011-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

IFOAM – Organics International (2024). Participatory guarantee systems (IFOAM – Organics International). Available online at: https://www.ifoam.bio/our-work/how/standards-certification/participatory-guarantee-systems (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Karafillis, C. and Papanagiotou, E. (2011). Innovation and total factor productivity in organic agriculture. Appl. Econ 43, 3075–3087. doi: 10.1080/00036840903427240

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karunakanth, M., Venkatesan, R., and Kathrine, G. J. W. (2018). IOT-based smart irrigation system for home-based organic garden. Int. J. Pure Appl. Mathematics 119, 16193–16199.

Google Scholar

Katto-Andrighetto, J., Kirchner, C., Castro, F. M., and Varini, F. (2019). Participatory guarantee systems in 2018. in The World of Organic Agriculture Eds. Rota, S., Giuggioli, N., and Peano, C. (Torino, Italy: Slow Food Association, Department of Agricultural, Forestry and Food Sciences, University of Turin). Available online at: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/37018/1/willer-lernoud-2019-world-of-organic-low.pdfpage=161 (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Kaur, R. and Shah, T. K. (2018). Organic fish farming: a pioneer approach towards sustainable fish farming. Indian Farming 68. Available online at: https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IndFarm/article/view/81952 (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Kaur, R., Sharma, D. I., and Saini, C. (2024). Smart agriculture: empowering organic agriculture with AI. Int. J. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 12, 805–809. doi: 10.22214/ijraset.2024.58931

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Keyvanfar, A. L. I., Shafaghat, A., Inn, T. S., and Mohamad, S. (2020). A Sustainable urban agriculture index assessment model for evaluating food productivity that applies multi-criteria decision-making methods - A Case Study in Malaysia. J. Sustainability Sci. Manage. 15, 123–146. Available online at: https://jssm.umt.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/12-V15V7.pdf (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Khoh, C. (2012). A Study of Green Marketing Tools Influences on Green Cosmetic Product Purchasing in Malaysia. INTI International University, Nilai, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. Available online at: http://eprints.intimal.edu.my/668/. Doctoral dissertation.

Google Scholar

King, A. E. and Hofmockel, K. S. (2017). Diversified cropping systems support greater microbial cycling and retention of carbon and nitrogen. Agriculture Ecosyst. Environ. 240, 66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.040

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Köhl, J. (2019). “Use of biocontrol agents in fruit tree disease management,” in Integrated management of diseases and insect pests of tree fruit (Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing), 311–336. doi: 10.1201/9780429266690-13/use-biocontrol-agents-fruit-tree-disease-management-j%C3%BCrgen-k%C3%B6hl

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Krajewski, S., Žukovskis, J., Gozdowski, D., Cieśliński, M., and Wójcik-Gront, E. (2024). Evaluating the path to the european commission’s organic agriculture goal: A multivariate analysis of changes in EU countries, (2004–2021) and socio-economic relationships. Agriculture 14, 477. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14030477

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Krishnaprabu, S. (2019). “Organic agriculture in India: Concept, applications and Perspectives,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1362. (IOP Publishing, Bristol, United Kingdom), 012020. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1362/1/012020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

LaCanne, C. E. and Lundgren, J. G. (2018). Regenerative agriculture: merging agriculture and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6, e4428. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4428

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lampkin, N. (1990). Organic Farming (Ipswich, New York: Farming Press). Available online at: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2458856 (Accessed October 20, 2025).

Google Scholar

Larson, J. S. and Duram, L. A. (2000). Information dissemination in alternative agriculture research: An analysis of researchers in the North Central region. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 15, 171–180. doi: 10.1017/S0889189300008742

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lee, K. S., Choe, Y. C., and Park, S. H. (2015). Measuring the environmental effects of organic farming: A meta-analysis of structural variables in empirical research. J. Environ. Manage. 162, 263–274. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.07.021

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liu, Z., Wang, H., Wang, J., Lv, J., Xie, B., Luo, S., et al. (2022). Physical, chemical, and biological control of black rot of Brassicaceae vegetables: A review. Front. Microbiol. 13. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1023826

