Ecological, eco, biological, bio, organic food. What’s the difference? Luckily, they’re synonyms and you won’t be wasting time reading about the differences.

In Croatia, the official name is ecological food. But I’ve somehow gotten used to the term organic food, so in the rest of the text I’ll alternately use both terms.

Be honest: Do you even know what organic food actually implies?

Organic food is not food from your neighbor’s garden. It can be. But probably isn’t. Food can be called organic only if it possesses a certificate of organic production. To get that certificate, its production must meet a series of conditions prescribed by law.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines organic agriculture as a holistic food production system that promotes agroecosystem sustainability, biodiversity, biological cycles, and biological soil activity (1).

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) adds to the definition the maintenance of long-term soil fertility, minimization of pollution, avoidance of synthetic substances in cultivation, and production of a sufficient amount of high-quality food (2).

Croatian Agricultural Law prescribes the principles of ecological food production and the obligations of producers, which, among other restrictions, include a ban on the use of hormonal therapy, ionizing radiation, and globally mistreated… er… genetically modified organisms (3).

Organic food is an increasingly popular choice. Moreover, it’s so popular that it represents the fastest growing industry in the USA. The number of organic food producers grew from 200,000 in 1999 to almost 3 million in 2016 (4).

If you’re looking for ecological food, pay attention to the following: In the European Union, food produced according to organic production standards is marked with a stylized leaf with stars. All other labels, in principle, represent consumer deception.

There are several reasons why consumers choose organic food. The most common beliefs are that by consuming it they eat healthier, nutritionally better-quality food, better-tasting food, safer food, and that their choice has less negative impact on the environment (5,6).

But beliefs are not the same as facts. They rarely even match. Therefore, in the continuation I will write about the validity of the mentioned beliefs.

Before I continue, I want to emphasize that I have no incentive to promote one method over the other. My only motivation is satisfying my own curiosity and passing on that information to the wider public.

Organic food is not actually nutritionally more valuable

High-quality research that objectively compares the nutritional composition of organically and conventionally produced food is surprisingly scarce. Most of those conducted are of low quality, which prevents making unequivocal conclusions.

Still, a certain number of indicative studies do exist. Summarized in a few large review studies on the topic, they conclude that significant differences, as a rule, do not exist (7,8,9,10,11).

As a rule and significant.

“As a rule” because, as always in science, there are studies that conclude differently.
You can always find individual studies that conclude the opposite of the consensus. But (good) science doesn’t work that way. The correct approach is to take into account the entire body of literature, and not to pick papers that confirm previous beliefs.

“Significant” because we must distinguish between statistically significant difference and clinically significant difference. In other words, if a difference exists but is so small that it has no effect on health, we’re not interested. The difference can also be large, and still have no effect on health. In other other words, differences in themselves shouldn’t interest us if they have no effect on health.

There are a few relatively stable statistically significant differences between conventionally and organically produced food.

The first lies in the content of antioxidants. It seems that organic food contains more of them. How important that difference is for health, however, we don’t know. The story about antioxidants is much murkier than the “more is better” stance that prevailed until recently (12).

Some studies have also found a difference between the omega-3 fatty acid content in organic milk and meat. However, the amounts of omega-3 in those foods are not a significant source in the diet, so the difference is therefore probably irrelevant (13,14).

It’s essential to point out that the results of the studies are quite variable, since they mostly compare different varieties, growth conditions, soil types, its fertilization, sowing, and weather conditions, etc. All of the above influences the difference in nutritional composition. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that the resulting differences are the result of differences between conventional and organic production, rather than the above-mentioned factors.

Also, when reviewing the literature (unfortunately) we must keep in mind the fact that the likelihood of publishing studies that do not indicate a significant difference is lower than those that do find such a difference. Namely, scientific journals are less likely to publish an article that concludes that “there is no difference”. Such a conclusion is “boring,” right? Scientific journals want someone to actually read them. But that brings serious consequences. If all studies with existing effects are published, and only a portion of those without effects, then a literature review will create the impression that the overall effect is greater than it really is (15). Fortunately, there are various initiatives that try to solve this problem rooted in the scientific system.

In short, do differences in nutritional composition between organic and conventional food exist? Minimal, but probably yes.

Are they important? Very likely not.

If you want more nutrients, eat more vegetables, fruit, and whole grains, organic or not.

Organic food contains less pesticides, but that’s probably not important

A good part of the discussion about pesticides in the context of organic and conventional food is fueled by the fundamentally wrong belief that the use of pesticides in the production of organic food is prohibited (16). It isn’t.

What is prohibited is the use of synthetic pesticides. The use of “natural” ones is allowed. That’s fine, because natural is safer than synthetic? Not so fast.

A pesticide is a pesticide. The fact that it is natural or synthetic tells us absolutely nothing about its harmfulness. The risk must be assessed on an individual basis, for each pesticide separately. Natural doesn’t necessarily mean better or less harmful than synthetic. The most toxic known substance, botulin, is 100% natural.

As for the total amount of pesticides, the risk of contamination is 30% lower in organic products (7). Yes, consuming organic food reduces pesticide intake. But does that reduction reflect on health?

Namely, the pesticide content in conventionally produced food rarely exceeds the limits considered safe. The maximum permitted level is prescribed by law, and is based on amounts far below those proven to be risky.

Is there a possibility that reducing pesticide intake could have an effect on health? There is. But contrary to popular belief, we have no evidence of that. Moreover, the conclusion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is that the usual intake of pesticide residues through food does not pose a risk to health (17).

Apart from the impact on human health, we are also interested in the impact of pesticides on the environment. It is a widespread belief that ecological pesticides have a neutral or at least less negative impact on the environment. That is not always the case.

Besides the fact that lower efficiency requires the use of larger amounts of pesticides, in some cases a directly more negative impact on the environment has been established (18). I repeat, the safety of pesticides needs to be determined solely and exclusively on an individual basis, regardless of whether it is natural or synthetic.

Some time ago I commented on the lower pesticide content in the urine of children who, over 7 days, consumed organic food. Proof that organic food is healthier? No. It’s proof that pesticide residues from food enter the body and are expelled from it. From that we cannot conclude that they had any effect on the body. If they did, who says the effect wasn’t positive? I’m exaggerating, but you get the point.

The limits for pesticide residue content in food are prescribed by law. That means that a product is pulled from the market, and the producer punished and loses reputation if the pesticide content in his product is found to be higher than prescribed. That system clearly works because elevated levels are found in only 4% of samples (19).

It’s essential to know that the allowed amounts of pesticide residues are several times lower than those that pose a health risk to the consumer. In other words, even if you consume a food with increased pesticide content, that does not mean your health is at risk. To reach toxic doses of pesticides through food consumption, you would often have to eat tons of it. (Don’t try this at home.)

Let’s not forget that treating food with pesticides is not the only source of contamination. Moreover, environmental pollution represents a more significant source and does not distinguish between organically and conventionally produced food (20).

From the consumer side, the best tactic to reduce pesticide intake is to wash food thoroughly before consumption. That way you’ll remove most of any potentially remaining pesticides and they won’t be your problem.

I’m sorry, but organic food is not tastier

I’m sure you’ll say how you tried your neighbor’s apple and how it’s infinitely tastier than the one from your local supermarket. But that doesn’t mean it’s organically produced, that the difference in taste actually exists (21), or that it’s not the result of differences in growing conditions that have nothing to do with the type of production.

Differences in the scientific literature are at the very least inconsistent, and more often non-existent (11,22,23). Moreover, some studies indicate better taste of conventionally produced food (24).

In short, if there really is a difference in taste, it is very likely the result of some other growing factors, not the fact that the food is organic.

Organic production might be better for the environment

As I already mentioned, the use of organic pesticides in organic food production is allowed. Sometimes, these pesticides are less efficient than synthetic ones, which is why they need to be used in larger doses. In that case, the environmental impact of organic production can even be greater than that of conventional production.

Organic production requires a larger area to grow the same amount of food.
That also means that the absolute amount of pesticides used can be greater.

Although the positive effect on maintaining soil fertility is well-documented (9), to say that organic production is by definition better for the environment is an unfounded simplification.

The Organic Verdict

The organic food industry has a strong interest in convincing the public that the food it sells is healthier, safer, tastier, and better for the environment. However, the evidence for such claims is, to say the least, unconvincing.

The consumption of organic food is not the solution to your health problems. It contains fewer pesticides than conventionally grown food, but whether that has an effect on health is questionable. It is not nutritionally richer, nor does it have a better taste. If you are trying to improve your health, the consumption of ecological food does not need to be your priority. No matter what they tell you, you don’t need to eat organic to be healthy.

The higher price of organic food outweighs the potential minimal benefits of its consumption. Don’t neglect your budget when deciding; don’t forget that by paying a higher price for organic food you are necessarily giving up something else, which might have a greater effect on your health.

My goal is to educate the public, not to dissuade them from buying ecological food. If you have your own reasons for buying organic food, that’s fine. However, I cannot allow the unfounded idea that organic food is “better” to be pushed. I raise my voice against marketing based on unjustified fears, because it almost without exception leads to hasty, emotional, irrational, and suboptimal health decisions.

Agricultural practices should be assessed objectively and independently of the “conventional” or “organic” label. Our goal should be to create a more efficient and sustainable food production system, not to bury ourselves in irrelevant ideological debates.

Organic or not, for you to be healthy, your diet has to be of good quality.
Check objectively whether it meets those requirements by filling in the short questionnaire below.

References

1. FAO – Organic agriculture. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/X0075e/X0075e.htm. (Accessed: 26th July 2019)
2. Luttikholt, L. W. M. Principles of organic agriculture as formulated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. NJAS – Wageningen J. Life Sci. 54, 347–360 (2007).
3. Pravilnik o ekološkoj poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji, NN 19/2016.
4. Willer, H. & Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics & Emerging Trends 2016. The World of Organic Agriculture (FiBL, 2016). doi:10.4324/9781849775991
5. Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J. & Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 6, 94–110 (2007).
6. Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S. & Martin, R. C. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 20, 193–205 (2005).
7. Smith-Spangler, C. et al. Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives? A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine 157, 348–366 (2012).
8. Mondelaers, K., Aertsens, J. & van Huylenbroeck, G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br. Food J. 111, 1098–1119 (2009).
9. Mäder, P. et al. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science (80-. ). 296, 1694–1697 (2002).
10. Woese, K., Lange, D., Boess, C. & Bögl, K. W. A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods-results of a review of the relevant literature. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74, 281–293 (1997).
11. Bourn, D. & Prescott, J. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 42, 1–34 (2002).
12. Barański, M. et al. Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 112, 794–811 (2014).
13. Średnicka-Tober, D. et al. Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Nutrition 115, 994–1011 (2016).
14. Średnicka-Tober, D. et al. Higher PUFA and n-3 PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, α-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic milk: A systematic literature review and meta- and redundancy analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 115, 1043–1060 (2016).
15. Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. Definition of qualitative research. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Library 5.0.1, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008).
16. Avery, A. A. Organic Pesticide Use: What We Know and Don’t Know about Use, Toxicity, and Environmental Impacts. in 58–77 (2009). doi:10.1021/bk-2007-0947.ch005
17. Pesticides: breakthrough on cumulative risk assessment | European. Available at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160127. (Accessed: 20th July 2019)
18. Bahlai, C. A., Xue, Y., McCreary, C. M., Schaafsma, A. W. & Hallett, R. H. Choosing organic pesticides over synthetic pesticides may not effectively mitigate environmental risk in soybeans. PLoS One 5, e11250 (2010).
19. The 2017 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA J. 17, (2019).
20. González, N., Marquès, M., Nadal, M. & Domingo, J. L. Occurrence of environmental pollutants in foodstuffs: A review of organic vs. conventional food. Food and Chemical Toxicology 125, 370–375 (2019).
21. Da Cunha, D. T. et al. Differences between organic and conventional leafy green vegetables perceived by university students: Vegetables attributes or attitudinal aspects? Br. Food J. 121, 1579–1591 (2019).
22. Basker, D. Comparison of taste quality between organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7, 129–136 (1992).
23. Zhao, X., Chambers IV, E., Matta, Z., Loughin, T. M. & Carey, E. E. Consumer sensory analysis of organically and conventionally grown vegetables. J. Food Sci. 72, S87–S91 (2007).
24. Haglund, Å., Johansson, L., Berglund, L. & Dahlstedt, L. Sensory evaluation of carrots from ecological and conventional growing systems. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 23–29 (1998).