organic vs non organic food essay

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Organic Food — Comparing Organic and Non-Organic Food

Comparing Organic and Non-organic Food

• Categories: Nutrition Organic Food

About this sample

Words: 1350 |

Published: Jan 25, 2024

Words: 1350 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Nutritional content, nitrates levels, animal food products, physical appearance, works cited.

• Brown, Mary Jane. "What Is Organic Food, And Is It Better Than Non-Organic?". Authority Nutrition, .
• Solomon, Zak. "Organic Vs. Non-Organic: What's The Difference? | Food Safety News". Food Safety News, 2013,
• Carrington, Damian, and George Arnett. "Clear Differences Between Organic And Non-Organic Food, Study Finds". The Guardian, 2014,

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2435 words

6 pages / 2912 words

1 pages / 492 words

1 pages / 672 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Organic Food

Rice is one of the most important and widely consumed staple foods in the world. It is a staple food for more than half of the world's population, particularly in Asia, where it is a major part of the diet for billions of [...]

Lima beans, also known as butter beans, are a popular legume that has been a staple in diets around the world for centuries. They are a rich source of protein, fiber, and various essential nutrients, making them a valuable [...]

Food is one of the most important essential in our life for it brings energy to the body in order to keep it functioning. What we consume everyday determines the level of healthiness in our body. However, without food the body [...]

Cheese is a food derived from milk that is produced in a wide range of flavors, textures, and forms by coagulation of the milk protein casein. It comprises proteins and fat from milk, usually the milk of cows, buffalo, goats, or [...]

In our everyday life, we consume food, but we don’t know exactly where the food came from or how it was handled before purchased. Organic foods are said to; have fewer pesticides, have richer nutrients, are non- GMO, and [...]

One kind of synthetic antioxidant, which is used widely in food products, is tert-butylhydroquinone (THBQ). It is an aromatic organic compound which is a type of phenol. It is a derivative of hydroquinone, substituted with a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Organic food vs. non-organic food

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Conventional Farming V.S. Organic Farming

Organic farming.

Organic food vs. non-organic food. (2016, Apr 04). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay

"Organic food vs. non-organic food." StudyMoose , 4 Apr 2016, https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Organic food vs. non-organic food . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay [Accessed: 15 Jun. 2024]

"Organic food vs. non-organic food." StudyMoose, Apr 04, 2016. Accessed June 15, 2024. https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay

"Organic food vs. non-organic food," StudyMoose , 04-Apr-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay. [Accessed: 15-Jun-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Organic food vs. non-organic food . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/organic-food-vs-non-organic-food-essay [Accessed: 15-Jun-2024]

• Non-Action and Non-Violence in Sikhism and Jainism Pages: 5 (1365 words)
• Compare/Contrast Organic Food vs Processed Food Pages: 4 (921 words)
• Non thermal food preservation methods Pages: 7 (1925 words)
• KP Kitchen: West African Organic Food Restaurant Pages: 3 (606 words)
• Fast Food vs Organic Pages: 2 (519 words)
• Organic Food Industry in India Pages: 10 (2748 words)
• Is Organic Food Better? Pages: 6 (1708 words)
• The Importance of Organic Food in Hotels Pages: 6 (1795 words)
• Greenmonkey Organic Baby Food Pages: 2 (492 words)
• Sustainability and Quality of Organic Food Pages: 2 (571 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health?

Vanessa vigar.

1 NatMed Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia; [email protected] (V.V.); [email protected] (C.O.); [email protected] (S.R.)

2 Integria Healthcare, Eight Mile Plains QLD 4113, Australia

3 School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia; [email protected]

4 Centre for Organics Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia

Stephen Myers

Christopher oliver.

5 Oliver Nutrition Pty Ltd, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia

Jacinta Arellano

Shelley robinson, carlo leifert, associated data.

The current review aims to systematically assess the evidence related to human health outcomes when an organic diet is consumed in comparison to its conventional counterpart. Relevant databases were searched for articles published to January 2019. Clinical trials and observational research studies were included where they provided comparative results on direct or indirect health outcomes. Thirty-five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Few clinical trials assessed direct improvements in health outcomes associated with organic food consumption; most assessed either differences in pesticide exposure or other indirect measures. Significant positive outcomes were seen in longitudinal studies where increased organic intake was associated with reduced incidence of infertility, birth defects, allergic sensitisation, otitis media, pre-eclampsia, metabolic syndrome, high BMI, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The current evidence base does not allow a definitive statement on the health benefits of organic dietary intake. However, a growing number of important findings are being reported from observational research linking demonstrable health benefits with organic food consumption. Future clinical research should focus on using long-term whole-diet substitution with certified organic interventions as this approach is more likely to determine whether or not true measurable health benefits exist.

1. Introduction

The global marketplace of organics has grown rapidly over the last few decades and consumer demand for organic products is increasing globally, with approximately 80 billion Euros ($92 billion USD) spent on organic products annually [ 1 ]. A recent report from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM Organics International, shows a 14.7% increase in organic farmland from 2014 to 2015, totalling 50.9 million hectares, with Australia having the largest amount of agricultural land at 22.7 million hectares [ 2 ]. Organic food items most often consumed in Europe are organic baby foods followed by organic eggs, fruit and vegetables, then dairy products, with organic dairy reaching market shares of around 10 percent of overall sales in some European countries [ 2 ]. In the United States, fruit and vegetables make up the largest areas of organic food sales, followed by dairy products [ 3 ]. The reasons consumers are increasingly choosing organic over conventional food products are varied, including many reasons beside personal health and wellbeing, such as environmental concerns or animal welfare impact. However, the major determinants behind consumer purchase of organic products, is the belief that organic food is healthier or has a superior nutritional profile [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Regular consumers of organic food are most likely to be female, health-conscious, physically active, and in the higher brackets of education and income than their non-organic consuming counterparts [ 7 , 8 ]. They are also more likely to have a higher ratio of plant to animal foods, with a strong relationship between vegetarian/vegan consumers and organic consumption [ 7 , 9 ]. This consumer group generally has an increased wholefood dietary intake, as a result of both the general ethos of organic consumers (i.e., preference over processed/ultra-processed foods), and restricted use of additives in organic processed foods. Diet composition between organic and non-organic consumers may, therefore, be quite different.

The notion that organic food may be healthier has some support. Although there appears to be little variation between organic and conventional food products in terms of macro nutritional value (protein, fat, carbohydrate and dietary fibre), other compositional differences have been demonstrated. These include higher antioxidant concentrations (particularly polyphenols) in organic crops [ 10 ]; increased levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic dairy products [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]; and improved fatty acid profiles in organic meat products [ 14 , 15 ]. These compositional differences are comprehensively discussed in several recent reviews [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that these compositional differences may have an effect on plasma levels of certain nutrients including magnesium, fat-soluble micronutrients (α-carotene, β -carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin), and fatty acids (linoleic, palmitoleic, γ-linolenic, and docosapentaenoic acids) [ 20 ]. Any possible clinical effects of such differences need further investigation.

Likely to be of more importance than compositional differences between the two, is what organic foods do not contain. Organic foods have been shown to have lower levels of toxic metabolites, including heavy metals such as cadmium, and synthetic fertilizer and pesticide residues [ 10 , 17 ]. Consumption of organic foods may also reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria [ 19 ].

The long-term safety of pesticide consumption through conventional food production has been questioned, with evidence from long-term cohort studies covering areas ranging from possible neurotoxicity to endocrine disruption [ 21 ]. A number of widely used pesticides have been banned retrospectively only when unexpected negative health impacts have been identified [ 22 , 23 ]. From a regulatory perspective, dietary intake of pesticides is not considered to pose a health risk to consumers as long as individual pesticide concentrations in foods are below the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). Surveys conducted by both the European Food Safety Authority and the United States Department of Agriculture show that the vast majority of foods contained individual pesticide levels below the MRL, at 1.7% and 0.59%, respectively, found to exceed the limits. It was also found that 30.1% and 27.5%, respectively, of food samples analysed contained multiple pesticide residues [ 24 , 25 ]. One of the main criticisms of current regulatory pesticide approval processes is that they do not require safety testing of pesticide mixtures or formulations of pesticides [ 23 , 26 , 27 ]. There is considerable controversy about health risks posed by chronic low-level dietary pesticide exposure [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], and whilst lower levels of pesticide residue excretion is consistently observed during organic diet intakes [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], there is uncertainty around how this may impact the health of the consumer.

The last systematic review into the effect of organic food consumption on health was conducted by Dangour et al. in 2010 [ 35 ], which was limited to strict inclusion criteria of organic interventions, and Smith-Spangler et al. in 2012 [ 19 ], which contained only minimal focus on the human health effects of organic food, and a broader focus on nutritional content of organically and conventionally grown food and food safety. Although there have been other more recent reviews on the effects of organic diet on broader aspects of health [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 ], none have been systematic. The literature has expanded since these earlier systematic reviews, with many cohort and cross-sectional studies being published which compare organic versus conventional dietary intake on a range of health outcomes. Dangour et al. (2010) included 12 reports overall, of which eight were human studies (six clinical trials, one cohort study, 1 cross-section study), and four that reported animal or in vitro research. The Smith-Spangler et al. (2012) report was more comprehensive, including 17 human studies (in addition to 223 studies of comparative nutrient/contaminant profiles).

The present systematic review was designed to assess the breadth of evidence related to human health outcomes when an organic diet is consumed in comparison to its conventional counterpart. This review reports results from 35 studies including both clinical trial and observational research and includes substantially more papers than previous systematic reviews on this topic. This review does not include a comparison of nutritional quality between production types, safety of organic food, or human studies where environmental pesticide exposure is the focus.

2.1. Literature Search

This systematic review has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [ 36 ].

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search from the Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TOXNET databases for articles published in January 2019. Relevant keywords included terms related to organic dietary intake in combination with words relevant to health outcomes (i.e., asthma, eczema, obesity, diabetes). Search terms were amended slightly for each database. Articles with English titles and abstracts were considered for inclusion. The search strategy was developed by two authors (SM and VV) and was performed by VV in January 2019. Additional publications were identified from the reference lists of obtained articles that were included in the review. Refer to Supplementary Figure S1 (see online Supplementary Material ).

All articles that compared organic versus conventional dietary intake in relation to a direct or an indirect health outcome were included. We did not set out to limit paper inclusion by including a strict definition of organic intake, but accepted all papers that self-identified as representing comparative information on health outcomes from organic versus conventional diets. In doing so, we set out a priori to ensure we obtained a comprehensive snapshot of the available literature in this area.

2.2. Study Eligibility Criteria

2.2.1. population.

Only human feeding studies were included. Studies including infant participants measured from the second trimester of pregnancy were included where the mother gave dietary information during pregnancy.

2.2.2. Intervention

Any clinical trial where organic food items were taken to replace non-organic food items, or observational studies where there was a comparison between organic and non-organic dietary intake were included. This encompassed individual food or drink replacement, through to entire diet substitution. Observational research was accepted where dietary intake was classified according to level of organic food within individual dietary groups or whole diet.

2.2.3. Outcome

Clinical trials were included where they provided comparative results on direct or indirect health outcomes. Cohort studies were included where associations with development of disorder or disease were reported, or if they provided comparisons of biological samples across organic versus conventional dietary intake groups.

2.2.4. Study Designs

Types of studies included were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies.

2.2.5. Exclusion Criteria

Articles were excluded if they were not specifically examining the effect of organic dietary intake with conventional dietary intake, or if they did not report on human biomarkers related to health, or disease development. Articles were excluded if they were concerned with occupational exposure to agricultural chemicals or domestic use of pesticides and unrelated to dietary consumption of organic versus non-organic foods.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently reviewed full articles for inclusion based on relevance to the study question and eligibility criteria. One reviewer (VV) extracted data from included studies, which was checked by a separate reviewer (SM). The details are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 , using the following parameters: (i) author and year of publication; (ii) study population including country of origin and key demographic detail; (iii) sample size; (iv) study design and duration of intervention/exposure; (vi) exposure to organic diet and comparator; (vii) outcomes assessed; (viii) results; (ix) organic definition.

Data extraction table—Clinical trials.

Abbreviations: 2-AAS: 2-amino-adipic semialdehyde; AMPA: aminomethylphosphonic acid; BMI: body mass index; C: control group; CKD: chronic kidney disease; Cat: catalase; CS: cabernet sauvignon; DAP: dialkylphosphate; DEP: diethylphosphate; DETP: diethylthiophosphate; DEDTP: diethyldithiophosphate; DMDTP: dimethyldithiophosphate; DMP: dimethylphosphate; DMTP: dimethylthiophosphate; DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid; DXA: dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; FRAP: ferric reducing ability of plasma; GPx: glutathione peroxidase; GR: glutathione reductase; GSH: glutathione; Hcy: homocysteine; LDL: low density lipoprotein; MDA: malathion; NK: natural killer; NO: non-organic group; O: organic group; OP: organophosphate; ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SOD: superoxide dismutase; TAC: total antioxidant capacity; TAG: triacyglycerol; TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; TCPy: 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol; TE: trolox equivalents; TEAC: trolox equivalents antioxidant capacity; Vit: vitamin; WBC: white blood cell.

Data extraction table - Observational Studies.

Abbreviations: AAR: artficially assisted reproduction; AL: anthroposophic lifestyle; ART: assisted reproductive technology; AMPA: aminomethylphosphonic acid; BMI: body mass index; CL: conventional lifestyle; DAP: dialkylphosphate; DETP: diethylthiophosphate; DMP: dimethylphosphate; DMTP: dimethylthiophosphate; FFQ: food frequency questionnaire; FV: fruits and vegetables; HR: hazard ratio; LOD: limit of detection; NO: non-organic group; O: organic group; OM: otitis media; OS: organic score; PBA: 3-phenoxybenzoic acid; PRBS: pesticide residue burden score; TFA: trans-fatty acid; TVA: trans-vaccenic acid; Vit: vitamin.

2.4. Assessment of Risk of Bias

The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess likelihood of bias in each clinical trial publication [ 67 ]. The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies was used to assess the likelihood of bias in cohort studies, and the Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE) checklist was used for the critical appraisal of cross-sectional studies [ 68 , 69 ]. All assessments were conducted by at least two authors, with differences settled by discussion. Summary tables detailing results of bias assessments are presented in Supplementary Figure S2 .

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram detailing the article selection process is shown in Figure 1 . Searches identified 4329 potentially relevant articles, of which 4234 were excluded after initial screening of title and/or abstract. The remaining 95 full-text publications were assessed, of which a further 60 publications were excluded.

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection [ 36 ].

Thirty-five papers met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Of these, 15 publications reported on 13 clinical trials—three of which were parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCT), with the remaining studies utilising a crossover design. In observational studies, 20 publications reported on 13 cohorts. The studies were all published in English. The majority of the clinical trials were conducted in Europe—Germany (2), Denmark (2), Italy (2), France (1), and Switzerland (1), with other countries including: the United States (2), Turkey (1), Brazil (1), and Australia (1). Observational research studies were on cohorts from the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, France, Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden.

3.2. Clinical Trials (Single Food/Drink Item Substitution)

Several studies investigated the effect of replacing a single non-organic food or drink item with its organic counterpart. Three of the trials utilised an acute dose setting (red wine, apples or grape juice) in a crossover design [ 40 , 42 , 48 ], while others were based on the daily consumption of the food item (tomatoes and derived purees, carrots or apples) for a period of 2–4 weeks [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Those studies looking at nutrient levels (i.e., carotenoids, polyphenols) [ 37 , 38 , 39 ] in biological samples (blood or urine), did not find any significant differences in the levels of these markers as a result of the organic intervention.

Other single-item substitution studies measured antioxidant capacity, or DNA damage in biological samples [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 48 ]. There were no significant between-group differences in these biomarkers in any of the studies.

3.3. Clinical Trials (Whole Diet Substitution)

Eight crossover trials (reported in nine publications) investigated the effect of whole diet replacement from conventional to organic (or at least >80% in one study) for a time period ranging from 4 or 5 days in children [ 31 , 43 , 44 ] to up to 22 days in adult populations [ 34 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 ].

Four of these trials (two in children and two in adults) measured changes in pesticide excretion through urine [ 31 , 34 , 43 , 44 , 49 ]. All of these trials demonstrated a significant difference in the amount of pesticide metabolites excreted during the different phases of the diet interventions. The reduction was, in most cases, dramatic (up to 90% reduction during organic phase) and occurred within a short time frame of only a few days.

The remaining trials were all conducted in adult populations and measured antioxidant capacity and flavonoid excretion [ 41 ]; carotenoids [ 47 ]; or antioxidant capacity, changes to body composition, lipids and inflammatory markers [ 45 , 46 ].

Similar to the results from clinical trials replacing single food items, individual flavonoid and carotenoid excretion appeared to reflect the content of the foods consumed (i.e., a higher quercetin, carotenoid and kaempferol level was shown in organic produce in comparison to conventional produce given as part of the diets, and this was reflected in the urinary output) [ 41 , 47 ].

Two studies completed by the same research group in Italy looked at the effects of a Mediterranean diet intervention (non-organic phase followed by organic phase). An initial pilot study of 10 people [ 45 ] and a following larger cohort study of 150 people (100 healthy and 50 with chronic kidney disease (CKD)) [ 46 ] provided a two-stage intervention, with a controlled Mediterranean diet (MD) for 14 days followed by the same diet for a further 14 days using organic rather than conventional foodstuffs.

The pilot study found an increased antioxidant effect (from 2.25 to 2.75 mM trolox equivalents) after 14 days MD and after 14 days organic MD, respectively, with no baseline measure provided. The authors also showed a generally higher antioxidant level in the organic foods eaten in comparison to non-organic. In the larger study, in both healthy and CKD patients there was a highly significant effect on body weight reduction and improved body composition seen through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bio-impedance analysis (BIA) between the two time points (end of conventional MD and end of organic MD). Inflammatory markers (hs-CRP, IL-1, IL-6, IFN-γ and homocysteine) all showed a statistically significant decrease between the same time-points for the healthy group, whilst only hs-CRP and homocysteine were significantly decreased in the CKD group.

3.4. Observational cohort studies

From a total of 20 publications including 13 cohorts, seven prospective cohorts were identified, with the majority involving mother/child pairs. These included the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study [ 55 , 56 ]; KOALA Birth Cohort [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]; ALLADIN study [ 61 ]; PELAIGE Mother–Child Cohort [ 62 ] and the EARTH study [ 52 ]. Two adult-only cohorts involved development of cancer incidence in the Million Women Study [ 65 ], and self-reported health factors in the Nutri-Net Santé Cohort Study [ 20 , 53 , 63 , 64 ]. A retrospective case-control study in a mother–child cohort was also included [ 57 ].

Several of the identified studies provided cross-section data only. These include comparisons of organic and conventional diets on sperm quality/content [ 50 , 51 ]; breast milk composition [ 66 ]; and urinary pesticide excretion [ 32 , 33 ].

For ease of reporting, all of the observational studies have been separated into subject areas. Firstly, looking at potential influence on foetal development (effect on sperm, fertility, and birth defects, pre-eclampsia); breast milk studies; development of allergies in children; urinary pesticide excretion; cancer development incidence; and changes in nutritional biomarkers in adults.

3.4.1. Sperm and Fertility

Two investigations examined the association between sperm health in Danish organic farmers. The first compares the organic farmers to non-organic farmers and shows a significantly lower proportion of morphologically normal spermatozoa in the non-organic group, but no significant difference in relation to 14 other semen parameters [ 51 ]. The other compares the organic farmers to a control group of airline pilots, finding a higher sperm concentration among organic farmers (increased by 43.1%, 95% CI 3.2 to 98.8%), with no differences seen in seminal volume, total sperm count, and sperm morphology [ 50 ].

The Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study examined associations between high or low dietary pesticide exposure in a group of women using assisted reproduction technology (ART) at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center [ 52 ]. They compared pregnancy/birth outcomes from 325 women (contributing 541 ART cycles) against a dietary pesticide score. They found high-pesticide residue fruit and vegetable (FV) intake was inversely associated with probability of clinical pregnancy and live birth per initiated cycle. Compared with women in the lowest quartile of high-pesticide residue FV intake (<1 serving/day), women in the highest quartile (≥2.3 servings/day) had 18% (95%CI 5%–30%) lower probability of clinical pregnancy and 26% (95%CI 13%–37%) lower probability of live birth. High-pesticide residue FV intake was positively associated with probability of total pregnancy loss.

3.4.2. Mother–Child cohorts

The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) investigated associations between an organic diet and conventional diet during pregnancy and the development of pregnancy complications, including pre-eclampsia [ 56 ] and incidence of the rare reproductive abnormalities in infant boys—hypospadias or cryptorchidism [ 55 ]. Women who reported to have eaten organic vegetables ‘often’ or ‘mostly’ ( n = 2493, 8.8% of study-sample) were found to have a lower risk of pre-eclampsia than those who reported ‘never/rarely’ or ‘sometimes’ (OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.61, 0.96). A lower prevalence of hypospadias with any organic consumption, in particular organic vegetables, was found, with no difference for cryptorchidism. This prospective study included 35,107 mothers of male infants in Norway, with organic food in six food groups assessed by food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) [ 55 ]. Whole diet composition was considered using slightly different methods in each of these analyses; therefore, residual confounding may exist between the results reported. In a smaller case-control study, retrospective data were collected from mothers of 306 infant males who were operated on for hypospadias matched to 306 mothers of healthy infant males in Denmark. No difference was found for total organic consumption, but increased odds for hypospadias were found specifically when non-organic milk/dairy consumption was combined with frequent consumption of high-fat dairy products (adjusted OR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.09, 4.36) [ 57 ].

The PELAIGE study in France ( n = 1505) was a prospective cohort study that examined the incidence of otitis media during early childhood, finding frequent intake of organic diet during pregnancy was associated with decreased risk of having at least one episode of otitis media (OR = 0.69, 95%CI 0.47, 1.00) [ 62 ]. A sub-group analysis measuring pesticide residues in urine, found the presence of dealkylated triazine metabolites was positively associated with recurrent otitis media (OR = 2.12, 95%CI 1.01, 4.47).

The influence of organic food consumption as part of an anthroposophical lifestyle in pregnancy and early childhood has been discussed following two major studies—the KOALA birth cohort in the Netherlands [ 60 , 70 , 71 ], and the ALADDIN birth cohort in Sweden [ 61 ]. In the KOALA cohort ( n = 2764), consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk (OR = 0.64, 95%CI 0.44, 0.93), but there was no association for other food types or overall organic content of diet with the development of eczema, wheeze or atopic sensitisation. No statistically significant associations were observed between organic food consumption and recurrent wheeze (OR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.26, 0.99) during the first 2 years of life [ 60 ]. In the ALADDIN study ( n = 330), a markedly decreased risk of sensitisation during the first 2 years of life was seen in children of anthroposophic families compared with children of non-anthroposophic families with adjusted OR of 0.25 (95%CI 0.10, 0.64, p = 0.004) [ 61 ].

It is important to note that organic food consumption is only one of several food-specific differences that are a key part of the anthroposophic lifestyle (see discussion).

3.4.3. Early Childhood

Minimal changes were seen in breastmilk composition in the KOALA birth cohort study, with increased rumenic acid and a trend for increased trans-vaccenic acid in quartiles of highest organic consumption [ 58 ]. No difference was seen in trans fatty acid content within the same cohort [ 60 ]. An American study examining milk and urine samples of lactating women for glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) did not find any evidence of these chemicals in the breast milk of conventional or organic food consumers [ 66 ].

Similar to the findings in urinary output of pesticides found in clinical trial research, cross-sectional analysis of organophosphorus metabolites in children ( n = 39) show that those consuming organic foods have considerably lower levels of dimethyl metabolites in their urine than those consuming conventional diets (0.03 and 0.17 μmol/L, p < 0.001), respectively [ 33 ].

3.4.4. Adult Research

The Nutri-Net Santé Cohort has analysed data from 62,224 participants enrolled in France, through an internet-based survey, with information on frequency of organic food consumption and repeated anthropometric data. The data was predominantly self-reported. An increase in the organic score was associated with a lower risk of being overweight (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.68, 0.86, p < 0.0001). The association remained strong and highly significant, with a reduction in the risk of obesity of 37% after a 3.1-year follow-up [ 63 ]. A cross-section of the cohort ( n = 8174) examined for metabolic syndrome also detailed positive impact of an organic diet with an adjusted prevalence ratio of 0.69 (95%CI 0.61, 0.78) when comparing the third tertile of organic food in the diet with the first one ( p < 0.0001) [ 64 ]. Additionally, a nested case-control study ( n = 300) evaluated pesticide metabolites excreted in the urine within the group, finding significantly lower levels of pesticide metabolites among organic consumers versus conventional consumers, with median concentration levels of investigated metabolites for diethylphosphate (0.196 versus 0.297), dimethylphosphate (0.620 versus 1.382), and total dialkylphosphates (0.12 versus 0.16), p < 0.05 [ 54 ].

A separate prospective cohort study in adults that estimated organophosphate exposure from food frequency records of 4466 multi-ethnic older Americans, measured urinary pesticide excretion in a sub-group ( n = 240) and found that higher levels of estimated dietary organophosphate exposure were associated with higher dialkylphosphate concentrations excreted in the urine ( p < 0.05) [ 32 ].

The Million Women Study in the United Kingdom examined any association with cancer incidence and organic diet over a 9-year follow-up period in 1.3 million women. They found no association for reduced cancer incidence in the group, with the exception of a possibly lower incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma [ 65 ].

The Nutri-Net Santé group also investigated associations with cancer incidence in a cohort of 68,946 participants [ 53 ]. The group, followed for a mean of 4.6 years, report that after adjustment for confounders, high organic food scores were linearly and negatively associated with the overall risk of cancer (HR for Q4 vs Q1, 0.75; 95%CI, 0.63–0.88; p for trend = 0.001; absolute risk reduction, 0.6%; HR for a 5-point increase, 0.92; 95%CI 0.88–0.96). Amongst specific cancers, they found a decreased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma ( p = 0.049) and postmenopausal breast cancer, with no association for other types of cancer. The information on non-Hodgkin lymphoma is similar to that found in the Million Women study; however, the information related to breast cancer was in direct contrast.

A nested matched case-control study of 300 participants (150 low and 150 high organic food consumers) within the Nutri-Net Santé had serum samples analysed for differences in nutritional biomarkers [ 20 ]. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups for α-tocopherol and retinol, cadmium, copper, ferritin or transferrin. Organic consumers exhibited higher plasma concentrations of α-carotene, β -carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin, whereas no differences were found for other carotenoids ( β -cryptoxanthin and lycopene). Organic consumers had higher levels of magnesium and a lower plasma concentration of iron. Within the fatty acid analysis, organic consumers had lower palmitoleic acid, γ-linolenic acid, and docosapentaenoic acid and higher linoleic acid concentrations. The results of these participants, matched for dietary patterns and other health factors, indicates a possible mild modulation of nutritional levels between organic and non-organic consumers.

3.5. Bias Assessments

The results of bias assessment for cohort studies showed all studies as good or fair, with no studies returning an assessment of poor. Cross-sectional studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias, with the exception of Jensen et al. (1996), which was a short report, with high bias due to missing detail. Within the clinical trials reviewed, the risk of bias was classified as high in several areas, specifically those related to blinding and allocation concealment. Due to the nature of the intervention, in some cases, it was difficult to adequately blind participants (i.e., food packaging, replacement of ‘usual’ diet products). There were, however, several studies [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ] where blinding and randomisation is stated, but the method is not adequately reported and, therefore, they have received an unclear risk of bias in these areas. Many of the studies were not randomised, providing one diet followed by the alternate diet for all participants concurrently.

Significant bias likely to affect the outcomes of the reports was found for two studies conducted by the same research group in Italy [ 45 , 46 ]. In both cases, all participants received a controlled Mediterranean diet (MD) for 14 days followed by the same diet for a further 14 days using organic rather than conventional foodstuffs, with no washout between diet arms. This introduces a significant risk of bias for the validity of the outcomes for the organic diet intervention as it may be a cumulative effect of the MD changes, rather than a specific effect for the organic component of the diet.

Another study with high risk of bias was the study by Goen et al. [ 49 ] as it contained only two people in the treatment group, in an open-label crossover trial, with no washout between diets. Results of bias assessments are shown in Supplementary Figure S2 .

3.6. Quality of included Reviews

No formal grading system was applied to the included articles; however, elements of study quality, including high risk of bias or un-realistic results have been discussed for individual articles throughout the review. Several included articles in this present review were not accepted in the previous systematic review into this topic conducted by Dangour et al. (2010). These include pesticide excretion studies [ 33 , 72 ] and a cross-sectional study on semen analyses [ 51 ], excluded on the basis of being contaminant studies; and a second semen analysis study [ 73 ], excluded as an occupational health study. The rationale for our inclusion of these studies is that although occupational exposure may have been a factor in the Larsen study [ 73 ], the method of calculating pesticide exposure was based entirely on food intake. Pesticide excretion studies were included as this was considered potentially important for health, and these studies are also included in other reviews discussing comparison of organic and conventional food intakes on health, i.e., Smith-Spangler et al. [ 19 ].

4. Discussion

This systematic review reports on a wide range of interventional (15 publications) and observational studies (20 publications/13 cohorts), where the health effects of organic diet consumption (whole diet or partial replacement) are compared to conventional diet consumption. Substantially more papers are included compared to previous systematic reviews on this topic [ 19 , 35 ] with varying levels of bias and quality.

4.1. Clinical Trials

The included clinical trials use a diverse range of methodologies, all involving short-term food substitutions. These range from acute intake of a single dietary item (conventional or organic), to entire diet substitution over a maximum exposure time of 4 weeks, with most of the studies utilising a 2-week intervention period. The majority of the results show no, or minimal, significant differences between organic (O) and non-organic (NO) treatments in the biomarkers selected. In several of these trials, a single food or drink [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 47 , 48 ] was substituted for their organic equivalent. Those studies that also compared the composition of the two food items found there was no difference in the concentration of the nutrient of interest (i.e., lycopene) between O and NO foods [ 37 , 38 , 47 ]. It seems logical, therefore, that a change in participants’ samples would seem unlikely unless there was positive laboratory evidence to demonstrate a specific difference between the NO and O substance that could lead to a biologically plausible difference in vivo.

Similarly, in whole-diet substitution studies, those that examined antioxidant capacity or nutrients in biomarkers, generally did not show between-group differences, which again appeared to be reflective of the laboratory values of these nutrients were measured [ 41 , 47 ]. However, one study did show a significant change in antioxidant capacity [ 45 ]. This study, and a related trial [ 46 ], which was the only trial to assess a direct health outcome, both provided a NO Mediterranean diet intervention for 2 weeks prior to 2 weeks of the same O Mediterranean diet. There are several issues with the methodology of this model, these and the associated high risk of bias are discussed further in Section 3.5 . The reported weight loss and body composition changes in this study appear unrealistic for the 14-day time frame. The authors report a mean weight loss of 5.6 kg, with mean (SD) weight change from the end of NO diet to end of O diet was 85.17 (±13.97) to 79.52 (±10.41), p = 0.0365. The fat loss is reported as 7.18 kg over the two week period from 23.36 (±8.88) to 16.18 (±3.34), p = 0.0054, there was also a non-significant 1.18 kg rise in lean muscle mass, from 53.45 (±6.69) to 54.63 (±6.76) [ 46 ]. Without baseline assessments provided before any dietary intervention in this group, the effect of the organic intervention cannot be relied upon.

Whole-diet substitution trials that measured changes in pesticide excretion showed significant and substantial reductions during the O diet phase [ 31 , 34 , 43 , 44 , 49 ], and are discussed under Section 4.3 .

To date, there are no long-term clinical trials measuring direct health outcomes from organic diet intervention. The short timeframe of currently available clinical trials is a serious limitation in assessing demonstrable health benefits. Additionally, only surrogate markers of health have been applied to the majority of clinical trials, with most trials measuring antioxidant levels or pesticide metabolite excretion.

4.2. Observational Research

Observational research, which has followed cohorts for up to 10 years (Nutri-Net Santé and the Million Women study), has investigated a range of hypotheses regarding organic diet and health. Studies included in this review report positive associations between organic diet consumption and a range of areas, including fertility, birth defects, allergic sensitisation, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and metabolic syndrome.

Findings from two cross-sectional reports on semen parameters detailed mixed findings, and although the majority of tested parameters showed no significant differences, higher sperm concentration in O consumers [ 50 ] and lower normal sperm in NO consumers [ 51 ] offer preliminary data that is worthy of further exploration. In female fertility, very positive associations between low dietary pesticide exposure and successful pregnancy and birth outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproduction have been reported in one study [ 52 ]. Given the declining fertility rates and poorer semen quality being reported worldwide [ 74 ], higher odds of achieving clinical pregnancy and live birth with an organic diet is a significant and important finding. A reduction in risk of birth defects (hypospadias) [ 55 , 57 ], but not cryptorchidism [ 55 ], and reduced risk of pre-eclampsia [ 56 ] add further evidence for organic diet use through pregnancy.

In children, increased risk of recurrent otitis media has been positively associated with pesticide intake [ 62 ], and decreased allergic sensitisation was shown in families following an anthroposophical lifestyle, in comparison to a conventional cohort in the Assessment of Lifestyle and Allergic Disease During Infancy (ALLADIN) study [ 61 ]. Consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk as the only significant positive outcome in a similar study (KOALA) [ 60 , 70 , 71 ]. There are other studies that have supported lower rates of allergic sensitisation from an anthroposophical lifestyle; however, the contribution of organic foods in these studies was not sufficient for them to be included in this review [ 75 , 76 , 77 ]. Specific confounding factors related to anthroposophic studies are discussed in Section 4.4 .

The largest studies reporting on adult populations include the Nutri-Net Santé Cohort Study (France), and the Million Women Study (UK). Both of these studies have investigated associations with cancer risk [ 64 , 65 ], with both finding reduced risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma with increased organic consumption. Other findings between the two studies were similar, with a very small risk reduction (0.6%) for all cancers in France, but no risk reduction in the UK. Postmenopausal breast cancer rates were decreased in high-O consumers [ 64 ], but overall breast cancer risk slightly increased in the alternate study [ 65 ]. Different adjustment variables between the studies may have been partly responsible for the different outcomes reported, i.e., the Million Women Study adjusted for hormone replacement in breast cancer, which the Nutri-Net Santé study did not report.

Other findings from the Nutri-Net Santé study show reductions in overweight and risk of obesity, as well as reduced incidence of metabolic syndrome demonstrated in favor of organic food intake [ 63 , 64 ]. Whilst this was self-reported data, there is evidence from other association studies that supports dysregulation of several key facets involved in metabolic syndrome in association with serum pesticides [ 78 , 79 ].

As with any observational studies, there is difficulty in determining the causality of the associations that have been observed. It is possible that the benefits of organic diets are associated only with long-term consumption, or result from lifestyle factors or dietary patterns, which is much harder to model in prospective clinical trials.

4.3. Pesticide Excretion

One of the major benefits proposed for organic food is the reduction in exposure to chemicals such as pesticides. Pesticide residues are found in differing amounts across predominantly, fruits and vegetables, but also, grain and dairy products, with much lower amounts found in animal products (except liver, which contains high levels) [ 24 ].

The major class of pesticides tested for in the organic food literature reviewed for this paper were the organophosphates, the metabolites of which can be measured in the urine as markers of recent exposure. The most commonly detected metabolites are dimethylphosphate, dimethylthiophosphate, diethylphosphate, and diethylthiophosphate. In some studies, herbicide exposure was also assessed, mainly glyphosate, often assessed through its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid. Interventions with organic diets markedly reduced the levels of these compounds, and observational studies in adults and children also show reduced urinary metabolite levels in organic versus conventional diets.

Given that several organophosphorus (OP) insecticides and glyphosate (an OP herbicide and the world’s most widely used agricultural chemical) were recently re-classified by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as being “probably carcinogenic” [ 80 ], reduced exposure may potentially benefit health. Results of recent reviews comparing pesticide residues in organic and conventional foods conclude that organic food consumption is one approach to substantially minimise exposure to pesticides [ 17 , 21 ].

The impact of switching to organic food consumption on reducing dietary pesticide exposure may be higher in consumers that follow current dietary guidelines for wholegrain and fruit/vegetable consumption. Foods may also be ‘pesticide-free’ but not ‘organic’. It is well documented that pesticide concentrations in wholegrain and wholemeal products are higher than in polished grains such as white flour products (since the outer bran layers of grains have higher pesticide loads then the endosperm) [ 81 ]. Apart from wholegrain products, fruits and vegetables are the main dietary source for pesticide exposure and recent European monitoring showed that multiple residues and concentrations above the MRL are most frequently found in fruit and vegetables [ 24 ].

4.4. Confounders of Results

Lifestyle factors amongst organic consumers are likely to have an important impact on external validity. Organic consumers tend to be more health conscious, are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan and are more likely to be physically active [ 7 , 8 ].

Epidemiological research has shown consumers of organic food generally have a diet that is higher in plant-based food, lower in animal products, with a higher intake of legumes, nuts, and wholegrains than their conventional food-consuming counterparts. These dietary patterns are likely to have significant health benefits in comparison to what is commonly recognised as the standard Western diet, a diet categorised by highly refined, low-fibre, omnivorous diets low in fruits, vegetables and other plant-based foods [ 82 ]. A wholefood diet (high in fibre and plant matter) also has demonstrable effects on a healthy diverse microbiota, which is linked to overall health [ 83 ]. The organic consumer group may, therefore, not be representative of the general population, i.e., any benefits from organic food consumption may be attributable partly to increased wholefood intake and a healthier lifestyle.

Whole diet composition and diet quality have been measured and adjusted for in different ways in observational research, with varying elements of the diet included as part of the ‘organic intake’ data collected. It is possible that the benefit observed for organic intake may be partly due to the quality and composition of the diet rather than a direct effect of organic food consumption. Additionally, validation of self-reported organic intake in observational studies is lacking.

The included cohorts from anthroposophical backgrounds (ALLADIN and KOALA birth cohorts) adds an additional layer of confounding, as the consumption of organic food forms only a small part of the dietary measures adopted in this group. Anthroposophy includes a strong focus on fermented foods, biodynamic production, use of butter and olive oil as predominant fats, and long-term breastfeeding [ 60 , 61 ]. This is combined with other factors such as reduced levels of antibiotic and medication use and a high proportion of plant foods, which together may impact on the overall health of mothers and babies, and influence the results shown.

4.5. Limitations

In the included studies, there was wide heterogeneity in the definition and application of the term ‘organic’ and the percentage of organic food replacement in the diet. This makes any interpretation on the benefits or otherwise of organic food consumption very difficult. No formal grading system was applied to the included studies. A grading criteria, such as that employed by Dangour et al. (2010), would have been helpful to categorise the research according to quality. The review was limited by the non-inclusion of foreign language databases.

5. Conclusions

A growing number of important findings are being reported from observational research linking demonstrable health benefits to levels of organic food consumption. Clinical trial research has been short-term and measured largely surrogate markers with limited positive results.

Pesticide excretion studies have consistently shown a reduction in urinary pesticide metabolites with an organic diet; however, there is insufficient evidence to show translation into clinically relevant and meaningful health outcomes. There is a need for studies to move beyond simply measuring the reduction in pesticide exposure with organic food, to investigating measurable health benefits.

The finding that organic food consumption substantially reduces urinary OP levels is important information for consumers, who would like to take a precautionary approach and minimise OP-pesticide exposure. Given the current knowledge on the toxicity of these chemicals, it seems possible that ongoing reduced exposure may translate to health benefits.

While findings from this systematic review showed significant positive outcomes from observational studies in several areas, including reduced incidence of metabolic syndrome, high BMI, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, infertility, birth defects, allergic sensitisation, otitis media and pre-eclampsia, the current evidence base does not allow a definitive statement on the long-term health benefits of organic dietary intake. Consumption of organic food is often tied to overall healthier dietary practices and lower levels of overweight and obesity, which are likely to be influential in the results of observational research.

Recommendations for Future Research

Single-food substitution studies have shown no benefits and should not be undertaken without substantive pre-clinical data. Additionally, surrogate markers, i.e., antioxidant levels and pesticide excretion, are insufficient to determine actual benefit to health and ideally should be coupled with measurements related to specific health outcomes. Unlike the current exposure studies which measure changes in days or weeks, longer-term health benefit studies are needed. Specifically, long-term whole-diet substitution studies, using certified organic interventions will provide the most reliable evidence to answer the question of whether an organic diet provides true measurable health benefits.

Additional research options may include further evaluation of biological data collected through previous large cohort studies, such as the Nutri-Net Santé study [ 84 ], and the MoBa biobank [ 85 ], to test hypotheses on organic diet and health.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/1/7/s1 , Figure S1: Medline search strategy, Figure S2: Risk of bias summary tables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M. and C.L.; methodology, S.M. and V.V.; data curation, V.V.; writing—original draft preparation, V.V.; S.M.; C.O.; J.A.; S.R.; writing—review and editing, V.V.; C.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

A grant from the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) at Southern Cross University partially funded this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The research team are associated with a research centre in organic food, and have remained mindful to ensure this review was objective, transparent and reproducible.

• Breast Cancer Awareness
• Coronavirus Center
• Aging & Independence
• Bones & Joints
• Lung Health
• Digestive Health
• Energy and Fatigue
• Eyes, Ears, Nose & Throat
• Gluten Free & Food Allergies
• Heart Health
• Mobility & Fitness
• Stress & Anxiety
• Bone and Joint Conditions: Gout symptoms, osteoarthritis treatments, rheumatoid arthritis pain relief, and more
• Men’s Prostate Health: BPH, prostatitis and prostate cancer symptoms, screenings, treatment, and more
• Panic Attack Symptoms and Anxiety Symptoms: How to deal with anxiety and how to relieve stress
• Sleeping Disorders: Narcolepsy, sleep apnea test, snoring solutions, insomnia cures, and more
• View all Reports »
• Article Archive
• Health Publications
• Health Reports
• Customer Care
• Privacy Policy
• Comments Policy

Home » Daily » Nutrition » Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: What’s the Difference?

Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: What’s the Difference?

While shopping at the grocery store, do you ever wonder about the difference of organic vs. non-organic food organic foods are produced and processed in ways that reduce use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides., university health news editorial standards.

University Health News content is medically reviewed or checked to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. If you feel that any of our content is inaccurate, out-of-date, or otherwise questionable, please contact us through the feedback form on this page.

We pay more, typically, for organic vs. non-organic foods. What do we get for the added cost?

© Joseph Golby | Dreamstime.com

In examining the question of organic vs. non-organic foods, let’s start with the key word here: “organic.” Technically speaking, organic means that something comes from living (or formerly living) matter. That includes you and me, the birds and the bees, your morning cup of coffee or tea, and anything that grows on trees, shrubs, and vines.

Organic food products are different because they are grown and processed with organic farming methods , which exclude certain practices that are normal in the mass production of non-organic foods.

Proponents of organic farming point to benefits for the environment, like less water pollution and better soil quality. Organic meats come from livestock raised under more humane conditions. Organic produce and meat also may have higher levels of certain nutrients and fewer pesticide residues.

ORGANIC VS. NON-ORGANIC: BENEFITS TO CONSIDER

Wondering about whether it’s worth it to spend extra on organic foods? Click here to read our post Is Organic Food Better for Your Health? Here’s What the Research Says .

Qualifications for Organic Produce and Grains

Organic plant farming practices include:

• No use of synthetic fertilizers, which may contain chemicals manufactured from fossil fuels. Instead, organic farmers rely on mulching, composting, and animal manure to enrich the soil.
• No fertilizers derived from sewage sludge, which is the residue left over after human waste is processed.
• No synthetic herbicides. Weeds are controlled with crop rotation, mulching, tilling, and hand weeding.
• Avoid use of synthetic pesticides. Instead, organic farmers use organic approaches like insects that eat pests, traps, and naturally-produced pesticides. But there is a loophole: organic farmers may use certain chemical pesticides in small amounts, following regulations for USDA-certified organic foods.
• No genetically engineered crops , more commonly known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Some GMO crops are designed to produce natural pesticides or to be resistant to synthetic weed killers so farmers can apply more of them and increase crop yields.
• No irradiation to kill diseases or pests, or to extend shelf life. Irradiation means exposing the food, dairy, or meat to ionizing radiation .

Qualifications for Organic Meat

USDA-certified organic livestock production follows its own set of rules . This includes:

• No use of growth hormones or antibiotics in cows, chicken, pigs, or other animals.
• Animals are not fed with animal by-products , like fat, flesh, and blood from animals. The animals only eat organic feed or graze on natural grasses.
• Animals raised for meat, eggs, and milk are provided access to outdoor space for fresh air, exercise, shade, shelter, and clean drinking water.
• The livestock are raised on certified organic land meeting all organic crop production standards.

How to Shop for Organic Food

Any food producer can claim its products are organic, but how do you know it’s the real stuff? Here are a few suggestions on how to be a savvy shopper.

1. Don’t confuse “natural” and “organic.”

Though the word “natural” on a food label may mean that the product does not contain artificial flavorings, preservatives, or other additives, this does not mean the product fits all of the qualifications of “organic.”

2. If you buy at farmer’s markets, talk to the producer about their farming practices.

Many producers enjoy and welcome this sort of interaction with customers. Some questions you can ask about the produce or meat include:

• What types of pesticides do you use when farming?
• What type of environment is your livestock living in?
• Are your chickens caged or free-range?

3. Look for USDA organic-certified labels.

The USDA allows foods to be labeled organic if they pass with the agency’s certification process . The agency allows four types of organic food labels . Here are the basics of what the labels mean:

• 100 Percent Organic: All ingredients and processing are organic. No GMOs. Complies with the national list of ingredients and processing allowed in certified-organic foods.
• Organic: 95 percent of ingredients are certified organic. No GMOs. Complies with the national list of ingredients allowed in certified-organic foods.
• Made with Organic: Organic seal not allowed. At least 70% of ingredients are certified organic. No GMOs. Complies with a list of ingredients allowed in certified-organic foods.
• Organic Ingredients: Organic seal not allowed. No specific percentage of ingredients is required to be organic. They may contain GMOs. Not required to comply with the national list of ingredients allowed or not allowed in organic foods. Does not have to undergo USDA certification process.

Organic vs. Non-Organic: Choose “Cleaner” Produce

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit organization, publishes an annual report, the Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce . The report is based on USDA pesticide residue testing.

According to the EWG, the following 15 fruits and vegetables have the least residues relative to other options: avocados, sweet corn, pineapple, onions, papaya, frozen sweet peas, eggplant, asparagus, broccoli, cabbage, kiwi, cauliflower, mushrooms , honeydew melon, and cantaloupe.

The following 12 fruits and vegetables have comparatively higher amounts of pesticide residues: strawberries , spinach, kale (collard, mustard greens), nectarines, apples , grapes, cherries, peaches, pears, bell and hot peppers, celery, and tomatoes.

Related Articles

As a service to our readers, University Health News offers a vast archive of free digital content. Please note the date published or last update on all articles. No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.

Daniel Pendick

Daniel Pendick has been a contributing editor and writer for Belvoir Media Group’s Special Health Reports and Online Guides for a decade. He’s also served as executive editor for Harvard …  Read More

View all posts by Daniel Pendick

Enter Your Login Credentials

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

• Lost Password? Create New Password
• No Password? Sign Up

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Organic Food vs. Non Organic Food, Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1461

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The debate with organic and non-organic food has economical, scientific, and nutritional implications that must be considered by consumers. Promoting healthier standards and a way of life that has sustained people for generations, organic food has increased tremendously. It is with these standards that organic foods remain a more appropriate choice for consumers today.

Healthier Standards

Purchasing food should not involve a haziness regarding what is used in the process. Unfortunately, some consumers simply aren’t aware of the methods, and more appropriately, the pesticides and chemicals that are used in conventionally grown foods. As it will be demonstrated, this is a stark contrast to that of organic farming.

Organic farming takes advantages of nutrient-rich techniques that promote healthy crops. Kock sums it up nicely: “Organic farmers use crop rotation, cover crops, and beneficial insects to fight pests, and composting to fertilize. They focus on keeping the soil nutrient-rich because healthy plants develop resistance to pests more readily” (764). It is with these focuses that consumers may enjoy safer methods of growing valuable crops.

That is simply not the case with conventionally-grown foods. According to Glazer, who is connecting organic farming with the Slow Food Movement: “advocates argue that food is better for the environment if it doesn’t degrade soil and water with pesticides and fertilizer and avoids the overuse of antibiotics in animals” (78). Not only is food better for the environment in this manner, it is also better for consumers. While getting into the details of conventional farming isn’t possible, it is clearly seen that these aren’t high standards.

Prior to getting into the science behind the choice, it is important to pause and consider what has been covered thus far. The standards for organic and conventional farming are not close. With reference to pesticides and soil and water degradation, it is evident that organic farming promotes a healthier process for the environment. As it will be explored, it is also healthier for the individual, as it can be seen in this hard-hitting statement: “EPA’s new pamphlet advises parents to wash, peel, boil, and skin food to get rid of pesticide residues – or buy organic produce” (Glazer 765). This is certainly not a good sign for non-organic food.

The Science: Is Organic Food Really Healthier?

The scientific evidence for either side can vary. In reference to the many studies concerning each side, there have been conflicting reports. Thus, no extensive evidence can be given for the undeniable superiority of organic food (or non-organic food for that matter). However, there is more than enough cause and reason to drive customers away from food that isn’t up to the standard of organic food.

In a recent review of this very subject, researchers that looked over the subject could not find a basis upon which to assert that organic food was healthier. However, this was not so much of a conclusion as it was a lack of ability: “There is currently no evidence to support or refute claims that organic food is safer and thus, healthier, than conventional food, or vice versa” (Magkos, Arvanti, and Zampelas 47). Specifically, the conclusions that are made focus on the “extremely limited” differences with respect to knowledge (47).

In the same study, there was a great deal of stress placed on current evidence. The researchers noted that “comparative studies of organic and conventional produces are believed to be difficult to construct and evaluate, because of several extraneous variables that are difficult or even impossible to control” (24). Thus, studies that have been completed are questioned on their ability to analyze the subject and properly draw conclusions.

On the other side of the conversation, there is legitimate reason to question the safety of non-organic food, beyond that of healthier standards. Koch cites a report from the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG), which followed promises from Clinton’s administration in 1993 that exposure to pesticides for children would be reduced, found that “’levels of carcinogenic pesticides fond in fruits and vegetables heavily consumed by children’ have increased significantly” (765). Koch goes on to recap the pamphlets sent to grocery stores regarding children’s possible increased vulnerability to pesticides, and that pesticides have been shown to cause birth defects in laboratory animals (765).

Koch’s report continues to recap the cited benefits of organic food, such as the lack of cases involving foodborne illnesses (765). Stricter rules are found in certified organic food producers. Also, Koch continues to cite the same thing as see in the study from Magkos, Arvanti, and Zampelas, where an expert in microbial food safety comments that no one really knows whether organic foods are safer (765).

It may be normal to take the stance that non-organic food is just as safe as organic food. However, as sources have demonstrated, there are complexities surrounding the current state of science in this respect. As the Mayo Clinic states: “The answer isn’t yet clear… [research] is ongoing” (n.d.). Answers could certainly arise in upcoming years to drastically change the picture.

Organic food has not exactly been around for centuries, at least with the modern standards. And when you compare the differences between organic and non-organic farming, suspicions are growing as to the current equal playing field between the two. However, even the latter phrase may not be accurate, as science has placed doubt on the reliability and abilities of these studies.

These developments cast a large and looming shadow over the current defense of those that choose non-organic foods. In short, science is not sure whether non-organic foods are worse than organic foods, due to the abilities of studies to compare each to each other, yet, through research that involves other factors (such as cancer rates), it currently provides a level playing field. This is a dangerous status update, indeed.

However, there is one thing that is not even, and that is the standards of each type of farming. Conventional methods use chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides on plants (Mayo Clinic n.d.). As far as animals are concerned, antibiotics, hormones, and medications are used – in addition to the lack of free-roaming elements and others, such as balanced diets, rotational grazing, and clean housing to prevent disease (n.d.).

As far as the farming standards are concerned, there is a wide gap. Not only is organic farming better for the environment, but there are ethical and moral considerations in regards to animals. Consumers that want free-roaming animals and those that are not injected with antibiotics, hormones, and medications will opt for non-organic farms. Pesticides on plants may have vast implications for adults, and especially children, as a previous study noted, which serves as yet another possible danger area.

As a result, organic foods can be seen as superior in a number of ways. Organic farming is better for the environment, ethically-conscious for animals, and cuts out harsh chemicals that can have serious health implications. All of these factors add up to quite a convincing argument that should be considered by consumers and approached carefully.

At the very least, organic food is the safer option. While organic foods are not without risk, of course, there is no question that organic foods promote safer crops, food sources, environments, and ultimately, consumers. In the choice to wash, peel, boil, and skin food sources to eliminate pesticide residues, or purchase organic foods, the answer is simple.

It is not difficult to make a case for the superiority in regards to farming standards. With reference to chemicals, additives, and the treatment of animals, conventional farming is severely lacking in comparison to organic farming methods. The natural and preferred treatment of crops and animals is certainly seen with organic standards.

The debate gets a little bit more difficult with the question of difference in health value. While science does not give an advantage, it is also unsure of the reliability or possibilities of studies. Also, research is ongoing and seems to be capable of breakthroughs to confirm what may, almost degradingly, be called “suspicions” as to the superiority of organic foods.

However, it doesn’t take much to see that organic food is the superior choice. There is evidence to suggest that chemicals, pesticides, and other cost-efficient methods of conventional farming are not sound in regards to health. Organic farming represents the highest of standards in farming, and is the choice for health, environmental concerns, and the ethical treatment of animals. Organic farming may be the answer to figuring out how to remove the pesticides from the “freshly-picked,” non-organic apple.

Works Cited

Koch, Kathy. “Food Safety Battle: Organic Vs. Biotech.” CQ Researcher 8.33 (1998): 761-784. Print.

Glazer, Sarah. “Slow Food Movement.” CQ Researcher 17.4 (2007): 73-96. Print.

Magkos, Faidon, Arvanti, Fotini, Zampelas, Antonis. “Organic Food: Buying More Safety or Just Peace of Mind? A Critical Review of the Literature.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 46.1 (2007): 23-56. Print.

“Organic Foods: Are they Safer? More Nutritious?” Mayo Clinic . n.d. Web. 25 April 2012.

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Dorrence Kenneth Darling II, Case Study Example

Forecasting Techniques, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Pages: 11

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Cambridge Core
• Cambridge Advance Online
• Environment
• Open Research
• Earth & Environmental Science
• Engineering
• Life Sciences
• Materials Science
• Mathematics
• Global Health
• Neuroscience
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Archaeology
• Area Studies
• Music & Drama
• Religious Studies
• Business and Management
• Political Science and International Relations
• Social Studies

New study finds significant differences between organic and non-organic food

Carlo Leifert

13 July 2014 Last update: 11/12/18 16:48

In the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by Newcastle University, UK, has shown that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 69% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops.

Analysing 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops, the team found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals – and food made from them – would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 1-2 extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

The study, published today in the prestigious British Journal of Nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops. Cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the European Commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionally-grown ones.

Newcastle University’s Professor Carlo Leifert, who led the study, says: “This study demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals.

“This constitutes an important addition to the information currently available to consumers which until now has been confusing and in many cases is conflicting.”

New methods used to analyse the data

This is the most extensive analysis of the nutrient content in organic vs conventionally-produced foods ever undertaken and is the result of a groundbreaking new systematic literature review and meta-analysis by the international team.

The findings contradict those of a 2009 UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) commissioned study which found there were no substantial differences or significant nutritional benefits from organic food.

The FSA commissioned study based its conclusions on only 46 publications covering crops, meat and dairy, while Newcastle led meta-analysis is based on data from 343 peer-reviewed publications on composition difference between organic and conventional crops now available.

“The main difference between the two studies is time,” explains Professor Leifert, who is Professor of Ecological Agriculture at Newcastle University

“Research in this area has been slow to take off the ground and we have far more data available to us now than five years ago”.

Dr Gavin Stewart, a Lecturer in Evidence Synthesis and the meta-analysis expert in the Newcastle team, added: “The much larger evidence base available in this synthesis allowed us to use more appropriate statistical methods to draw more definitive conclusions regarding the differences between organic and conventional crops”

What the findings mean 

The study, funded jointly by the European Framework 6 programme and the Sheepdrove Trust, found that concentrations of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were between 18-69% higher in organically-grown crops. Numerous studies have linked antioxidants to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers.

Substantially lower concentrations of a range of the toxic heavy metal cadmium were also detected in organic crops (on average 48% lower).

Nitrogen concentrations were found to be significantly lower in organic crops. Concentrations of total nitrogen were 10%, nitrate 30% and nitrite 87% lower in organic compared to conventional crops. The study also found that pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in conventional crops than organic ones.

Professor Charles Benbrook, one of the authors of the study and a leading scientist based at Washington State University, explains: “Our results are highly relevant and significant and will help both scientists and consumers sort through the often conflicting information currently available on the nutrient density of organic and conventional plant-based foods.”

Professor Leifert added: “The organic vs non-organic debate has rumbled on for decades now but the evidence from this study is overwhelming – that organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.

“But this study should just be a starting point. We have shown without doubt there are composition differences between organic and conventional crops, now there is an urgent need to carry out well-controlled human dietary intervention and cohort studies specifically designed to identify and quantify the health impacts of switching to organic food.”

The authors of this study welcome the continued public and scientific debate on this important subject. The entire  database generated and used for this analysis  is freely available on the Newcastle University website  for the benefit of other experts and interested members of the public.

This is an open access paper  “ Higher antioxidant concentrations and less cadmium and pesticide residues in organically-grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses .” Baranski, M. et al. British Journal of Nutrition .

This post appears courtesy of Newcastle University

• Agriculture
• British Journal of Nutrition
• Organic Farming

http://www.cshl.edu/news-a-features/scientists-propose-how-antioxidants-can-accelerate-cancers-and-why-they-dont-protect-against-them.html

I’d like to have this content to improve my knowledge about nutrition in pdf into my e-mail address, specilly about nitrogen concentration and the connection of danger to the healthy. Thank you

You can register for free alerts from BJN at http://journals.cambridge.org/bjn-alerts

However, you (or your institution) will need to have a subscription to access any content that is not open access.

Let me know if you need any more details.

Kind regards,

Enjoyed every bit of your forum topic.Much thanks again. Really Cool. Witkowski

Thank you for providing some actual science to this normally emotionally, politically and economically driven subject.

Thanks for sharing this useful information! Hope that you will continue with the kind of stuff you are doing.

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Please enter a valid email address

Related Posts

Louella Houldcroft · 16 February 2016

New study finds clears differences between organic and non-organic milk and meat

In the largest study of its kind, led by an international team of experts at Newcastle University, UK, and published in the British Journal of Nutrition has shown that both organic milk and meat contain around 50% more beneficial omega-3 fatty acids than conventionally produced products.

Saheed Salami · 26 August 2016

Appraisal of authorization of antioxidant feed additives in livestock production

The animal article of the month for August is entitled 'Review: In vivo and post-mortem effects of feed antioxidants in livestock: a review of the implications on authorization of antioxidant feed additives'

Julia Haß · 3 April 2018

Study shows effectiveness of the school fruit scheme in North Rhine-Westphalia

How can you convince elementary school students to consume more fruit and vegetables? Scientists from the University of Bonn and the University of Koblenz-Landau have found that school fruit schemes can actually help to achieve this goal according to their research published in Public Health Nutrition.

Paul Clarke · 23 June 2020

Where Physical and Digital Worlds Collide

In this blog for Data-Centric Engineering, Paul Clarke (Chief Technology Officer at Ocado) documents Ocado’s journey with building synthetic models of its business, its platforms and its underlying technologies, including the use of simulations, emulations, visualisations and digital twins. He explores the potential benefits of digital twins, including the opportunities for creating digital twins at […]

Related Tags

• nutrition news
• View all tags

Latest Tweets

🎉 Congratulations to @NineDotsPrize winner @jkkusiak on the publication of her book, 'Radically Legal: Berlin Constitutes the Future' now available online and in bookshops. Find out more and join our upcoming event with Joanna Kusiak via http://bit.ly/3XlsYyE @CambridgeUP

Don't miss James Norton reading @DrRoseStewart's 'How to Manage a Mammoth' tonight at 6:50 pm on Cbeebies and BBC iPlayer. #DiabetesWeek

Tonight’s the night! Here’s everything you need to know (1/3): 🦣 If you’re having a watch party you can take a 📸 and tag us in on any social media channel platform using #MammothDiabetesWeek

Organic Vs. Non-Organic Foods: a Comparison of Nutrient Levels

This essay about the organic versus non-organic food debate examines how each farming practice impacts nutrient density, environmental sustainability, and public health. It contrasts organic farming’s emphasis on natural processes and biodiversity with non-organic farming’s focus on technological advancements and economic efficiency. The text discusses mixed scientific findings on nutritional benefits and emphasizes broader ethical and ecological considerations in making informed dietary choices.

How it works

In today’s dynamic food culture, where the pursuit of health and sustainability merges with our eating habits, the debate between organic and non-organic foods continues to thrive. As shoppers navigate through supermarket aisles and local market stalls, the discourse on nutrient density is often at the forefront. Yet, this debate extends beyond mere labeling and differing agricultural practices, revealing deeper layers of complexity.

Organic farming, rooted in the values of environmental balance and natural cycles, promises a richer array of nutrients.

By avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic agriculture prioritizes soil integrity and ecological diversity. The outcome is often seen as fruits and vegetables that are richer in vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, potentially transforming everyday produce like carrots and tomatoes into superfoods.

On the other side, non-organic agriculture leverages advanced scientific techniques to maximize output, focusing on feeding a growing global population economically. This approach relies heavily on chemical enhancers and pest control solutions to boost crop yields. However, this focus on volume raises questions about the impact on soil nutrient levels and the health implications of residual pesticides.

As these two approaches clash, the scientific community seeks to provide clarity, though findings remain mixed. Some research highlights the nutritional advantages of organic produce, while other studies suggest these benefits might be overstated. Nutrient levels in food can fluctuate based on variables such as soil health, climate conditions, and crop genetics, creating a complex and ever-changing nutritional landscape.

Beyond nutrient content, the debate encompasses wider environmental and ethical considerations. Organic farming is often seen as a model of environmental responsibility, promoting cleaner air, fertile soil, and a reduced ecological footprint, and advocating for sustainability and biodiversity. This model paints a picture of agriculture in harmony with nature.

In contrast, supporters of conventional farming celebrate technological advances as the solution to global food challenges. They emphasize improvements in crop genetics, pest management, and farm machinery as pathways to higher productivity and reduced starvation.

At this junction, consumers face a multitude of choices. Those prioritizing health might lean towards organic products, drawn by the potential health benefits of naturally grown fruits and vegetables. Others, guided by budgetary constraints, might prefer non-organic options, valuing affordability and accessibility.

The dilemma between organic and non-organic food transcends simple nutrient comparison, touching on a broad spectrum of moral, environmental, and economic issues. As we deliberate on our food choices, it’s crucial to consider how these choices fit into the broader context of food systems and global sustainability. Whether opting for the rustic appeal of organic farming or the scientific advancements of conventional methods, our decisions should be informed by a deep appreciation for the complex web of life that supports us.

Cite this page

Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: A Comparison of Nutrient Levels. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/organic-vs-non-organic-foods-a-comparison-of-nutrient-levels/

"Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: A Comparison of Nutrient Levels." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/organic-vs-non-organic-foods-a-comparison-of-nutrient-levels/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: A Comparison of Nutrient Levels . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/organic-vs-non-organic-foods-a-comparison-of-nutrient-levels/ [Accessed: 15 Jun. 2024]

"Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: A Comparison of Nutrient Levels." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed June 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/organic-vs-non-organic-foods-a-comparison-of-nutrient-levels/

"Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: A Comparison of Nutrient Levels," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/organic-vs-non-organic-foods-a-comparison-of-nutrient-levels/. [Accessed: 15-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Organic vs. Non-Organic Foods: A Comparison of Nutrient Levels . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/organic-vs-non-organic-foods-a-comparison-of-nutrient-levels/ [Accessed: 15-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Foodness Gracious

Become the best home chef you can be!

Join thousands of others and receive our once-weekly newsletter in your inbox.  Fresh Exclusive Content Engaging and Fun Weekly Polls Spam? Never.

By subscribing you agree with our Privacy Policy .

Decoding Organic: The Difference Between Organic Food vs. Non-Organic

Confused about the difference between organic and non-organic food? This guide decodes the key factors to help you understand the benefits, limitations, and considerations of both options. Make informed choices for a healthier lifestyle.

For those of us striving to live healthier and more sustainable lifestyles, we’re frequently told that organic foods are the best choice. But is organic truly better, or choosing organic just eating into your grocery budget? There are many blurred lines in the world of organic food vs. non-organic, but rest assured that you are not the only one who is confused by the term! By discovering the difference between organic food vs. non-organic products, you will learn why organic is the healthier option for you and your family, the local community, and the environment.

We’re going to clear up any confusion surrounding organic foods, helping you understand when buying organic really matters and the most effective swaps to make to reduce levels of potentially harmful chemicals in your diet. So, if you’re ready to embark on a healthier organic lifestyle, let’s go!

What Does Organic Mean?

In terms of food and farming methods, the word ‘organic’ is used to describe foods that are grown and produced without the use of man-made chemicals such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. The standards used to regulate organic food production also promote improvements in environmental protection and enhanced animal welfare systems.

The Key Differences Between Organic and Non-Organic

At its very simplest, organic food can best be described as food that is free from man-made chemicals. But why is eliminating chemicals from our diet such a big deal? Surely, food producers can’t be allowed to use chemicals that are actually bad for our health… In a perfect world, this would be the case.

To understand the benefits of switching to organic food products, let’s first look at the differences between organic and non-organic foods and the impacts of these different food production methods at various stages of the food chain:

Farming practices 

Over the last century, farming practices have rapidly evolved to enable food producers to keep up with an ever-increasing demand for their products. Our diets have changed hugely over a relatively short period of time, and farmers have turned to intensive farming systems to satisfy our demand for food. This means that foods that were once regarded as an occasional treat, such as chicken, are now eaten several times a week by many families.

All this delicious, readily available food might seem like a good thing, but there is a price to pay for mass year-round food production. Fruits and vegetables are grown under artificial conditions, with the help of an array of chemicals, and animals are reared in intensive farming systems focused on fast growth and maximum output. In contrast, many organic farmers have stepped back to more traditional and sustainable methods, growing seasonal fruits and vegetables and rearing animals in higher-welfare systems.

Pesticide and herbicide use

Conventional farming methods rely heavily on synthetic pesticides and herbicides to keep unwanted insects and weeds at bay. While these chemicals certainly make food production easier, they can, unfortunately, have many detrimental effects.

Pesticide and herbicide residues can pollute the local environment, affecting soil health and damaging natural ecosystems. There are also concerns that chemicals used in food production can also have adverse effects on human health, including an increased risk of cancer, allergies, and asthma.

In contrast, the use of pesticides and herbicides in organic food production is highly regulated and controlled, and farmers must utilize natural substances and physical or mechanical methods instead. For example, a conventional farmer will spray herbicides to get rid of unwanted weeds, while an organic farmer must remove them manually or use a natural mulch to suppress weed growth.

Synthetic additives 

Another chemical commonly used in food production is synthetic fertilizer. These fertilizers are added directly to the soil and are instantly soaked into the plants, boosting growth rates and giving fast results.

The problem with synthetic additives such as quick-release fertilizers is that they don’t stick around – they’re a quick fix, rather than a long-term solution. In contrast, organic farmers use natural organic fertilizers such as manure, compost, or food processing waste. These provide slow-release nutrients to plants and also help to boost soil health – a definite win-win situation!

Antibiotics and growth hormones

We’re all familiar with occasionally taking a course of antibiotics to help us get over an infection, but in conventional farming systems, they are used in a very different way. Along with growth hormones, antibiotics are used to speed up the growth of animals, particularly those reared in intensive farming systems.

Unfortunately, researchers are becoming increasingly concerned that overuse of antibiotics and growth hormones may be contributing to antibiotic resistance as well as leading to harmful residues in our food and drinking water. The good news is that the routine use of antibiotics is banned in organic farming systems.

Environmental impact 

Beyond just benefiting the health of soil and waterways and reducing chemical residues, organic farming also has many other environmental benefits. Organic farming methods have been shown to boost natural crop pollination, reduce soil erosion, improve natural pest control, and even combat climate change through carbon sequestration and reduced energy use.

While all points stack up in favor of organic foods, there is, unfortunately, a downside - organic food is often more expensive than foods produced using conventional methods. Although farmers save money by not purchasing expensive chemicals, they often need to spend more on labor-intensive farming methods. Overall yields of organic crops tend to be lower, and animals and poultry take longer and cost more to rear. It’s hoped that in the future, governments may subsidize organic farmers to enable them to compete with food producers using conventional farming methods.

Understanding Organic Labeling 

If you’ve ever stood in the food aisle at your local grocery store feeling baffled by the array of different food labels, you’re not the only one! Being a sustainable consumer means being constantly faced with choices, but luckily, food manufacturers have to adhere to strict standards set by the USDA National Organic Program certification (or European Union Organic if you’re in the EU), helping to simplify things for us shoppers.

Some commonly used organic labeling terms include:

• “100% organic” – contains only organic ingredients and processing aids (excluding water and salt).
• “Organic” – contains at least 95% organic ingredients (excluding water and salt). The remaining ingredients are non-agricultural substances that appear on the NOP National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.
• “Made with organic ____” – a processed product containing at least 70% organically produced ingredients.
• “Product contains organic ingredients” – contains less than 70% organic ingredients. These processed foods cannot use the word organic on the main product label but can indicate on the ingredients list which of the contents are organic.

Where to Buy Organic Food 

Organic foods were once considered to be a specialist item, but most grocery stores now stock a good range of organic products. These may be in a dedicated organic aisle or located next to their conventionally produced counterparts.

For more specialist organic items, health food stores are a good place to start. Many organic farmers also attend farmers’ markets and participate in CSA vegetable box schemes, giving you a convenient source of seasonal and locally produced organic fruit and vegetables.

The Dirty Dozen

Switching your entire diet to organic foods can be quite expensive, so many people focus firstly on the items that are likely to have the highest levels of pesticide residue . These are known as the ‘Dirty Dozen’ and are the fruits and vegetables that are best to buy organic whenever possible:

• Strawberries
• Kale, collard & mustard greens
• Bell & hot peppers
• Blueberries
• Green beans

So, if any of these regularly make an appearance in your shopping basket, see if you can seek out organic alternatives instead.

The Clean Fifteen

The ‘Clean Fifteen’ are fruits and vegetables that are least likely to have pesticide residue. If switching your entire diet to organic food is proving impossible, you can save money and continue buying these non-organic healthy foods :

• Sweet peas (frozen)
• Honeydew melon
• Sweet potatoes

While all of these non-organic fruits and vegetables have been shown to contain minimal levels of pesticide residue, it is best to err on the side of caution and wash or peel them before consumption.

Organic Food vs. Non-Organic

It is clear that by choosing organic produce, we can enjoy the benefits of a healthier diet, as well as reduce the environmental impacts of the food we eat. Organically grown produce is packed full of beneficial nutrients, and you can enjoy the great flavor safely with the knowledge that it is free from pesticides and antibiotic residues.

When choosing organic food, look for products that are accredited as ‘100% organic’ or ‘organic’ by the USDA or your local certifying body. If you’re unsure where to start, see which of the ‘Dirty Dozen’ you can switch to an organic alternative. Another good option is to join an organic vegetable box scheme, helping to reduce food miles and support your local community.

If more of us chose to eat organic foods, the impact of intensive farming on the environment and animal welfare would be greatly reduced. So, if you’re ready to take on this simple and enjoyable challenge, start embracing the organic revolution today!

Organic vs. non-organic foods for your child

Ever wonder what the difference really is between organic vs. non-organic foods? Here’s everything you need to know.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on WhatsApp
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share by Mail

Ever wonder what the difference really is between organic vs. non-organic foods? Here’s everything you need to know about the two types of labels, as well as the positives and negatives that each bring to the (kitchen) table.

What is the difference between foods labeled organic versus non-organic?

At the very core of it, there is not a large difference between the two. They look very similar and most often taste very similar, too. Organic foods typically contain the same amount of nutrients, vitamins and minerals as non-organic foods. In order for a food to be labeled organic, the producer has to have the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) verify their growing practices and approve all of their production methods. Typically, foods that are organic contain fewer pesticides, fewer multi-drug resistant bacteria and no genetically modified organisms or foods.

What are the positives and negatives of buying organic or non-organic?

If you are concerned with how green you are being or how your actions impact the environment, organic foods have less environmental impact then non-organic foods. Additionally, organic foods have no added antibiotics, hormones or synthetic additives.

However, the negatives of buying organic may outweigh the positives for many families. What is the number one negative of buying organic? The price. On average, organic products are 47 percent more expensive than non-organic foods. This varies depending on the product and season, but if you buy organic, you are most likely going to pay quite a bit more. Another possible negative to buying organic is that you are subject to when each product is in season. Organic apple supplies disappear from grocery stores in late winter while non-organic apples may be overflowing. Produce is one of the main foods affected by the seasons, but some organic meats and eggs may be affected as well.

How does cost affect buying organic?

For non-organic, one positive is that you can typically stretch your dollar further than with organic foods. Additionally, you can find almost any type of food, produce or meat any time of the year, even if it is not in its peak season. One drawback to non-organic foods is that you may be consuming higher levels of pesticides, antibiotics or hormones, and your food may be coming from growing conditions that are not as highly regulated as organic products.

What does all this mean?

This does not mean that organic foods are necessarily better or healthier for you. If you shop at local farmers markets, ask your farmer what types of fertilizers and growing conditions are used. Even if he or she has not paid to be certified organic, they may be using fewer pesticides or green growing conditions. This is one way to still have produce or meat that is close to organic without paying the higher price.

Non-organic produce and products are not the only source of pesticides in our daily life. Even if we bought only organic, we would encounter pesticides on recently sprayed grass, in the air we breathe, and in the soil and dust. It is nearly impossible to reduce our pesticide exposure to absolute zero.

Do you recommend organic or non-organic to parents?

I recommend that all children consume at least five servings of fruits and vegetables daily. If buying organic would mean they only have one serving of fruit or vegetables due to the higher price, then I would recommend buying non-organic. If your family is on a tight budget, avoid reaching for the organic products, and instead aim to meet the goal of five servings of fruits and vegetables with non-organic foods.

Try to include at least one fruit at breakfast, one serving of vegetables at lunch, and two servings of vegetables at dinner to help meet fiber and vitamin/mineral needs and fill up bellies with the healthy stuff! To make five servings, consider offering fruit as a snack. These can be non-organic or organic, as long as they are being provided.

Buying organic vs non-organic

There are some fruits and vegetables that are known to have high levels of pesticides and fertilizers. If you want to choose a few things to buy organic, the Environmental Working Group releases a list every year of 12 foods containing the highest level of pesticides and 15 foods that are the lowest in pesticides. The top five of the “dirty dozen” or high-level foods for 2017 are strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples and peaches. The top five of the “clean fifteen” or lower-level foods this year are avocados, sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage and onions. If you wanted to pick and choose which foods to buy organic, these may provide some insight.

Think you know about organic foods? Test your knowedge with this quiz.

Organic foods were once sold only in health food stores and farmers markets. But they are slowly becoming a staple at your local supermarket. Find out more about organic foods by taking this quiz.

1. What’s the best way to tell the difference between organic and nonorganic foods?

2. what portion of a food must be organic to allow a food maker to use the label “made with organic ingredients”, 3. to carry the usda organic label, produce cannot have:, 4. the organic label lets you know that organic foods are:, 5. why do organic foods often cost more than nonorganic foods, 6. eating nonorganic produce can expose you to:, about the expert.

Related Content

What parents need to know about congenital heart disease

Young women and iron-deficiency anemia

My baby is 12 months old and will only drink from bottles while asleep

Children and Ramadan fasting

Supporting an adolescent struggling with an eating disorder

Nutrition tips for young athletes

Healthy eating: why it’s time to stop cleaning your plate

What is post traumatic feeding disorder?

Is baby-led weaning a safe way to feed your infant?

Kids need more than calcium to keep bones healthy

How to pack nutrition into kids’ meals

Reducing salt in children’s diets

Is your child drinking too much milk?

How nutrition can build an army to protect us against COVID-19

Increasing fruits and vegetables in your child’s diet

Help! My teen won’t stop eating

Breastfeeding and vitamin D deficiency

Promoting healthy eating habits while learning at home

The pandemic and eating disorders

Posts from erica mouch, rd, ld, organic vs. non-organic foods, leave a comment, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Organic vs. Non-Organic Food: Is There a Difference?

In Sigma Statements by Alan Flanagan April 13, 2021 3 Comments

In 2018, the global consumer spending on organic foods was estimated at around €80 billion ($95 billion USD). While consumer demand may exist for myriad reasons, within the wider discourse about nutrition and health it is common to hear claims about the superiority of organic food over non-organic food, including (but not limited to):

• Better nutritional profile (higher levels of nutrients and/or greater bioavailability vs. non-organic foods);
• Absence of synthetic herbicides and pesticides (tied to assertions that such compounds are harmful to humans and promote disease, e.g., cancer);
• Better for the environment;
• Greater benefit to human health outcomes.

Consumer behaviour research has identified a number of factors correlating with an overall organic food purchase preferences, in particular health consciousness, environmental considerations, and an assumption of enhanced well-being. It may be said that organic food purchase is a value system and status symbol . However, the price differential between organic and non-organic food can be substantial , and in populations where only small proportions of the total populace meet recommendations of vegetable and fruit intake, there are considerations for food purchase beyond the production method. In this respect, an evidence-based evaluation of the common claims made in relation to organic foods is necessary for an informed choice, which must also factor in pragmatic considerations regarding social, economic, and environmental determinants of choice.

In this Sigma Statement , we will discuss the definitions of organic food, and review the evidence in relation to organic vs. non-organic food under three main areas:

• Organic Food and Nutritional Quality
• Organic Food and Environmental Pollutants
• Organic Food and Health Outcomes

In the European Union, organic food is regulated under Council Regulations No.834/2007 and No.899/2008 on organic production and labelling of organic food products. In the US, organic food is regulated by the Department of Agriculture. We do not propose to review and contrast the respective merits of the different regulatory systems, however, where relevant specific mention will be made to important concepts like the 'maximum residue levels' (MRL) for pesticides in food products (discussed further under the section on Organic Food and Environmental Pollutants, below).

While people think of 'organic food', the term 'organic' in fact refers to the method of production of that food. A food may be labelled organic under EU law and by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) if 95% of its agricultural ingredients are organic. To be certified as organic under both regulatory systems, minimum time periods are set for which soil must be free of substances prohibited under organic production (e.g., certain synthetic pesticides). Organic regulations in both the EU and US have strict requirements with regard to livestock and animal produce, both in relation to living conditions (i.e., space, air, light, etc.) and in relation to feed (which must itself be organic) and veterinary treatments.

It is important to distinguish the term 'organic' from the term 'natural', which has no legally binding definition but does have certain regulations in place in relation to additives, like flavourings (i.e., 'natural flavourings', which is defined by Council Regulation No.1334/2008 ). However, for the consumer it is important to note that for the vast majority of food products, 'natural' does not mean anything with regard to method of production. 'Conventional' foods are foods produced through means of production that are outside the definition of organic, but that still meet standard legal requirements for food safety.

Thus, the regulatory systems have strict definitions for what food produce can be classified as 'organic' vs. 'conventional', and these distinctions refer specifically to regulations on methods of production. However, the system is not watertight: in the famous 'Gatto con gli stivali' fraud case, between 2007-2011 food products produced in Italy and Romania were apparently certified as organic. However, the certificates had been falsified, as had production documents to control bodies, resulting in the sale of ~703,000 tons of falsely-labelled conventional products sold as organic, corresponding to estimated financial turnover of around €200-million. Regulations have been significantly updated in the interim, however, the case serves as an example of the growing consumer market for organic-labelled foods.

For the purposes of this section, under the concept of 'quality' we will focus primarily on nutritional content, i.e., actual levels of dietary micronutrients and bioactive food components, i.e., polyphenols, between organic and conventional foods. Aspects relating to food safety, i.e., pesticides, heavy metals, etc., will be addressed separately in a subsequent section.

The assumption of superior nutritional quality is one of the most common claims in relation to organic vs. conventional food. However, is this actually supported by the totality of evidence? Let’s look at both plant and animal produce.

Nutrient Quality - Plant Produce

Dangour et al . conducted a systematic review of studies which compared, through chemical analysis, the nutrient content of foods produced under organic or conventional production methods. From a total of 55 included studies, there was no difference in the nutritional content of crop-produce between organic and conventional methods for 10 of 13 categories analysed. The three for which there were differences - nitrogen, phosphorus, and titratable acidity - likely reflected the difference in fertiliser use and ripeness of the product at time of harvest. For nutrients like vitamin C, magnesium, calcium, potassium, zinc, copper, and phenolic compounds, there were no differences between organic and conventional foods in the included studies.

A further systemic review and meta-analysis in 2012 by Smith-Spangler et al. reported similar findings, with phosphorus and total polyphenol content higher in organic produce, but no difference in other nutrients between organic and conventional production. In particular, there were no significant differences in vitamin C, B-carotene, a-tocopherol, calcium, magnesium, or iron. Conversely, Brandt et al. conducted a systematic review of papers reporting on the vitamin and phenolic compounds in fruits and vegetables, comparing organic to conventional production. They found that the content of vitamin C, and 'secondary plant metabolites' (a definition that encompasses polyphenols, total phenolics, and other non-nutritive bioactive food components), were significantly greater in organic foods, while there was no difference in carotenes, tocopherols, or anthocyanins (a subclass of flavonoids). Specifically, antioxidant 'secondary plant metabolites' were found to be 12% higher in organically grown fruit and vegetables.

The most recent comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis by Barański et al. included 343 total studies, of which 156 were included in a weighted meta-analysis (i.e., had data available on standard deviations and errors to allow the researchers to provide a greater 'weight' [a percent score out of 100%] to more accurate studies). Antioxidant activity was an average of 17% higher in organic crops. Further, polyphenolic compounds - including total flavonoids and other phenolic compounds - were significantly higher, with a range of 18-69% higher concentrations, depending on the specific compound. Smaller differences were noted with certain vitamins, in particular vitamin C and total carotenoids were higher in organically grown crops. Conversely, levels of proteins and amino acids, fibre, and vitamin E were all lower in organic crops compared to conventional crops.

Taken as a whole, the evidence from the above studies (which collectively synthesised a voluminous body of data) suggest that, compared to conventionally grown crops, organic crops may contain:

• Higher levels of antioxidant compounds (consistently shown)
• Higher levels of vitamin C (inconsistently shown)
• Potentially higher levels of carotenoids (inconsistently shown)

Interestingly, an analysis of broccoli samples obtained from commercial supermarkets demonstrated differences in the nutrient content of vitamin C related to season of harvest, but no difference between organic and conventional production sources. Consequently, much of the focus of the discussion within the literature is on the potential biological relevance of greater intakes of antioxidant polyphenolic compounds for human health outcomes. This will be assessed under the section Organic Food and Health Outcomes, below.

Nutrient Quality - Animal Produce

The previous analyses were primarily focused on the differences in crop produce, i.e., foods of plant origin. However, a number of studies have separately investigated the difference in animal produce between conventional and organic farming methods.

Photo by Thais Do Rio on Unsplash

Średnicka-Tober et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-European milk survey studies, comparing organic to conventional milk and dairy products. They found that organic milk contained higher concentrations of omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, including alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the long-chain fatty acids eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docosahexanoic acid (DHA), and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). However, iodine and selenium content were significantly higher in conventional milk.

Overall, the compositional differences in omega-3 fatty acids and CLA were modest, and unlikely to be nutritionally relevant . For iodine, although the conventional milk contained significantly greater concentrations, both organic and conventional sources would still contribute relevant levels of intake for this nutrient. The analysis indicated that the primary reason for differences in milk between organic and conventional milk were higher grazing intakes in organic cows. Thus, the nutritional composition may be explained by the level of fresh grass in the diet of a cow. This has been shown before , with the fatty acid composition of milk increasing linearly in relation to the level of fresh grass in the diet of the cow. This is not necessarily an exclusively organic vs. conventional distinction, given that the organic regulations for grazing are for 'when conditions allow', and therefore conserved forage may be used depending on season and/or climate conditions. Ultimately, it does appear that grazing, compared to grass silage feed or no grazing, results in higher amounts of unsaturated fat, protein, and the carotenoid, lutein.

A further systematic review and meta-analysis from the same research group investigated compositional differences in nutrient content in relation to animal meat, specifically analysing differences in fatty acid composition. The overall analysis detected higher concentrations of both omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in organic meat, higher overall polyunsaturated fat content and lower monounsaturated fat content, and similar saturated fat content. In analysis by meat type, higher polyunsaturated fat concentrations were detected specifically in pork and chicken, but not beef, lamb, or goat. Lower monounsaturated fat content was also only observed in pork and chicken. Saturated fat was lower in chicken, but there is no difference in other meat types. The magnitude of difference was small, and the body of evidence included in the analysis was weak and inconsistent.

The overall conclusion for animal produce generally, including milk, meat, and eggs, appears to indicate higher levels of polyunsaturated fat, in particular omega-3 content, comparing organic to conventional sources. However, the total body of evidence for meats is inconsistent and, for most nutrients, does not show nutritionally meaningful differences.

Limitations of Current Research Assessing Nutritional Composition

There are a number of limitations to the body of evidence in relation to nutritional composition that warrant consideration. One is that there remains insufficient data to accurately compare individual crops (as opposed to nutrients in an overall class of crop, i.e., 'fruit'), or to compare meat products from different livestock species. As a result, it is not possible to estimate differences in actual dietary intake of both potential beneficial or undesirable compounds from organic and conventional foods. Another is that many nutritionally relevant compounds lack sufficient data to be able to study in a meta-analysis and attempt to derive meaningful conclusions. Each systematic review and meta-analysis above used different methodological approaches, and this has generated debate within the field about the appropriate methodological framework to analyse food composition data, which have yet to be resolved .

Beyond considerations of nutritional composition, the potential for differences in levels of pesticides, heavy metals, and other synthetic (or non-synthetic but potentially undesirable) compounds, is also relevant to the discussion.

'Pesticides ' are used in agriculture to defend crops by warding off infestation, supporting growth, and preventing disease. It is important to note that pesticides may be synthetic or non-synthetic, i.e., may be derived from natural sources, and it is permissible to use organic pesticides. Pesticide levels are regulated through the 'maximum residue level' (MRL) , which is the upper level of pesticide residues allowed in or on a food, or in animal feed, and the lowest exposure necessary to protect consumers. In the EU, these are only approved after a risk assessment by the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA), while in the US a similar risk assessment process is conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A 'pesticide residue' is the measurable amount of an active substance, and the related metabolites or degradation byproducts, which may be found on harvested crops or in animal foods.

In the systematic review by Smith-Spangler et al. , pesticide residues were found to be 5 times higher in conventional crops compared to organic. The data in the Barański et al. systematic review compared the frequency of occurrence of pesticide residues between organic and conventional crops (as a percentage of samples included). In meta-analysis of 66 data points, they found that residues were detected in 10.5% of organic crops compared to 46.3% of conventional crops, i.e., pesticide residues were found at 4 times the frequency of that in conventional crops. This was a similar pool of studies used in the analysis by Smith-Spangler et al., thus providing consistency in the observed difference. Barański et al. also found that nitrogen and cadmium, a heavy metal, were higher in cereal crops, but no significant levels were detected for vegetables or fruits.

However, these findings require some context. It is important to note that the MRL is a conservative estimate of the potential risk of an exposure in humans, and is set 100 times below the 'No Observable Effect Level' identified in risk assessment studies. While residue levels may be identified on conventional crops, it is a somewhat default finding that they would be higher, given that these same compounds are not used in organic crop production. The most recent EU report on pesticide residues in foods indicated that 95.5% (of 91,015 samples) of foods analysed were below the MRL level, while 2.7% exceeded this amount. In the US, only 0.59% of foods tested were found to exceed the MRL.

A final point in relation to the comparisons between organic and conventional crops is that these comparisons examine regulated compounds. Within organic farming practice, however, is an extensive use (either fully permitted, or with restrictions prior to a justification for use) of different botanical chemicals for which we currently lack any robust evidence for effects on human health. Rather, their use is often coupled with untested assumptions based on their 'natural' status , and the related assumption that 'natural' inherently means safe for humans. Thus, the distinction between organic vs. conventional is not a distinction between 'pesticide' vs. 'no pesticide', because organic farming uses pesticides and other biological control agents. The question is the related potential health effects, and environmental considerations, for which there is more evidence in relation to conventional synthetic pesticides.

Smith-Spangler et al. also found that bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics were up to 3 times higher in conventional pork and chicken compared to organic sources. Many of the included studies were published around the time of the introduction of the EU ban on certain antibiotic uses in animal feed and monitoring of Salmonella and Campylobacter levels - two contaminants examined in the Smith-Spangler review - thus whether altered practices and regulations may have an effect on antibiotic resistant bacteria remains to be further elucidated. However, Smith-Spangler et al. found no difference in the risk for bacterial contamination with pathogenic bacteria, e.g., E.coli and Salmonella, comparing organic to conventional animal products. In sensitivity analysis (removing studies in the meta-analysis to see what effect they have on the overall result), removal of 1 study resulted in a statistically significantly higher risk for E.coli contamination from organic produce.

However, other research shows little difference in risk for bacterial contamination between organic and conventional produce. It is acknowledged that the issue of antibiotic resistance is of global importance for human health, but it is important to state that to date, the primary cause for antibiotic resistance in humans is antibiotic use by humans , and the local animal population is unlikely to be the source of microbial resistance in humans.

While the question of whether there are nutritional composition differences between organic and conventional foods is one consideration, a more pertinent question is the effects (if any) on human health outcomes. There is relatively little data, prospectively observational or from interventions, on health outcomes between organic and conventional food consumption.

A number of cross-sectional studies have compared incidence of allergies and atopic sensitisation in children consuming all organic food diets as part of an anthroposophic lifestyle, finding lower prevalence of atopy/allergy in children following such a lifestyle. However, the unique lifestyle of this population subgroup encompasses a number of factors which may lead to lower allergen sensitisation, for example consumption of fermented foods, and lower prevalence of allergy is observed in this population independent of diet.

However, the Dutch KOALA cohort study investigated the relationship between organic consumption vs. conventional food consumption during pregnancy and over the first two years of life on incidence of eczema. The cohort included mothers following a 'conventional lifestyle' (not be confused with conventional food in the context of food production) and mothers following 'alternative lifestyles', i.e., anthroposophic or otherwise. While there was no significant association between overall organic food consumption and eczema risk, there was a significantly lower odds (OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.46-0.98) for eczema in infants strictly fed organic dairy. There was no significant association for other individual foods for eczema, and no significant associations noted for risk of atopic sensitisation at 2yrs. The lower odds of eczema was attributed to the higher levels of certain dairy fatty acids in breast milk (which was sampled as part of the study), in particular conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and trans-vaccenic acid (TVA). This correlated (along with omega-3 fatty acids) with lower odds of eczema, atopic dermatitis, and sensitisation assessed by IgE antibodies, in the infants in the cohort.

Pre-eclampsia

The Norwegian Mother and Child study found a lower odds (OR=0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95) of pre-eclampsia from dietary analysis mid-pregnancy, comparing low organic vegetable to high organic vegetable intake. However, there was no significant association for total organic food consumption, or intakes of fruit. However, the dietary assessment method had not been validated for organic foods, and there was a small number of participants in the exposure group analysed. The frequency categories 'mostly' and 'often' were combined together and compared against the combination of categories 'sometimes' and 'never'. Actual intakes of organic foods, i.e., in grams per day, were not quantified. High healthy eating index scores were also associated with lower odds (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.84) for pre-eclampsia. Given that frequent organic food consumption and high healthy eating index scores correlated, both of these were mutually adjusted for, resulting in similar results. Thus, both frequent organic food and a high healthy eating score were independently associated with lower odds for pre-eclampsia. This reflects a challenge in the literature relating organic food to health outcomes, which is that foods associated with reduced risk of disease - vegetables, fruits, wholegrains, less red meat - are higher in consumers who purchase organic foods .

As stated above, most of the human studies are cross-sectional studies in mother-child cohorts. However, there are a number of prospective adult cohorts which have examined chronic disease outcomes. The UK Million Women Study , a large cohort of 623,080 women, examined the relationship between organic vs. conventional food intake and cancer incidence - in particular breast cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma - over an average of 9.3yrs of follow-up. Organic food intake was defined as 'never', 'sometimes', or 'usually/always'. The only statistically significant findings in the study were in relation to breast cancer and non-Hodgkins lymphoma: 'usually/always' consuming organic food was associated with a 9% (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01 - 1.17) increase in risk for breast cancer, while this consumer category was also associated with a 21% (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 - 0.99) decrease in risk for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Ultimately, of the 14 specific cancer sites analysed and in relation to total cancers incidence, there was no evidence of a reduced risk from organic food consumption, with the possible exception of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. In relation to the finding of increased risk in relation to breast cancer, it is important to note that the study did not adjust for oestrogen-receptor type, menopausal stage, or genetic risk, and as the authors highlighted it could be that women consuming more organic food are also more likely to attend breast cancer screening, i.e., more likely to be diagnosed from screening.

The French Nutri-Net Santé Cohort also investigated cancer incidence in 68,946 adult male and female participants relative to organic food consumption. Similar to the UK Million Women Study, there was a reduction in risk for non-Hodgkins lymphoma and per 5-point increase in organic food score (based on fruits, vegetables, soy-based products, grains and legumes, bread and cereals, and flour), there was a 25% (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 - 0.93) lower risk for non-Hodgkins lymphoma over 4.9yrs. There was also a reduction in risk (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 - 0.96) observed for postmenopausal breast cancer observed with the total organic food score, but this was not significant in the analysis confined to plant-derived organic food score suggesting that other organic foods may have been associated with the outcome in the main analysis. In this cohort, there was no significant association with any other cancer site investigated.

The suggested explanation for these findings of reduced cancer risk related to organic food consumption is lower exposure to pesticides. However, this question currently appears to be contested. In relation to carcinogenic potential of synthetic pesticides, these compounds have been considered to have low possible carcinogenic hazard in humans. However, these assessments often relate to one specific compound, and may not take into account the effect of multiple pesticide residues, in the context of a total diet.

Other concerns raised in the assessment of risk from pesticides include a lack of full consideration of independent science (i.e., non-industry funded), and that gaps in the evidence are too easily accepted in the safety and toxicology assessments. It is commonly cited that occupational exposure to pesticides , e.g. spraying, is associated with increased risk of cardiometabolic disease, Parkinson's disease, and certain cancers. However, this is not the same as exposure to pesticide residues that are consumed through diet.

Recent evidence also challenges the prior evidence regarding carcinogenic potential of pesticides in humans. While it is not incorrect to say that any health risks posed by pesticides would be largely eliminated by consuming no conventional produce, this is not likely to be a reality for a majority of the population. To paraphrase the review by Mie et al . , the potential negative effect of pesticide residues consumed through diet should be an argument against fruit and vegetable consumption, yet neither should nutrient content of fruit and vegetables be used to justify exposures with potentially harmful health effects. Confining the assessment to diet alone, however, the current prospective human evidence does not suggest any strong links between organic food consumption and lower risk of cancers.

Life Expectancy

The extent to which the differences in certain concentrations of compounds, in particular polyphenols, may result in meaningful differences in health outcomes is confined to estimates and speculation. In their systematic review, Brandt et al. posited that if a person substituted all conventional fruit and vegetables in their diet for organic versions, this could increase their intake of 'secondary plant metabolites' like polyphenols by 12%, and that this could be expected to correspond to an increase in life expectancy of 17 days in women and 25 days in men.

However, there are a number of issues with this assumption. It is based on modelling which analysed the predicted effects of increasing fruit and vegetable intake per se , while the assumption by Brandt et al. is based on the idea that a given increase in the levels of polyphenol intake corresponds to an increase in total fruit and vegetable intake. This is a large assumption, given the wide differences between studies in important factors like testing method and seasonal differences.

Second, the model corresponded to a hypothetical equal-weight substitution, such that any health effect would be attributed to the difference in nutrient content rather than a change in gram per day intake. To put this in perspective, the current average fruit and vegetable intake in grams per day in men and women is 260g and 251g, respectively, based on the most recent National Diet and Nutrition Survey Data .

Even if we were to take the estimations of Brandt et al. as valid, and switching these levels to all organic would result in a health benefit corresponding to a 12% increase in bioactive compounds, the health benefit of actually meeting the 400g per day recommendation for fruit and vegetable intake would still be expected to yield a greater magnitude of benefit. For example, in the study which Brandt et al. based their estimates on, increasing fruit and vegetable intake by 100g was associated with a:

• 22% reduction in stomach cancer risk [RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72–0.84]
• 7% reduction in colorectal cancer risk  [RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88–0.98]

Therefore, the ultimate conclusion, based on these assumptions, is that a benefit would be still derived from increasing total fruit and vegetable intake generally. In other terms, the impact of switching from conventional foods to organic foods could be smaller for diets already high in polyphenol-rich foods . Thus, it is critical that any differences in nutrient content of organic vs. conventional foods are examined in the context of the total diet. Percent change differences in contents for a single or a handful of nutrients may over-inflate apparent differences over what might be nutritionally relevant.

What no review in this area has appeared to address is the financial cost implications, which are important in the consideration of health outcomes. Analysis of the economic costs of complying with the UK Eatwell Guide indicated that households in the bottom 10% of income would have to spend ~74% of disposable income to comply with the dietary recommendations, compared to 6% of income for households in the top decile. These are important considerations for contextualising the pros and cons of organic vs. conventional food.

In populations falling substantially below targets for fruit and vegetables intake, and other foods associated with positive health effects (e.g. whole grains), current data would suggest that the health gains across the population which could be achieved by meeting those fruit/veg targets would significantly exceed the health gains from attempting to change current intake to an all-organic produce diet. In fact, the increase in cost may act as a further barrier to consuming more fruit, vegetables, etc. for many people.

• The term 'organic' denotes a method of production, and is regulated by health regulatory bodies in the EU and US.
• Organically produced crops may yield higher levels of polyphenols. But evidence is more inconsistent regarding specific nutrients of interest, e.g., vitamin C and carotenoids.
• Organically produced pork may have lower levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• Organically produced animal-source foods generally (including milk, meat, and eggs), appear to have higher levels of polyunsaturated fat, in particular omega-3 content, compared to conventional sources. However, these levels are unlikely to be nutritionally relevant in a total diet.
• Based on recent estimates, between 0.5-2.7% of commercially available conventional foods may have pesticide residue levels above the maximum residue levels (the upper level of pesticide residues allowed in or on a food).
• While there remains concern about the potential carcinogenic effect of chronic exposure to pesticide residues, currently the evidence comparing organic to conventional foods does not suggest any substantially lower risk of overall cancers.
• Many other cohort studies are cross-sectional studies on mother and child. There are suggestions of reduced risk of allergy and atopic sensitisation. However, these studies are confounded by particularly unique lifestyles in the included participants.
• A continuing challenge in the epidemiology of organic vs. conventional food consumption, is the concurrent high levels of health promoting foods in individuals who regularly consume organic foods. Both of these factors may be independently associated with positive health outcomes.
• The overall weight of data does not emphatically support a unique health benefit of organic produce over and above what could be gained from a substantial increase in overall vegetable and fruit consumption across the population.
• The price differential and cost implications between organic vs. conventional food is a highly relevant factor to consider.

Statement Primary Author: Alan Flanagan

Alan is the Research Communication Officer at Sigma Nutrition. Alan is currently pursuing his PhD in nutrition at the University of Surrey, UK, with a research focus in chrononutrition. Alan previuosly completed a Masters in Nutritional Medicine at the same institution.

Very Good detail information about Organic product and it’s benefit to health.

For the record

“In meta-analysis of 66 data points, they found that residues were detected in 10.5% of organic crops compared to 46.3% of conventional crops, i.e., pesticide residues were 4 times higher in conventional crops. ”

Is incorrect as written.

Residues were not 4 times higher than in conventional crops. That is, they were not found at 4 times the concentration.

They were found 4 times as frequently.

Those sentences mean very different things.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The sentence has been edited to correct the error in wording.

Thanks for the heads up! I missed that first time around.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Don't subscribe All new comments Replies to my comments Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail. You can also get notified of other comments without commenting yourself.

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

• Nutrition and healthy eating

Organic foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?

Discover the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts when it comes to nutrition, safety and price.

Once found only in health food stores, organic food is now a common feature at most grocery stores. And that's made a bit of a problem in the produce aisle.

For example, you can pick an apple grown with usual (conventional) methods. Or you can pick one that's organic. Both apples are firm, shiny and red. They both provide vitamins and fiber. And neither apple has fat, salt or cholesterol. Which should you choose? Get the facts before you shop.

What is organic farming?

The word "organic" means the way farmers grow and process farming (agricultural) products. These products include fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products such as milk and cheese, and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to meet the following goals:

• Improve soil and water quality
• Cut pollution
• Provide safe, healthy places for farm animals (livestock) to live
• Enable natural farm animals' behavior
• Promote a self-sustaining cycle of resources on a farm

Materials or methods not allowed in organic farming include:

• Artificial (synthetic) fertilizers to add nutrients to the soil
• Sewage sludge as fertilizer
• Most synthetic pesticides for pest control
• Using radiation (irradiation) to preserve food or to get rid of disease or pests
• Using genetic technology to change the genetic makeup (genetic engineering) of crops, which can improve disease or pest resistance, or to improve crop harvests
• Antibiotics or growth hormones for farm animals (livestock)

Organic crop farming materials or practices may include:

• Plant waste left on fields (green manure), farm animals' manure or compost to improve soil quality
• Plant rotation to keep soil quality and to stop cycles of pests or disease
• Cover crops that prevent wearing away of soil (erosion) when sections of land aren't in use and to plow into soil for improving soil quality
• Mulch to control weeds
• Insects or insect traps to control pests
• Certain natural pesticides and a few synthetic pesticides approved for organic farming, used rarely and only as a last choice and coordinated with a USDA organic certifying agent

Organic farming practices for farm animals (livestock) include:

• Healthy living conditions and access to the outdoors
• Pasture feeding for at least 30% of farm animals' nutritional needs during grazing season
• Organic food for animals
• Shots to protect against disease (vaccinations)

Organic or not? Check the label

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has set up an organic certification program that requires all organic food to meet strict government standards. These standards control how such food is grown, handled and processed.

Any product labeled as organic on the product description or packaging must be USDA certified. If it's certified, the producer may also use an official USDA Organic seal.

The USDA says producers who sell less than $5,000 a year in organic food don't need to be certified. These producers must follow the guidelines for organic food production. But they don't need to go through the certification process. They can label their products as organic. But they can't use the official USDA Organic seal.

Products certified 95 percent or more organic may display this USDA seal.

The USDA guidelines describe organic foods on product labels as:

• 100% organic. This label is used on certified organic fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat or other foods that have one ingredient. It may also be used on food items with many ingredients if all the items are certified organic, except for salt and water. These may have a USDA seal.
• Organic. If a food with many ingredients is labeled organic, at least 95% of the ingredients are certified organic, except for salt and water. The items that aren't organic must be from a USDA list of approved additional ingredients. These also may have a USDA seal.
• Made with organic. If a product with many ingredients has at least 70% certified organic ingredients, it may have a "made with organic" ingredients label. For example, a breakfast cereal might be labeled "made with organic oats." The ingredient list must show what items are organic. These products can't carry a USDA seal.
• Organic ingredients. If a product has some organic ingredients but less than 70% of the ingredients are certified organic , the product can't be labeled as organic. It also can't carry a USDA seal. The ingredient list can show which ingredients are organic.

Does 'organic' mean the same thing as 'natural'?

No, "natural" and "organic" are different. Usually, "natural" on a food label means that the product has no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. "Natural" on a label doesn't have to do with the methods or materials used to grow the food ingredients.

Also be careful not to mix up other common food labels with organic labels. For example, certified organic beef guidelines include pasture access during at least 120 days of grazing season and no growth hormones. But the labels "free-range" or "hormone-free" don't mean a farmer followed all guidelines for organic certification.

Organic food: Is it safer or more nutritious?

Some data shows possible health benefits of organic foods when compared with foods grown using the usual (conventional) process. These studies have shown differences in the food. But there is limited information to prove how these differences can give potential overall health benefits.

Potential benefits include the following:

• Nutrients. Studies have shown small to moderate increases in some nutrients in organic produce. Organic produce may have more of certain antioxidants and types of flavonoids, which have antioxidant properties.
• Omega-3 fatty acids. The feeding requirements for organic farm animals (livestock) usually cause higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids. These include feeding cattle grass and alfalfa. Omega-3 fatty acids — a kind of fat — are more heart healthy than other fats. These higher omega-3 fatty acids are found in organic meats, dairy and eggs.
• Toxic metal. Cadmium is a toxic chemical naturally found in soils and absorbed by plants. Studies have shown much lower cadmium levels in organic grains, but not fruits and vegetables, when compared with crops grown using usual (conventional) methods. The lower cadmium levels in organic grains may be related to the ban on synthetic fertilizers in organic farming.
• Pesticide residue. Compared with produce grown using usual (conventional) methods, organically grown produce has lower levels of pesticide residue. The safety rules for the highest levels of residue allowed on conventional produce have changed. In many cases, the levels have been lowered. Organic produce may have residue because of pesticides approved for organic farming or because of airborne pesticides from conventional farms.
• Bacteria. Meats produced using usual (conventional) methods may have higher amounts of dangerous types of bacteria that may not be able to be treated with antibiotics. The overall risk of contamination of organic foods with bacteria is the same as conventional foods.

Are there downsides to buying organic?

One common concern with organic food is cost. Organic foods often cost more than similar foods grown using usual (conventional) methods. Higher prices are due, in part, to more costly ways of farming.

Food safety tips

Whether you go totally organic or choose to mix conventional and organic foods, keep these tips in mind:

• Choose a variety of foods from a mix of sources. You'll get a better variety of nutrients and lower your chance of exposure to a single pesticide.
• Buy fruits and vegetables in season when you can. To get the freshest produce, ask your grocer what is in season. Or buy food from your local farmers market.
• Read food labels carefully. Just because a product says it's organic or has organic ingredients doesn't mean it's a healthier choice. Some organic products may still be high in sugar, salt, fat or calories.
• Wash and scrub fresh fruits and vegetables well under running water. Washing helps remove dirt, germs and chemical traces from fruit and vegetable surfaces. But you can't remove all pesticide traces by washing. Throwing away the outer leaves of leafy vegetables can lessen contaminants. Peeling fruits and vegetables can remove contaminants but may also cut nutrients.

There is a problem with information submitted for this request. Review/update the information highlighted below and resubmit the form.

From Mayo Clinic to your inbox

Sign up for free and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips, current health topics, and expertise on managing health. Click here for an email preview.

Error Email field is required

Error Include a valid email address

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.

Thank you for subscribing!

You'll soon start receiving the latest Mayo Clinic health information you requested in your inbox.

Sorry something went wrong with your subscription

Please, try again in a couple of minutes

• Organic production and handling standards. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/organic-production-handling-standards. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Introduction to organic practices. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/introduction-organic-practices. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Organic labeling at farmers markets. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/organic-labeling-farmers-markets. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Labeling organic products. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/labeling-organic-products. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Use of the term natural on food labeling. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/use-term-natural-food-labeling. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Demory-Luce D, et al. Organic foods and children. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/search. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Pesticides and food: Healthy, sensible food practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/pesticides-and-food-healthy-sensible-food-practices. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Vegetable and pulses outlook: November 2021. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=102664. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Changes to the nutrition facts label. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label. Accessed March 30, 2022.
• Rahman SME, et al. Consumer preference, quality and safety of organic and conventional fresh fruits, vegetables, and cereals. Foods. 2021; doi:10.3390/foods10010105.
• Brantsaeter AL, et al. Organic food in the diet: Exposure and health implications. Annual Review of Public Health. 2017; doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044437.
• Vigar V, et al. A systematic review of organic versus conventional food consumption: Is there a measurable benefit on human health? Nutrients. 2019; doi:10.3390/nu12010007.
• Mie A, et al. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environmental Health. 2017; doi:10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4.
• Innes GK, et al. Contamination of retail meat samples with multidrug-resistant organisms in relation to organic and conventional production and processing: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the United States National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, 2012-2017. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2021; doi:10.1289/EHP7327.

Products and Services

• A Book: Cook Smart, Eat Well
• A Book: The Mayo Clinic Diet Bundle
• The Mayo Clinic Diet Online
• Antioxidants
• Cuts of beef
• Grass-fed beef
• Menus for heart-healthy eating
• Sea salt vs. table salt
• What is BPA?

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

• Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

• Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
• The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
• Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
• FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
• Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book
• Healthy Lifestyle
• Organic foods Are they safer More nutritious

We’re transforming healthcare

Make a gift now and help create new and better solutions for more than 1.3 million patients who turn to Mayo Clinic each year.

Sample details

Organic Food

Organic farming

• Words: 1444

Related Topics

Genetically modified food

• Food security
• Vegetarianism

Organic vs. Non-organic Food

Bottom line, going green can cultivate anew. The public is constantly bombarded with the idea that organic products are better. Perhaps this is true, but maybe it is brilliant marketing simply selling a status symbol. Envy can come from a neighbor’s luscious, organically grown front yard to the hybrid vehicle a co-worker drives, to the organic foods that consumers in a higher financial echelon seem to be TABLE to only afford. Is this envy justifiTABLE or is the notion of organics and its superiority a tactic of propaganda to boost the already $30-plus billion industry even higher, according to Farm and

Dairy April, 2012 article “Organic Food Sales”? Although proponents of organic food insist it is healthier than conventional food, non-organic foods are extremely comparTABLE to its organic counterpart, possibly even more The United States has evolved into a powerful nation; one necessary. That boasts Of freedoms, luxuries and an overabundance Of practically everything. The united States is also a country which has a population that grows greater and greater each year.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Reasons including the number of births outnumbering the number of deaths, as well as the number of immigrants owing to live the “American Dream. ” According to the Census Bureau End- of-201 1 estimate, “the United States will enter 2012 with a population of roughly 312. 8 million people” (Schlesinger, 201 1, Para, 1). This statistic takes into account one birth approximately every 8 seconds, one death every 1 2 seconds as well as one new migrant entering the country approximately every 46 seconds. As cited by Schlesinger (201 1), this ends up with a population increase of over two million in 2012.

This is a staggering number and would only increase over time. In his article “Point: Industrial Agriculture has Improved Farming for Hundreds of Years,” George Wright (2011) explains how the use of biotechnology and techniques such as caging animals used to increase the profits of agricultural industry is not a contemporary idea. Wright (2011, Para. 7) states how “the use of biotechnology to produce food has been around for over 8000 years. ” He gives examples such as enzymes being used to make foods like baked goods and dairy products.

Wright also asserts that “biotechnology is expected to help agriculture by improving quality, nutrition, safety and the processing of raw crops,” (Wright, 2011, pare. 7). Biotechnology is not a process that is new to the agriculture industry. Finally, Wright’s article (2011 , Para. 12) concludes that “with the world’s population at six billion and heading higher, there is no practical alternative to ‘industrial agriculture’: He also points out that “agricultural innovations from industries such as biotechnology are advancing agricultural production,” (Wright, 2011, Para. 3). In addition, Bravery’s article “frontline’ Perpetuates Pesticide Myths” (1 993), Avert adds that “it is believed that if the world converts to organic systems of farming by 2050 this system of farming will to be TABLE to supply enough food for the population and will be responsible for massive amounts of deaths due to starvation. Another organic misnomer claims that organic livestock and plants are free from chemicals and unnecessary medications, unlike their non-organic counterparts.

According to Nancy Sprague 201 1 article, “Counterpoint: Organic Food is Unnecessary & the Current Food Supply is Safe”, there are a myths about organic food that are debunked. She discusses how organic foods are actually prepared and while comparing and contrasting it to the process non- organic foods go through prior to arriving at the grocery shelves. When discussing about the use (or lack thereof) of pesticides, Sprague (201 1, Para. 4) notes that “organic farmers can use pesticides from an approved list,” which contradicts the consumers belief that organic foods have not come into contact with any pesticides.

Sprague goes further to state the toxins that the organic industry supposedly takes pride into avoiding are contaminants that actually cannot be avoided. Nitrates, chemicals and antibiotics are now found naturally within the environment due to “broad contamination of the earth’s natural resources” (Sprague, 201 1 , Para. 4). The organic industry also asserts that the levels of hormones in non-organic meats are extremely high and in-turn dangerous to the consumers’ health. In fact, in Lester Aldrich (2006) article, “Consumers Eat Up Organic Beef Despite Costs, unproven Benefits”, he finds quite the opposite conclusion.

Aldrich discusses the results of a study by Gary Smith, professor of meat sciences at the Center for Red Meat Safety. This study analyzed and compared the levels of hormones found in two-3 ounce steaks, one each from an organic animal and en from a non-organic animal. The results were shocking. Smith’s compare/ contrast analysis showed that there was an almost incomprehensible difference (on a monogram scale) between the hormone levels from both the organic and Nan-organic samples,” (Aldrich, 2006, Para. 29).

Aldrich (2006) then compared these results to the levels of these same hormones to a typical birth control pill that is voluntarily consumed. The results showed ‘the average birth-control pill provides 35,000 monograms of estrogen daily’ whereas “a non-pregnant woman produces about 480,000 monograms of estrogen, 240,000 monograms of testosterone and 10. 1 million monograms of progesterone daily,” (Aldrich, 2006, Para. 30). The comparison is astounding and should put any worries about added hormones in our food to rest. ROR to bastardization of food, people would die young due to food-borne illnesses. Avery (2002) opens his article “The Hidden Dangers In Organic Food” with “Products most people think are purer than other foods are making people seriously ill. ” Bravery’s (2002) article mentions how the invention of the refrigerator as well as simple procedures such as food refrigeration and gashing ones hands before eating or making food would eventually keep food-borne illness to a minimum in the Lignite States, although those individuals who were quite ill or weak would die if exposed to food-borne bacteria.

Unfortunately, with all the claims Of health, organic food is becoming more notorious for being served on a plate with food-borne illnesses such as salmonella, and now more recently, E. Coli. Avery (2002, Para. 1) cites the U. S. Centers for Disease Control stating “people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times likely as the rest of the population o be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. Coli bacteria,” salmonella or fungus. According to Avery (2002), USDA offered organic fame’s a method that did not require either pesticides or bastardization to protect the crops; irradiation.

This process used low levels of gamma radiation to kill bacteria while maintaining the freshness of the food. Unfortunately, organic farmers were outraged and more than 200,000 protesters opposed the idea therefore the USDA removed this process from the final organic food standard (Avery, 2002). This has not been beneficial for public safety, as cited in Sprague (2011) where she points out that there have been several infections caused by E. Coli in the United States during 2009 alone.

Organic farming does have one huge positive aspect: it strives for self-sustainability and leaves a small carbon footprint in the environment. With that said, organic farms, regardless of whether or not its food can be proven to be healthier than conventional food, requires a much larger area of land mass to produce the same amount of food than that of a conventional farm. According to Avery (2002), “agriculture already takes up 6 percent of the world’s land surface. ” Avery (2002) translates this to mean that by year 2050, short of a worldwide cataclysm, the world will need 2. Times more food output than what is needed today. Wilcox (2011, Para. 26) states in her article “Untrusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture” that until organic farming can contend with the output of conventional farming due to space needed without the ecological costs involved, the need for more space will be severely detrimental to the environment. ” Organic farms help the environment on small, local levels. Unfortunately they do not produce the same amount of food that a conventional farm can; between below what a conventional farm Of the same size will produce (Wilcox, 2011).

Wilcox (2011) also emphasizes that with more advanced technology, organic farming may eventually be TABLE to keep up with conventional food production, however, if more areas of the planet become transformed into organic farmland in the meantime, the planet’s natural habitats will begin to quickly deplete. Conventionally farmed foods and organic foods both have positive and negative aspects to their individual philosophies. Organic farming does not necessarily produce healthier food.

Hormone levels in organic and Nan-organic foods are extremely similar and the lack of pesticides in organic food contributes to a higher frequency of food-borne illnesses. As much as this is true, the organic farm leaves a smaller carbon footprint than a conventional farm, which, in the long run will allow for the environment to sustain itself and be TABLE to continue producing more food. With that being said, when going to the store to buy food, the consumer should make the conscious choice to purchase organic foods when it is affordTABLE, in order to purport and promote self-sustainTABLE/organic farming.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/essay-organic-vs-non-organic-food/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Street Food

Check more samples on your topics

Organic natural food retailers.

Whole foods Market is one of the largest and most successful organic natural food retailers in the world. The success of this retail giant did not happen overnight. Whole Foods was the idea of a twenty five year old college dropout named John Mackey and his girlfriend Rene Lawson Hardy. Their mission was to open

Fast Food vs Organic

One may question the reason behind the high rates of obesity in the United States. Despite the emphasis on organic foods, this issue continues to persist. The main factor responsible for this is the costliness of organic products, which many people cannot afford due to limited budgets caused by the current economic situation. Another contributing

Why We should Buy the Organic Food

When shopping at the market, individuals often weigh the decision between purchasing organic or regular products. Those opting for organic may have reservations regarding cost and authenticity verification. They question the rationale behind paying five dollars for organic raspberries when regular ones are priced at only two dollars. These concerns resonate with numerous shoppers at

The Many Facets of Organic Food

The organic system of farming dates back to about one hundred years ago. The term organic farm was first used in the UK by albert howard to differentiate it from chemical farming. Essentially, organic farming is self sufficient and flourishes without additives such as fertilizers, seeds, and feeds. It is a agroecosystem that promotes and

Marketing plan for a company producing organic clothing

Marketing Plan

i. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It'll be Denim is an organic denim clothing line headquartered in Uk that currently focuses exclusively on locally producing a slim fit, straight fit, and regular fit line of jeans for men and women. Founded by Elena Horowitz, a retail industry veteran with experiences at JCrew, the Gap, and Levi’s, and James Foster,

Organic and Genetically Modified Foods

The ongoing debate between organic and conventional foods in our country has raised multiple concerns. Organic and conventional foods have notable differences in substance, cost, appearance, health benefits, and government involvement. However, the average American consumer generally sees them as relatively similar. Many questions emerge for American consumers about the comparative healthiness of organic food

Technical issues of organic material

Environmental Issues

Human Impact On The Environment

Kathmandu, the capital metropolis of Nepal is overcrowded. Large inflow of people, migrating to metropolis can be seen, mundane. Reason might be different, but all want to settle at that place, doing force per unit area on the vale 's already weakened substructure and to run into their demand the haphazardly reinforced metropolis is even

Why Is Organic Chemistry Important

Why is organic chemistry important? Organic compounds are used for many different things. Daily life in today's world would be very hard to live in without organic compounds; in fact life would not be possible without organic compounds. For example, most of your body is made up of organic compounds. The food you eat is

Organic Chemistry

DistillationAndrea PausmaOctober 1, 2001I.IntroductionThe process of distillation has been used by humans for years to create alcoholic beverages. Distillation is the process of boiling a pair of liquids with different boiling points and then condensing the vapors above the boiling liquid in an attempt to separate them. One might suspect that the mixed two liquids

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.