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lotter, D. W. (2003). Organic agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 21, 59–128. doi: 10.1300/J064v21n04_06

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Luis, J. M., Jaiswal, A. K., Mengiste, T. D., Myers, J. R., and Hoagland, L. A. (2025). Deciphering the mechanisms regulating variability in induced systemic resistance among tomato genotypes. Phytopathology 115, 771–782. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-07-24-0240-R

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lüttringhaus, S., Zetzsche, H., Wittkop, B., Stahl, A., Ordon, F., and Mußhoff, O. (2021). Resistance breeding increases winter wheat gross margins– an economic assessment for Germany. Front. Agron. 3, 730894. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2021.730894

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lynch, D. H. (2015). Nutrient cycling and soil health in organic cropping systems-importance of management strategies and soil resilience. Sustain. Agric. Res. 4, 80–88. doi: 10.5539/sar.v4n3p80

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mäder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., and Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296, 1694–1697. doi: 10.1126/science.1071148

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Maghirang, M. S., Maaño, R., Santonil, H. S., Canela, D. N., de la Roca, M. J., Buban, D. J., et al. (2025). IoT-enabled soil moisture management for precision plant sprinkler system for organic agriculture. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 1446, 12004. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1446/1/012004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahedi, M., Shaili, S. J., Nurnobi, M., Sakil, A. R., and Rahman, A. (2025). Adoption of organic farming practices: A comprehensive review of trends, determinants, and challenges. J. Agric. Rural Res. 8, 26–45. Available online at: http://aiipub.com/journals/jarr-250319-10085/ (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Malaysian Organic Certification Scheme (myOrganic) (2024). Report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (KPKM), Putrajaya. Available online at: https://www.kpkm.gov.my/en/incentive-and-grant/malaysian-organic-certification-scheme-myorganic (Accessed October 20, 2025).

Google Scholar

Mansoor, S., Iqbal, S., Popescu, S. M., Kim, S. L., Chung, Y. S., and Baek, J.-H. (2025). Integration of smart sensors and IOT in precision agriculture: trends, challenges, and future prospects. Front. Plant Sci. 16, 1587869. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1587869

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meinshausen, F., Richter, T., Blockeel, J., and Huber, B. (2019). Group certification: internal control systems in organic agriculture significance, opportunities and challenges (Frick, Switzerland: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), 108.

Google Scholar

Mengesha, W. K. (2017). Evaluation of non-aerated compost teas for suppression of potato diseases. Australia: University of Tasmania. doi: 10.1111/jam.13530

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Migliorini, P. and Wezel, A. (2017). Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s13593-017-0472-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mildew, P. (2000). “33.3. 3. Fungal Diseases,” in Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG), 478. Available online at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/0-306-47585-5page=500 (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malaysia (2024). Malaysian Organic Certification Scheme (myOrganic). Available online at: https://www.kpkm.gov.my/en/incentive-and-grant/Malaysian-organic-certification-scheme-myorganic (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Mishra, A., Khanam, S., Sharib, M., and Dubey, A. (2020). Chapter 5: Boosting food safety culture in India: initiatives taken by FSSAI. Advance Nutr. 67. doi: 10.22271/ed.book.792

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohamed Haris, N. B., Garrod, G., Gkartzios, M., and Proctor, A. (2018). “The decision to adopt organic practices in Malaysia: a mix-method approach,” in Agricultural Economics Society - AES > 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.273485. (Accessed October 12 2025).

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mollah, M. M. I. and Hassan, N. (2023). Efficacy of Trichoderma harzianum as a biological fungicide against fungal diseases of potato, late blight and early blight. J. Natural Pesticide Res. 5, 100047. doi: 10.1016/j.napere.2023.100047

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J., and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 111, 1098–1119. doi: 10.1108/00070700910992925

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mpanga, I. K., Tronstad, R., Guo, J., LeBauer, D. S., and Idowu, O. J. (2021). On-farm land management strategies and production challenges in the United States organic agricultural systems. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustainability 3, 100097. doi: 10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100097

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Murphy, B., Martini, M., Fedi, A., Loera, B. L., Elliott, C. T., and Dean, M. (2022). Consumer trust in organic food and organic certifications in four European countries. Food Control 133, 108484. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108484

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mwakha, F. A., Budambula, N. L., Neondo, J. O., Gichimu, B. M., Odari, E. O., Kamau, P. K., et al. (2020). Witchweed’s suicidal germination: can slenderleaf help? Agronomy 10, 873. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10060873

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Naik, B. P., Behera, B., Prusti, F. M., and Pattnaik, I. P. (2024). Agricultural Innovation through Market-Led Extension. PMW (New Delhi, India: PMW), 159–165. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379119458_Agricultural_Innovation_through_Market-Led_Extension (Accessed October 5, 2025).

Google Scholar

National Centre for Organic and Natural Farming (NCONF), Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India (2025). Status of organic farming. Available online at: https://nconf.dac.gov.in/StatusOrganicFarming (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2025). Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI). Available online at: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/organic-agriculture-research-extension-initiative (Accessed October 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

National Organic Coalition (2023). USDA restores organic certification cost-share program. Available online at: https://www.nationalorganiccoalition.org/blog/2023/5/9/usda-restores-organic-certification-cost-share-program (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) (2025). National Standards for Organic Production (NSOP). (8th ed.). New Delhi, India: Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India.

Google Scholar

Niggli, U., Andres, C., Willer, H., and Baker, B. P. (2017). Building a global platform for organic agriculture research, innovation, and technology transfer. Organic Agric. 7, 209–224. doi: 10.1007/s13165-017-0191-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nyakuri, J. P., Nkundineza, C., Gatera, O., Nkurikiyeyezu, K., and Mwitende, G. (2025). AI and IoT-powered edge device optimized for crop pest and disease detection. Sci. Rep. 15, 22905. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-06452-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Padel, S. (2001). Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41, 40–61. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00169

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Padel, S., Kunya, Z., Lampkin, N., Jonasz, G., and Szépkuthy, S. (2025).Analysis of barriers of conversion and recommendations for strengthening organic advisory services and capacity building. Available online at: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/55675/1/OT4EU_D5.2_Analysis-of-barriers-of-conversion.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Panday, D., Bhusal, N., Das, S., and Ghalehgolabbehbahani, A. (2024). Rooted in nature: the rise, challenges, and potential of organic agriculture and fertilizers in agroecosystems. Sustainability 16, 1530. doi: 10.3390/su16041530

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pandey, A., Paudel, R., Adhikari, T., Louws, F. J., and Panthee, D. (2023). Genome-wide association study (GWAS) to discover novel markers linked to SLS resistance in tomato. Phytopathology 113, S3.138.

Google Scholar

Pandey, J. and Singh, A. (2012). Opportunities and constraints in organic farming: an Indian perspective. J. Sci. Res. 56, 47–72.

Google Scholar

Parikh, A. (2023). Sikkim: making of the first 100% Organic state of the world. Indian J. Sustain. Dev. 9, 22–28. Available online at: http://publishingIndia.com/ijsd/ (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Parizad, S. and Bera, S. (2023). The effect of organic agriculture on water reusability, sustainable ecosystem, and food toxicity. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 30, 71665–71676. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15258-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Parveez, G. K. A., Hishamuddin, E., Loh, S. K., Ong-Abdullah, M., Salleh, K. M., Bidin, M. N. I. Z., et al. (2020). Oil palm economic performance in Malaysia and R&D progress in 2019. J. Oil Palm Res. 32, 159–190. doi: 10.21894/jopr.2020.0032

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Paul, M. (2019). Community-supported agriculture in the United States: Social, ecological, and economic benefits to agriculture. J. Agrarian Change 19, 162–180. doi: 10.1111/joac.12280

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pekala, A. (2020). Market analysis of organic foods in the Nordic and Baltic countries (Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers), p. 138. doi: 10.6027/TN2019-540

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Peng, M. (2019). “The growing market of organic foods: Impact on the US and global economy,” in Safety and practice for organic food (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Academic Press), 3–22. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812060-6.00001-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Petrovic, B., Kononets, Y., and Csambalik, L. (2025). Adoption of drone, sensor, and robotic technologies in organic farming systems of Visegrad countries. Heliyon 11, e41408. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41408

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Phairoj, S. and Tongkam, S. (2024). IoT-driven soil moisture monitoring in organic rice cultivation. Engineering Access 10, 230–237. doi: 10.14456/mijet.2024.24

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Philip, H. and Sivaraj, P. (2018). Socioeconomic characteristics of certified organic farmers in Tamil Nadu. J. Pharmacognosy Phytochem. 7, 437–441.

Google Scholar

Ponisio, L. C., M'Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., De Valpine, P., and Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce the organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 282, 20141396. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Puengsungwan, S. (2020). “IoT-based soil moisture sensor for smart agriculture,” in 2020 International Conference on Power, Energy and Innovations (ICPEI), Vol. pp. 221–224 (Piscataway, NJ, United States: IEEE). doi: 10.1109/ICPEI49860.2020.9431455 (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Purnhagen, K. P., Clemens, S., Eriksson, D., Fresco, L. O., Tosun, J., Qaim, M., et al. (2021). Europe’s farm-to-fork strategy and its commitment to biotechnology and organic agriculture: conflicting or complementary goals? Trends Plant Sci. 26, 600–606. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.03.012

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Qaim, M. (2020). Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Appl. Economic Perspect. Policy 42, 129–150. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13044

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Qu, H. R. and Su, W. H. (2024). Deep learning-based weed–crop recognition for smart agricultural equipment: A review. Agronomy 14, 363. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15081954

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Raghavendra, K. J., Kumara, T. K., Gowda, C., Kandpal, A., Bhat, S., Amrutha, T., et al. (2025). A meta-analysis on economic performance of organic vis-a-vis conventional farming in India. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 27, 3589–3600. doi: 10.1007/s10098-024-03053-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahman, M., Islam, T., Jett, L., and Kotcon, J. (2021). Biocontrol agent, biofumigation, and grafting with resistant rootstock suppress soil-borne disease and improve the yield of tomato in West Virginia. Crop Prot. 145, 105630. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105630

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahmann, G., Reza Ardakani, M., Bàrberi, P., Boehm, H., Canali, S., Chander, M., et al. (2017). Organic Agriculture 3.0 is an innovation in research. Organic Agric. 7, 169–197. doi: 10.1007/s13165-016-0171-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahmat, S. R., Khan, H. H., Radin, R. F., Badaruddin, M. F. M., and Shaharudin, M. (2021). A review of the organic agriculture industry in Malaysia and the gross margin between organic and conventional plantations. Jour. Contemp. Issues Business Governance 27, 330. doi: 10.47750/CIBG.2021.27.03.046

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ramaloo, P., Liong, C. Y., Siwar, C., and Isahak, A. (2018). Perception of community residents on supporting urban agriculture in Malaysian city: Case study at Bukit Mertajam. J. Pengurusan 53, 83–91. doi: 10.17576/pengurusan-2018-53-08

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rawat, L., Bisht, T. S., and Naithani, D. C. (2021). Plant disease management in organic agriculture systems: strategies and challenges. In: Singh, K. P., Jahagirdar, S., and Sarma, B. K. (eds) Emerging Trends in Plant Pathology (Singapore: Springer), 611–642. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-6275-4_27

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reganold, J. P. and Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2, 1–8. Available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2015221 (Accessed October 20, 2025).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) (2023). Organic seed database and seed derogation rules in the EU (FiBL). Available online at: https://www.organicxseeds.com/international/countryselect (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Robinson, G. M. (2024). Global sustainable agriculture and land management systems. Geogr. Sustainability 5, 637–646. doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2024.09.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Roggio, A. M. and Evans, J. R. (2022). Will participatory guarantee systems happen here? The case for innovative food systems governance in the developed world. Sustainability 14, 1720. doi: 10.3390/su14031720

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sailaja, A. and Manohari, P. L. (2021). Organic Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture (Hyderabad, India: Extension Education Institute, Hyderabad, and National Institute of Agriculture Extension Management (MANAGE), 40.

Google Scholar

Samutrak, P. and Tongkam, S. (2024). IoT-driven soil moisture monitoring in organic rice cultivation. Eng. Access 10, 230–237. doi: 10.14456/mijet.2024.24

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., and Cullen, R. (2010). Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.11.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schader, C., Stolze, M., and Gattinger, A.. (2012). Environmental performance of organic farming. In Boye, J. and Arcand, Y. (eds), Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing (Food Engineering Series). Springer, Boston, MA. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1587-9_8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schebesta, H. (2023). How to save the farm-to-fork strategy: a two-phased approach. Eur. Food Feed Law Rev. 18, 231–238.

Google Scholar

Scialabba, N. E. H. and Hattam, C. (2002). Organic agriculture, environment, and food security (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization), 21.

Google Scholar

Seufert, V. and Ramankutty, N. (2017). Many shades of gray -The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602638. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602638

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485, 229–232.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Shah, A., Askegaard, M., Rasmussen, I. A., Jimenez, E. M. C., and Olesen, J. E. (2017). Productivity of organic and conventional arable cropping systems in long-term experiments in Denmark. Eur. J. Agron. 90, 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2017.07.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, D. and Gautam, H. R. (2025). Bio-priming seed treatment for biological control of damping-off in solanaceous vegetable crops. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 172, 701–711. doi: 10.1007/s10658-025-03033-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sherief, H. T., Mahendran, K., Lavanya, M. S., and Prahadeeswaran, M. (2021). Value chain mapping of organic banana certified under the participatory guarantee systems in Kerala state. Pharma Innovation 10, 2274–2228. doi: 10.22271/tpi.2021.v10.i10af.8525

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shinde, G. U., Agrawal, R. C., Mani, I., Agrawal, A., Khodke, U. M., Muley, S. V., et al. (2024). “Digital farming solution by automation using Agri-Bot, Agri-Drone, and Agri-AGV for organic farming practices,” in International Conference on Agriculture Digitalization and Organic Production. Vol 397, 3–21 (Singapore: Springer Nature). doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-4410-7_1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Simonsen, J. E. and Lillywhite, J. M. (2014).Challenges and opportunities associated with US agricultural certifications. Available online at: https://pubs.nmsu.edu/research/economics/RR784.pdf (Accessed October 20, 2025).

Google Scholar

Singh, K. P., Jahagirdar, S., and Sarma, B. K. (2021). Emerging Trends in Plant Pathology (Singapore: Springer Nature), 577–590. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-6275-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, B. K., Shakeel, A., Gupta, S., and Paul, S. (2024). “Digital agriculture: Integrating IoT and AI for sustainable food production,” in Agriculture 4.0 (Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press), 22–44. doi: 10.1201/9781003570219

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sivaraj, P., Philip, H., Chinnadurai, M., Asokhan, M., and Sathyamoorthi, K. (2017). Constraints and suggestions of certified organic farmers in practicing organic agriculture in the western zone of Tamil Nadu, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 6, 1270–1277. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.603.146

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Skorbiansky, S. R. (2025). Organic situation report, 2025 edition. (Report No. EIB-281). (Washington, D.C.: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=110883 (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Skrodzka, V. (2017). Organic agricultural products in Europe and the USA. Management, Sciendo 21, 151–164. doi: 10.1515/manment-2017-0011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, O. M., Cohen, A. L., Rieser, C. J., Davis, A. G., Taylor, J. M., Adesanya, A. W., et al. (2019). Organic farming provides reliable environmental benefits but increases variability in crop yields: A global meta-analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00082

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Soil Association (2025). Fees for Organic Served Here 2025–26 (Soil Association Certification Limited). Available online at: https://www.soilassociation.org/media/28102/fees-for-organic-served-here-2025-26.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Solaiman, S. and Salaheen, S. (2019). “Future of organic agriculture: bringing technological marvels to the field,” in Safety and practice for organic food (Massachusetts, USA: Cambridge University Press), 291–303. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812060-6.00014-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Solfanelli, F., Ozturk, E., Zanoli, R., Orsini, S., Petitti, M., Ortolani, L., et al. (2021). The state of organic seed in Europe. Available online at: https://www.liveseed.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Booklet2-LIVESEED_2021_web.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Somasundram, C., Razali, Z., and Santhirasegaram, V. (2016). A review on organic food production in Malaysia. Horticulturae 2, 12. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae2030012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Srinivasan, R. (2012). Integrating biopesticides in pest management strategies for tropical vegetable production. J. Biopesticides 5, 36. doi: 10.57182/jbiopestic.5.0.36-45

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stanimir, A. (2020). Agricultural and organic agriculture production in the analysis of social well-being in the European Union Countries. J. Appl. Economic Sci. (JAES) 15, 377–388. Available online at: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=894693 (Accessed October 20, 2025).

Google Scholar

Suhaimee, S., Ibrahim, I. Z., and Abd Wahab, M.A. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in Malaysia. Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI). http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=579&print=1

Google Scholar

Tamm, L., Thuerig, B., Apostolov, S., Blogg, H., Borgo, E., Corneo, P. E., et al. (2022). Use of copper-based fungicides in organic agriculture in twelve European countries. Agronomy 12, 673. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12030673

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tay, M. J., Ng, T. H., and Lim, Y. S. (2024). Fostering sustainable agriculture: An exploration of localised food systems through community-supported agriculture. Environ. Sustainability Indic. 22, 100385. doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2024.100385

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tembhurne, J. V., Gajbhiye, S. M., Gannarpwar, V. R., Khandait, H. R., Goydani, P. R., and Diwan, T. (2023). Plant disease detection using deep learning-based mobile application. Multimedia Tools Appl. 82, 27365–27390. doi: 10.1007/s11042-023-14541-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Testen, A. L. and Miller, S. A. (2018). Carbon source and soil origin shape soil microbiomes and tomato soilborne pathogen populations during anaerobic soil disinfestation. Phytobiomes 2, 138–150. doi: 10.1094/PBIOMES-02-18-0007-R

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thallam, V. K. (2023). “Community-managed natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India,” in Biological Approaches to Regenerative Soil Systems (Boca Raton, Florida, United States of America: CRC Press), 431–448. Available online at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003093718-41/community-managed-natural-farming-andhra-pradesh-India-vijay-kumar-thallam (Accessed October 5, 2025).

Google Scholar

The Organic Trade Association (2023). US Organic Marketplace Posts Record Sales in 2023. Washington, DC., USA. Available online at: https://ota.com/about-ota/press-releases/us-organic-marketplace-posts-record-sales-2023 (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Tiraieyari, N., Hamzah, A., and Samah, B. A. (2014). Organic farming and sustainable agriculture in Malaysia: organic farmers’ challenges towards adoption. Asian Soc. Sci. 10, 1–7. doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n4p1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tomato Organic Management and Improvement Project (TOMI) (2024). “About TOMI 3,” in eOrganic (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University). Available online at: https://eorganic.info/node/12999 (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Tuomisto, H. L., Hodge, I. D., Riordan, P., and Macdonald, D. W. (2012). Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?–A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manage. 112, 309–320. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Turker, G. F. (2025). Reducing food waste in campus dining: a data-driven approach to demand prediction and sustainability. Sustainability 17, 379. doi: 10.3390/su17020379

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ume, C. and Bahta, Y. T. (2024). Policy support strategies for organic agriculture extensification in Nigeria. Organic Agric. 14, 323–344. doi: 10.1007/s13165-024-00467-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

United State Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa (2019). Fifth farmer pleads guilty in connection with organic fraud scheme totaling nearly $140 million (Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA: U.S. Department of Justice). Available online at: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndia/pr/fifth-farmer-pleads-guilty-connection-organic-fraud-scheme-totaling-nearly-140-million (Accessed May 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

United State Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS). (2023). National Organic Program (NOP). Available online at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national-organic-program (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2025a). Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program – Organic Transitions. Available online at: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/integrated-research-education-extension-competitive-grants-program-0 (Accessed October 7, 2025).

Google Scholar

United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2025b). Organic agriculture statistics and trends in the United States (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture (Accessed July 28, 2025).

Google Scholar

United State Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). (2023). Rising consumer demand reshapes landscape for U.S. organic farmers. Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-India). (2024). U.S. trade with India in 2024. Available online at: https://www.fas.usda.gov/regions/India (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

van Bniggen, A. H. C. and Termorskuizen, A. J. (2003). Integrated approaches to root disease management in organic farming systems. Aust. Plant Pathol. 32, 141–156. doi: 10.1071/AP03029

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Bruggen, A. H. C. (2015). “Introduction to plant disease management in organic agriculture,” in Plant Diseases and Their Management in Organic Agriculture. Eds. Finckh, M. R., Bruggen, A. H. C. v., and Tamm, L. (St. Paul, Minnesota, USA: APS Press), 39–55. doi: 10.1094/9780890544785.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Bruggen, A. H. C. and Finckh, M. R. (2016). Plant diseases and management approaches in organic agriculture systems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 54, 25–54. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100123

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Bruggen, A. H., Gamliel, A., and Finckh, M. R. (2016). Plant disease management in organic agriculture systems. Pest Manage. Sci. 72, 30–44. doi: 10.1002/ps.4145

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Esse, H. P., Reuber, T. L., and van der Does, D. (2020). Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytol. 225, 70–86. doi: 10.1111/nph.15967

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

van Hilten, M., Ongena, G., and Ravesteijn, P. (2020). Blockchain for organic food traceability: Case studies on drivers and challenges. Front. Blockchain 3. doi: 10.3389/fbloc.2020.567175

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vasudevon, P. (2013). An exploratory study on utilization of organic agriculture for sustainable agriculture at selected farms in Malaysia and India. University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Doctoral dissertation. (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Verma, M., Sharma, P., and Joe, E. T. (2022). A systematic comparative assessment of certification standards in India and suggested evaluation frameworks. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.722439

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weiss, B. (2013). Food: The (agri)cultural revolution – Organic agriculture and agricultural movements in Spain. Green Eur. J. 5, 56–59. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/326551/ (Accessed October 10, 2025).

Google Scholar

Wesseler, J. (2022). The EU's farm-to-fork strategy: An assessment from the perspective of agricultural economics. Appl. Economic Perspect. Policy 44, 1826–1843. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13239

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Willer, H., Trávníček, J., and Schlatter, B. (2024). The world of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends 2024 (Bonn, Germany: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL (Frick, Switzerland) & IFOAM – Organics International). Available online at: https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1747-organic-world-2024_light.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2025).

Google Scholar

Yang, L., Kamata, S., Hoshino, Y., Liu, Y., and Tomioka, C. (2024). Development of EV crawler-type weeding robot for organic onion agriculture. Agriculture 15, 2. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15010002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yeng, L. H. (2016). Comparative Study of Organic and Conventional Vegetable Farming Systems Using Material and Substance Flow Analysis. University of Malaya, Malaysia. Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/a0d5985122ca2ffd3ba489abca83f50c/1?cbl=2026366&diss=y&pq-origsite=gscholar (Accessed May 12, 2025). Doctoral dissertation.

Google Scholar

Zaccardelli, M., Perrone, D., Pane, C., Pucci, N., and Infantino, A. (2010). “Control of corky root of tomato with compost and role of spore-forming bacteria to inhibit Pyrenochaeta lycopersici,” in ISHS Acta Horticulturae 914: III International Symposium on Tomato Diseases, July 25 -30, 2010, Ischia, Naples, Italy, Vol. 914. 393–396. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.914.74

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, H., Li, Y., and Zhu, J. K. (2018). Developing naturally stress-resistant crops for a sustainable agriculture. Nat. Plants 4, 989–996. doi: 10.1038/s41477-018-0309-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar