non organic food essay

• Sustainability

Organic vs. Non-organic Food – Is There Really a Difference?

You’ve probably heard that following an organic diet is better for your health and the health of the environment. But what does ‘organic’ really mean, and how does organic food differ from non-organic or conventional food? 

In this article, we’re breaking down the differences between organic vs non-organic food. We’ll dive deep into the science to find out whether an organic diet is truly the healthier way to eat.

What Defines Organic Food?

As public concerns over pesticide exposure and the environmental impact of conventional farming methods grow, so does the demand for organic food. In fact, people spent over 100 billion dollars on organic food in 2019, up from 18 billion dollars in 2000.

Common reasons why people choose organic products over conventional ones include wanting to reduce their exposure to pesticide residues. Others also choose organic to lessen their impact on the environment. 

Even though many people prefer to eat organically, few know what ‘organic’ actually means when it comes to food. 

Certified Organic

When a product is certified organic, it means that the food was grown or raised according to federal guidelines. These guidelines regulate soil quality, additives, pesticide use, and more. Here’s what it takes for certain products to carry the USDA Certified Organic Label : 

• Produce: Must be grown in soil that has no prohibited substances. This includes synthetic fertilizers and pesticides— applied for three years prior to harvest. 
• Meat, poultry, and eggs: Animals cannot have antibiotics or hormones and must eat 100% organic feed and forage. The animals must be living in conditions accommodating natural behaviors like grazing.
• Multi-ingredient products: Must be made with organic ingredients and free from artificial preservatives, flavors, and flavors.

If a product carries the “made with organic ingredients” label, it means that it has at least 70% organically produced ingredients. 

Additionally, organic food can’t be grown or handled using genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Keep in mind that many farmers grow organic produce and raise animals organically and humanely but aren’t certified organic by the USDA. To find local farms with organic practices, you can contact local farmers to ask about their farming practices.

What’s the Difference Between Organic vs. Non-Organic Food?

Unlike organic food, conventional food like vegetables, fruit, and grains can be treated with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. 

Perhaps the most notorious synthetic herbicide is glyphosate or Roundup. Conventional farmers use this herbicide because it’s highly effective at killing weeds. Unfortunately, the widespread use of Roundup in conventional farming has led to massive environmental damage. With excessive use, it results in higher glyphosate residues in our food .

Although organic farmers can use approved pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides, they can’t use synthetic products like Roundup, and most of the approved products are naturally occurring. The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) publishes a list of products allowed for use on organic farms, including pesticides and herbicides, that’s publicly accessible . By using naturally occurring materials, organic farming methods are more sustainable for the planet and for the health of our soil.

Raising animals using conventional methods can eat non-organic feed, and farmers can use genetically engineered feed. Unlike organic farmers, conventional farmers don’t have to give the animals they raise access to outdoor space. Outdoor space is important to give animals room to perform natural behaviors like grazing and dust bathing. 

Is Organic Healthier?

A number of studies have shown that some organic foods tend to have higher levels of certain nutrients than non-organic foods. 

A brand new study published in January of 2023 that studied 13 organic and non-organic plant foods found that organically grown vegetables had the highest antioxidant capacity and the greatest abundance of phenolic compounds. The study also found that when comparing organic vs. non-organic fruits the organic foods had a higher antioxidant capacity compared to non-organic fruits. 

Organic eggs have been found to be higher in certain nutrients, like folate and essential amino acids , than non-organic eggs. Organic eggs from pastured hens are even more nutritious. They prove to be higher in many nutrients like vitamin E and lutein , compared to conventional and traditional farming systems. 

Additionally, organic dairy products like milk and cheese have a healthier lipid profile compared to non-organic dairy, with lower levels of saturated fat and higher levels of beneficial fatty acids like conjugated linoleic acid , which has anti-obesity and heart health-promoting properties. Organic meat has also been shown to have a healthier fatty acid profile compared to conventional meat. It also has higher levels of anti-inflammatory omega-3 fats.

What’s more, organically-grown produce has lower levels of pesticide residue. This means that if you follow an organic diet, you’re ingesting fewer potentially harmful compounds. This may be why people who follow organic diets are at a lower risk of conditions like infertility, allergies, pre-eclampsia, metabolic syndrome, obesity , and certain cancers .

In fact, studies show that switching to an organic diet can significantly reduce urinary pesticide levels in children and adults. 

However, keep in mind that buying organic doesn’t always translate to “healthy” or “healthier.” There are plenty of organic products like sugary cereals, baked goods, and candy that can harm health if eaten in excess. 

The cost of eating organic, is it worth it?

Your dietary intake depends on several factors, including your income, your access to food,  and personal preferences.  

In general, organic food is more expensive than non-organic food. This is because organic farming methods used to grow produce and raise animals are more costly. For this reason, many people can’t afford to eat only organic foods.

Also, many people don’t have access to organically-grown products because they live in areas that don’t offer nutritious foods. These areas are often referred to as food deserts. It’s estimated that more than 23 million people in the US currently live in food deserts without access to healthy food. 

Although there are benefits to eating organically, it’s more important to consume a nutritious diet high in plant foods like fruits and vegetables. For some people, this may mean eating exclusively organic foods. Others may choose to purchase specific organic foods, like fruits and vegetables, that tend to be highest in pesticide residue. 

Others may only be able to afford or only have access to conventional food. 

If you’re concerned about pesticide residue but aren’t able to purchase organic food like fruits and vegetables, you can significantly reduce pesticide residue levels by thoroughly scrubbing , and washing produce in cold water and peeling fruits and vegetables known to be high in pesticide residue , like apples, potatoes, and peaches. 

If you live in a rural area, you can visit local farms and ask them about their growing practices. Remember, many farms that use organic farming practices aren’t certified organic by the USDA. Oftentimes, local farms sell organic produce and animal products at lower prices compared to grocery stores. 

Final thoughts on organic vs. non-organic foods

Studies show that when comparing organic farming methods vs. non-organic, organic farming methods are better for the environment, animal welfare, and human health than conventional farming. 

Choosing to follow an organic diet can reduce your exposure to harmful substances like pesticide residue. It may lower your risk of several health conditions, like certain cancers.

However, some people don’t have access to organic foods or can’t afford to eat an entirely organic diet, and that’s okay. 

In order to promote overall health and reduce disease risk, it’s most important to consume a diet rich in whole, nutrient-dense foods. Foods like vegetables and fruits, whether they’re organic or conventionally grown, are still our healthiest options.

Disclaimer:

This website is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as medical advice. Before making any changes to your diet, exercise, or lifestyle habits, always consult your doctor or physician first.

10 Best Eco-Friendly Yoga Mats

8 best sustainable fabrics that will reduce toxin exposure , related posts.

Health Effects of Pesticides on Humans and How to Limit Exposure

Regenerative Organic Farming: The Future of Sustainable Agriculture

10 Important Foods That Help With Concentration and Memory

What are Natural Flavors in Foods: Are They Healthy?

5 Health Benefits of Matcha Green Tea

• Medical Reviewers
• Terms & Conditions

© 2021 The Sowell. All rights reserved. Read our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions .

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

© 2021 The Sowell. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Overview

• Watch Full Seasons
• TV Schedule
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Restaurants
• Recipes on TV
• Food Network on Max
• Spring Entertainment
• Comfort Food

• Worst Cooks in America 8am | 7c
• Guy's Grocery Games 9am | 8c
• Guy's Grocery Games 10am | 9c
• Guy's Grocery Games 11am | 10c
• Wildcard Kitchen 12pm | 11c
• Beat Bobby Flay 1pm | 12c
• Beat Bobby Flay 1:30pm | 12:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 2pm | 1c
• Beat Bobby Flay 2:30pm | 1:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 3pm | 2c
• Beat Bobby Flay 3:30pm | 2:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 4pm | 3c
• Beat Bobby Flay 4:30pm | 3:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 5pm | 4c
• Beat Bobby Flay 5:30pm | 4:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 6pm | 5c
• Beat Bobby Flay 6:30pm | 5:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 7pm | 6c
• Beat Bobby Flay 7:30pm | 6:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 8pm | 7c
• Beat Bobby Flay 8:30pm | 7:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 9pm | 8c
• Beat Bobby Flay 9:30pm | 8:30c
• On Tonight Beat Bobby Flay 10pm | 9c
• Beat Bobby Flay 10:30pm | 9:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 11pm | 10c
• Beat Bobby Flay 11:30pm | 10:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 12am | 11c
• Beat Bobby Flay 12:30am | 11:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 1am | 12c
• Beat Bobby Flay 1:30am | 12:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 2am | 1c
• Beat Bobby Flay 2:30am | 1:30c
• Beat Bobby Flay 3am | 2c
• Beat Bobby Flay 3:30am | 2:30c
• Restaurant: Impossible 4am | 3c

• Trending Eats

• Product Reviews
• Shop Everything

• Spring Into Cooking
• All Sweepstakes + Contests

HealthyEats

• Healthy Tips
• Healthy Eats Home
• Healthy Recipes
• Fitness & Wellness

Organic vs. Non-Organic: Does It Make a Difference?

We investigate if buying organic foods really makes a difference for your health.

Young woman carries a shopping basket filled with fresh produce. She is shopping for fresh fruit and vegetables in a grocery store.

Photo by: Steve Debenport

Steve Debenport

Are you breaking the bank on organic produce and other organic foods? The word “organic” has become synonymous with all kinds of nutrition superlatives, but healthy is not a mandatory part of the definition. We are setting the record straight and giving you the facts so you can make the most of your next shopping trip.

What Are Organic Foods?

The USDA defines organic foods as those items grown and produced without the use of chemical pesticides, herbicides and other prohibited substances. This process is strictly policed by the USDA in efforts to protect the foodstuffs and the land it’s grown on. Their website reads:

“Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest.”

All the government oversight, certification expenses and other financial issues associated with growing organic produce (such as lower yields and alternative pest control practices) means organic foods come at a higher price point. Despite these remarkable differences, there is not much solid science to support that organic produce is any more nutritious than conventionally grown items – an organic apple has the same nutrients as a non-organic one. Confused yet? Understandable. Food labeling can also get tricky. Only foods that contain nothing but organic ingredients can be labeled “100% organic,” while foods deemed “organic” only need to be 95 to 99 percent organic. And yes, there’s more: Foods made with 70 to 94 percent organic ingredients can flash the title “made with organic ingredients."

What About Dirty and Clean Food?

Some folks may look to other organizations for guidance to help make sense of organic dos and don’ts. The Environmental Working Group’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produc e sets out to rank traces of non organic residues found on regularly consumed produce items. They review available data each year to create the trendy “ Dirty Dozen ” and “ Clean Fifteen ” lists indicating which 12 produce items carry the highest amount of pesticide residues and which 15 carry the lowest. According to the EWG: “People can lower their pesticide exposure by almost 80 percent by avoiding the top 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated instead.” But these “dirty" and "clean” labels should not deter you from eating fresh fruits and vegetables whether they are grown organic or conventionally. When you take a closer look at the research even the highest loads of deductible pesticides found in the dirty dozen do not appear to pose imminent harm to those that eat them. For example, kale ranked high on the pesticide residue list this year, but the amount it contains is still pretty negligible – meaning it would be impossible to eat enough of the leafy green for it to be harmful.

What About Packaged Organic Foods?

Organic foods come in all shapes and sizes and you can easily find organically-produced junk food. Organic cookies, fried snack foods and other less-than-healthy foods are little or no better for you than their conventionally grown counterparts. Treat these highly processed foods with the same caution and moderation you would any other highly processed junk food.

How About Local Organic Food?

Locally grown produce often comes from smaller farms that don’t have to use the same types or amounts pesticides as large farms that service grocery stores. Talk to your local farmer about their use of pesticides and decide if going local seems like a better fit than organic for your home.

Bottom Line: Organic isn’t as black and white as it seems. Eating plentiful amounts of fruits and veggies will benefit you no matter how they are grown and organic junk food is still junk!

Related Links:

These Products Actually Keep My Produce From Going Bad

These Products Actually Make Preparing Summer Produce Fun

Healthy Weeknight Dinners in 40 Minutes or Less

How to Shop for Organic Produce

• Is Organic Food Healthier Than Non-Organic?

Related Pages

• Turkey Talk
• Tips for Buying Organic Food
• Is Buying Organic Food More Sustainable?
• Just Eat the Non-Organic Blueberries – Here’s Why...
• Reading List

• 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

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Food Organic Food

The Consumption Of Non Organic Food Versus Organic Food

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Japanese Food Culture

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

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

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

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
• The Mayo Clinic Diet Online
• A Book: The Mayo Clinic Diet Bundle
• 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

Your gift holds great power – donate today!

Make your tax-deductible gift and be a part of the cutting-edge research and care that's changing medicine.

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.

Essay on Organic Food

Students are often asked to write an essay on Organic Food in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Organic Food

Introduction.

Organic food refers to food products that are produced, prepared, and processed without the use of any chemicals.

Production of Organic Food

Organic food is grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. It relies on natural methods like crop rotation and composting.

Benefits of Organic Food

Eating organic food can reduce the intake of harmful chemicals. Some people also believe it tastes better and is more nutritious.

Challenges with Organic Food

Organic food can be more expensive and harder to find than non-organic food. It also has a shorter shelf life.

Despite challenges, organic food is a healthy and environmentally friendly choice.

Also check:

• Advantages and Disadvantages of Organic Food
• Paragraph on Organic Food

250 Words Essay on Organic Food

Organic food, a term that has gained significant attention in recent years, refers to food products that are produced, prepared, and processed without the use of any chemicals. This means no pesticides, fertilizers, or genetically modified organisms are incorporated during the production process.

Health Benefits of Organic Food

Organic food is often associated with numerous health benefits. It typically contains higher levels of essential nutrients like antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals compared to conventionally grown food. The absence of harmful chemicals and preservatives also makes organic food safer to consume, reducing potential health risks such as allergies, food poisoning, and cancer.

Environmental Impact

Organic farming practices contribute positively to environmental sustainability. By eschewing chemical fertilizers and pesticides, organic farming reduces water, soil, and air pollution. It also promotes biodiversity, as it encourages a balanced ecosystem where various organisms can coexist.

Challenges and Controversies

Despite its benefits, organic food is not without its challenges and controversies. The primary concern is the higher cost of organic food, often due to the labor-intensive nature of organic farming. Additionally, the term “organic” is often misused or misunderstood, leading to consumer confusion and skepticism.

In conclusion, while organic food offers numerous health and environmental benefits, it is essential to address the challenges it presents to make it more accessible and understandable to consumers. As we move towards a more health-conscious and environmentally-friendly society, the role of organic food cannot be underestimated.

500 Words Essay on Organic Food

Introduction to organic food.

Organic food, a term that has been gaining significant attention in recent years, refers to food products that are produced, prepared, and processed without the use of any chemicals. It primarily includes crops or livestock raised in a natural environment, without the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics or growth hormones.

The Benefits of Organic Food

Organic food has been hailed for its numerous benefits. Firstly, it is often fresher because it doesn’t contain preservatives and typically sold closer to where it’s produced. Secondly, organic farming practices are designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil quality.

Moreover, organic food is GMO-free. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered foods are plants whose DNA has been altered in ways that cannot occur naturally. Consuming organic food reduces the risk of ingesting these potentially harmful substances.

Nutrition and Organic Food

The nutritional value of organic food is another area of interest. Some studies suggest that organic foods may have higher nutritional value than conventional food due to the absence of harmful chemicals and artificial substances. However, the scientific consensus on this topic is still divided with some studies finding no significant difference.

The Cost of Organic Food

Despite its benefits, organic food is often more expensive than its non-organic counterparts. This is due to the more labor-intensive farming practices and the lower output of organic farms. However, as demand for organic food grows and supply chains become more efficient, it is expected that the price gap will decrease.

Organic Food and Sustainable Practices

Organic farming promotes sustainability by establishing an ecological balance to prevent soil fertility or pest problems. Organic farmers do not use harmful pesticides to protect their crops, contributing to biodiversity and animal welfare. Moreover, organic farming practices can use up to 50% less energy than conventional farming methods, further promoting sustainability.

In conclusion, organic food offers a variety of benefits, from health and nutritional advantages to environmental sustainability. However, its higher cost can be a barrier for many consumers. As the demand for organic food continues to grow, it is crucial to develop strategies to make it more affordable and accessible. Despite the ongoing debate about its nutritional superiority, the environmental benefits of organic farming are undeniable. As we move towards a more sustainable future, organic food plays a pivotal role in this transition.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on How to Reduce Food Waste
• Essay on Food Safety
• Essay on Food Contamination

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Organic Food

Essays on Organic Food

Writing an essay on organic food is important because it helps spread awareness about the benefits of consuming organic products and the importance of sustainable farming practices.

When choosing a topic for an essay on organic food, consider exploring the health benefits, environmental impact, ethical considerations, and the growing demand for organic products. You can also discuss the challenges faced by organic farmers and the future of the organic food industry.

For an argumentative essay on organic food, you can explore topics such as the health benefits of organic vs. conventional food, the environmental impact of organic farming, and the ethical considerations of consuming organic products.

In a cause and effect essay, you can discuss topics like the impact of pesticides on human health, the effects of organic farming on soil and water quality, and the relationship between organic food consumption and sustainability.

For an opinion essay, you can share your thoughts on the benefits of organic food, the challenges of accessing organic products, and the role of government policies in promoting organic farming.

If you're writing an informative essay, you can explore topics such as the nutritional differences between organic and conventional food, the certification process for organic products, and the history of the organic food movement.

For example, if you're writing an essay on the health benefits of organic food, your thesis statement could be: "Consuming organic food can lead to improved overall health and well-being due to its higher nutrient content and lower exposure to harmful chemicals."

In the paragraph, you can provide a brief overview of the topic and why it's important, as well as a thesis statement that clearly outlines your main argument.

In the paragraph, you can summarize the key points discussed in the essay, restate your thesis statement, and leave the reader with a thought-provoking final statement about the importance of choosing organic food for a healthier, more sustainable future.

Comparing Organic and Non-organic Food

Lima bean hypothesis: the impact of lima beans on human health, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Rice: The Global Grain Powering Cultures and Nourishing Billions

The importance of eating organic food, the benefits of buying organic food and conventional food, pros and cons of processed foods for you, 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

The Benefits of Organic Food for Health and The Environment

The effect of organic foods on health, discussion of whether organic food is really organic, organic food in restaurant, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

A Report on The Negative Sides of Feeding The World Exclusively with Organic Food

Influences on consumer purchase intentions for organic, understanding the farming concept used by organic row crops farms, food additives: an in-depth analysis, report on the prospects of a sprouts farmers market, an analysis of the myth and issues of our organic food system, discussion on the theme of genetically modified foods, tert-butylhydroquinone (thbq): a synthetic antioxidant used widely in food products, the science behind growing tomatoes, all you need to know about cheese, emma’s bakery’s: ground brand analysis, the origin of european cultural integration of chocolate, arguments against the meat eating, why organic farming can ensure sustenance of production and provision of food for the expanding human population, relevant topics.

• Japanese Food Culture
• Indian Cuisine

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!

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

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Examples >
• Essay Topics

Free Organic Food Essay Samples for Naturally Smooth Writing

126 samples on this topic

Welcome to the WowEssays catalog of free samples! We offer thousands of high school, college, and university papers that can be used as a source of writing ideas and as a model to follow when developing your own academic work.

In this section, we present samples of an essay about organic food. Are you going to outline the benefits of organic food compared to conventional food? Or are you going to explain the thing many people still don't understand - that organic food can be as highly processed as pizza? Or are you thinking about "classical" organic food vs non organic food essay? Or maybe you want to place in doubt that organic food is safer, healthier, and overall better than conventional food? In any case, our selection will definitely prove useful. With expertly approved topic ideas and content presentation examples at hand, your work on an organic food essay should go smoother.

We'd also like to point out that WowEssays.com offers a healthy alternative to spending hours on reading samples. The thing is, our experienced authors can develop an exclusive model paper from scratch. From an introduction to a conclusion, it will be crafted according to your instructions and requirements, hence letting you build your own piece on its foundation rather quickly.

Acquiring Healthy Home Market For Competing Charlotte Supplements: Exemplar Research Paper To Follow

Feasibility study for a new restaurant in invercargill, nz research proposal example.

[Student ID number and intake number] of the

POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

Southern Institute of Technology 2016

List of Tables 3

Section 1. Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose of the proposal 4 1.2 Research Aim 4 1.3 Research Questions and Objectives 4 1.4 Research hypothesis 5 1.5 Background and overview of business 5

Section 2. Literature Review 6

2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Micro and Macro-Economic Indicators and Business Confidence 6 2.3 Recent Trends, Strategies and the Market Potential 7 2.4 Consumer Preferences 8 2.5 Conclusion 9

Section 3: Methodology 9

A-Level Research Paper On Comparing The Conventional Versus The Organic Techniques Of Farming For Free Use

Omnivore's dillema essay example, conceptualization of new product or service 5: a top-quality business plan for your inspiration.

Final Business Plan

Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4

SWOT Analysis 6 Balanced Scorecard 9 Organizational Assessment 9 Mission 10 Vision Statement 10 Value Statement 10 Strategy and Tactics to realize Strategic Objectives 10 Marketing Strategy 11 Monitoring and Control 11 Ethical Issues including Legal and regulatory Issues 11 Corporate Social Responsibility 12 Conclusion 12

References 13

Research Paper On GMOs, Organic Foods And Tomorrow's Table

Introduction

Sample Essay On Following The American Psychological Association’s Guidelines

Introduction 3

Company review 3 Mission 4 Vision Statement 4 Value Statement 4 Innovation in Business 5 Summary 6

References 7

Proper Research Paper Example About The Role Of Agriculture In Mitigating Climate Change

Proper case study example about whole foods and wild oats merger, free essay about restructuring help, world benefits of an organic life: essay you might want to emulate, recommendations case studies example.

The history of Whole Foods clearly tells that within a short period Whole Foods has attained good reputation in the market. However, there are few issues found in the competitive strategy of Whole Foods on which the company needs to work.

Good Example Of Essay On Controlled Trials Of Organic Food Intakes And Disease Biomarkers

A-level research paper on conventional agriculture and its impact on the environment for free use, good example of how can i make sustainable food choices essay, broadest topic – inorganic farming in agriculture essay template for faster writing.

Broad topic – Is inorganic farming really beneficial in agriculture?

Free The Lush Company Internationally Essay Example

Non-coffee products: example report by an expert writer to follow, exemplar essay on organic foods to write after, world agriculture practices case study examples.

Conventional Farming vs. Organic Farming

Free Business Plan About Social Supermarket

Free research studies essay: top-quality sample to follow, genetically modified cotton research paper, exemplar essay on whole foods market integration to write after.

Whole Food Market Company is a supermarket specializing in organic food based in Austin Texas, United States. It is a chain of supermarkets and has over four hundred branches in the US, UK, and Canada. The company only sells products that meet the quality of being natural and minimally processed. The foods are free from hydrogenated fats, sweeteners, artificial flavors, preservatives, and colors (Johnston, 2015). In addition, it cannot sell milk and meat from cloned animals that have made the company’s food safe for human consumption.

Strategic planning

Whole Food Markets: A Case Study Essay

[First Last Name]

English [Number]

[Date Month Year]

An Ethical Way With The Suppliers Is:: Example Essay By An Expert Writer To Follow

The multinational enterprises have incorporated in their mission statement and business model the ethics and the social responsibility. McDonalds is not the exception to this trend, the company with more than 37,000 restaurants in the world have a presence in the most important cities of the world exposed to critics of citizens and non-government organizations related to the quality food and the marketing techniques. McDonalds changed its business model toward ethical behavior and to improve their economic performance.

INTRODUCTION

Sample Business Plan On Organic Food Solutions Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Example Of The Organic Coup Essay

Example of new product report.

The competition level in this digitized and globalized business economy is very dynamic and constant and with technology as the central theme in terms of the changing dynamics all Multinational, Medium and Small organizations keep themselves in lieu with the changes to keep the business operations effective and sustainable. IKEA Group operates in 43 countries that mean 43 different cultures and consumer segments, although the main products are the ones that have made IKEA as the leading concept based company, furnishing home products with creative designs and low price (IKEA Group FY15, 2015).

Good Article Review On Provide The Link (URL) To The Article.

INSTRUCTION

Choose an online news article that examines the benefit of some food, food components, or diet plan. You can go go Google News and do a search on a specific topic you’re interested in. Or you can just browse the health section of any news site and find an article. (Has to be within last week or current) News Article from the news in the United States. DO NOT USE GARCINIA CAMBOGIA

QUESTIONS Link to article: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-tackles-obesity-nutrition-literacy-soccer.htmlLi

What is the hypothesis of the study described in the news article?

Good Example Of Microeconomic Article Summery Essay

Whole foods market in 2014 case study example, free critical thinking on the challenge, free essay about compose an essay defining ecological responsibility and giving examples for ways your campus could be more ecologically responsible. (500-600 words), good research paper on the us juices market, what are the underlying factors that affect accessibility to organic foods research paper sample, good chipotle mexican grill case study example, free eating yogurt may reduce risk of diabetes article example, free organic foods presentation example, sample presentation on whole foods market: how this company works with crm.

History and Values

Coca Cola Company Course Works Example

Coca Cola Company (CCCL) was established in the year 1892 in the Atlanta state of USA. The company offers a range of beverages as the world’s largest beverage provider having around 500 variants being served to its customers. Coca Cola is a global company with its foot prints across 200 countries of the world in given below proportion: (Coca Cola)

Some prominent players of the Coca Cola portfolio are as follows:

Free Lynden Gardens B&B Course Work Sample

Free course work on classical english literature, course work on postnote briefing paper.

Postnote Briefing Paper

The Issue: To achieve balance between agricultural intensification associated with production of food and environmental protection.

Objective: Assess the implications of land sparing and agricultural intensification. Develop comprehensive strategy for land and biodiversity protection in the framework of two approaches outlined.

Executive Summary:

Organic Food Industry Course Work

The organic industry is amongst the fastest ever growing sectors in the United States. Organics have increased at a rate of almost twenty percent in the last couple of years and it is expected to maintain a steady growth. The following aspects constitute the trends of organic farming in detailed perspective.

Article Review On Brandon Keim’s Big, Smart And Green: A Revolutionary Vision For Modern Farming

Free essay about share price= a+ b(eps) + c(current ratio)+d(gearing ratio).

Research Paper: Testing Bender and Ward Model on UK green companies

Costco Research Paper

Business Analysis

The PESTEL Analysis is a strategic framework designed to analyze the external macro environment of an organization. PESTEL strategic framework stands for Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Technological, Environmental and Legal. However, in this paper, only the five strategic factors will be analyzed.

Media Consumption On Organic Produce Purchase Decisions Thesis Statements Examples

Good essay about whole foods marketing strategies, free marketing strategies by whole foods essay example, free report about marketing plan report, example of marketing strategy of whole foods company essay, example of paper due date essay.

Analyzing the Sustainability of the Organic Food Movement on a Global Scale: An Analysis of Rhetoric and Research

Research Paper On Food Trends And Sustainability

Free how fast food changing american food culture research paper sample, sample research proposal on biodynamic farming, example of case study on whole foods: social responsibility.

Introduction and Company Background

Good Essay About Whole Foods Market Summary

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline