We identified seven myths: (1) OAFR follows a systemic research approach, (2) OAFR is guided by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Principles and organic regulations, (3) research priorities are defined in collaboration with practitioners, (4) transdisciplinarity is a key strategy in OAFR, (5) OAFR produces results that are directly applicable in practice, (6) the methods applied in OAFR differ fundamentally from those in research on conventional farming, and (7) organic researchers are fully integrated in the scientific community.
We assume that our reflections will also inspire a broader discourse in the light of Organic 3.0, where a critical review of research practices should be central for the future development of OAFR.
As organic regulations continue to be modified, largely by economic (often corporate) interests, they increasingly appear to have almost forgotten the principles (e.g., through the increased application of all kinds of industrial fertilizers).
As a result, organic practices risk losing their singular position as ethically framed (see also the conventionalization debate) (De Wit and Verhoog ).
For that, systems theory has been identified as a necessary theoretical foundation (Fiala and Freyer ).
The notion that OAFR follows a systemic approach seems to be widespread in the organic research community.
The understanding of the organic regulations is that they have to be in line with the IFOAM Principles and consequently the organic farming practices are guided by this ethical framework (see Padel et al.
), representing a broad range of actors with rather different worldviews.
Today, organic agriculture and food research (OAFR) is well established in many agricultural research institutions.
Within the context of the future of organic farming (OF), International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) prepared a strategic paper, Organic 3.0, that includes an extensive debate about the necessary requirements and important research needs in OF (Arbenz et al. Besides that, over the last decade, numerous papers have addressed the following: how OF should be developed in the future; research strategies for OF; the demand, needs, and challenges of OF; analyses of the state of the art in OAFR based on stakeholder and expert interviews, focus group discussions, platforms, or literature reviews (Barabanova et al. When it comes to research features in OAFR, we recognize that the discourse about them is limited and fragmented.