Organic food is more nutritious

Question

Many consumers believe or are conditioned to believe that organic food is better for them, but does it really make a difference?

Answer 1

This also slightly true, is misleading. Just because you eat organic foods does not mean you are 100% getting more nutrients than a non-organic food; a carrot has the same nutrients no matter the label.

The difference between organic and non-organic is the use of pesticides, and GMOs. In a study posted by the National Institute of Health (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7019963/pdf/nutrients-12-00007.pdf) they stated that there is really not a lot of tested done on organic foods besides what the difference no pesticides make in them. But no pesticides can help prevent certain chemicals in your body. But there isn't sufficient enough research that proves that organic foods have more nutrients than non-organic foods. 

In an article written by the Harvard says relatively the same thing as the other article, and that is, really the only difference between these foods are the amount of pesticides and GMOs used. They also found a study done by Stanford University which found little to know difference in organic and non-organic foods besides "from slightly higher phosphorous levels in many organic foods, and a higher omega-3 fatty acid content in organic milk and chicken."(https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264)

In the end there is little to no difference of nutrients in between these foods. The only difference is the amount of chemicals used in the process of growing. 

Answer 2

The source linked to the claim contains a quote from a WSU press release that states, “consumers who switch to organic fruits, vegetables, and cereals would get 20 to 40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.” (WSU Insider) This is meant to prove that organic produce and cereals are “healthier” than conventional ones, simply because they increase the portions of fruits and vegetables per day. If someone is eating the full recommended portion of fruits and vegetables per day, an extra 40% of fruit could lead to a spike in sugar levels, and overtime even cause cravings for more sodium and processed "unhealthy" foods. This makes this quote alone unconvincing and still doesn’t prove organic foods are healthier. 

Organic foods that have lower amounts of pesticides in them are technically “safer” to eat than conventional foods, but that doesn’t in turn make them healthier. A quote from the National Library of Medicine says this about research done on the correlation between eating organic food and a benefit on human health:  “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.” (NIH) All of these claims made to try to convince us that organic food is healthier actually just tells us that we will be consuming more sugar and might have a lower risk of being exposed to pesticides. If these companies were simply claiming that eating organic foods decreased your risk of exposure to chemicals and pesticides and increased your fruits/vegetable intake, the overall claim wouldn’t be so stark or incorrect. 

The same source from the NIH states “there appears to be little variation between organic and conventional food products in terms of macro nutritional value.” The only “benefits” they are detecting in these studies are increased antioxidants and the researchers themselves also state that these findings have not been proved to be statistically significant or have an impact on human health. It's not to say that organic food might not have benefits or separate benefits from conventional foods, but the general statement that it is “healthier” is exaggerated and misleading. 

Answer 3

There is mixed evidence on this claim; however, it is shown that there is no distinct difference between the nutritional benefits of the two. A study published in the British Journal of Nutrition found that organic produce and grains have higher concentrations of antioxidants compared to their conventional counterparts. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24968103/)

Research indicates that organic foods generally have lower levels of pesticide residues. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) reports that conventional crops are three to four times more likely to have pesticide residue than organic crops. 

A systematic review published in 2024 analyzed 147 scientific articles and found that in many cases, there were no significant differences in nutrient content between organic and conventional foods. The study concluded that claims of nutritional superiority of organic foods are not generalizable.

Though there is a lack of consistency in research for this claim. In 2009, there was found no evidence of a significant difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced food.

While some studies suggest that organic foods may have higher antioxidant levels and lower pesticide residues, there are minimal differences in nutrient content. The claim that organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventional food is not fully supported by scientific evidence.

Answer 4

While organic food is seen to have long term health benefits it isn't 100% certain those benefits are entirely linked to organic foods. According to Mayo Clinic "People who buy organic food also tend to be more active, don't smoke and have a generally healthier diet pattern than the average. These traits are linked to having a lower risk of disease and fewer disease risk factors such as excess weight. So it's hard to say what specific role organic food plays". I also found another source from Harvard Medical School stating that if you are only buying organic food for its nutrient benefits there is really no evidence that you're gaining any real advantages.

Sources:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutritious-than-conventionally-grown-food-201209055264

Answer 5

When I saw this claim, I went to the Mayo Clinic first to investigate. The Mayo Clinic states that the label organic doesn't always mean more nutrients. The Mayo Clinic also said that foods labeled organic are still raised to the same food standards as foods that aren't labeled as organic. Mayo Clinic also said that something that is more important to look at is the amount of fruits and vegetables you are getting compared to organic or not. 

Something I also investigated was an article from Harvard Health that said that organic food had higher food safety, but it also depends on how the food was raised overall. Something that I also found from Harvard Health is that organic food is kinder to the environment, which helps the claim that organic food is better, but well rounded better. 

Overall, organic food has more nutrients most of the time, but it is not a claim that standard food isn't nutritious. 

Answer 6

This claim is false; it is not proven that organic food is healthier or more nutritious. According to the Mayo Clinic, a lot of the evidence that seems to prove this claim is because the people who are buying organic food are already putting in an effort to live a healthier life. They say that “people who buy organic food also tend to be more active, don’t smoke and have a generally healthier diet pattern than the average” (Mayo Clinic). This means that it is likely that a lot of the evidence showing that organic food is linked to lower risk of disease is because the demographic of people buying organic food is already at a lower risk. They also say that “it isn’t clear whether organic food has more nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, than does conventionally grown food.” They go on to explain that this is because the amounts of nutrients in food is dependent on a variety of factors, and most of them don’t have to do with whether or not it’s organic.

Answer 7

In this article, the Enviormental Working Group makes the claim that orgsnic foods are more nutritious than non-organic foods. To head their argument, the site a study led by scientists from Newcastle University in England where they did find a higher concentration of antioxidents and a lower concentration of Cd in organic farming versus non-organic farming. While this study is legit, other sources such as Mayo Clinic, have stated that while organic foods can help with cancer levels and lower the rate of pesticides ingested, there isn't strong evidence to whether the actual nutritional value is affected much. In fact, the things that effect it's nutrional value more are soil composition, harvest time, and how long they are stored for. On top of this, UC Davis Health made an article about this topic where they stated that organic foods aren't necessarily healtier in terms of nutrients compared to non-organic foods. So, while the article is not completely wrong, it just seems to be a little misleading on the small amount of nutrients that differs between organic and non-organic foods.

Enivormental Working Group article: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/more-scientific-evidence-organic-food-more-nutritious

study from the prior article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24968103/

Mayo Clinic article: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

UC Davis Health article: https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/good-food/are-organic-foods-really-healthier-two-pediatricians-break-it-down/2019/04

Answer 8

The article linked above fails to include why organic crops are better for the environment despite it being a key part of their claim. This article https://rodaleinstitute.org/why-organic/organic-basics/organic-vs-conventional/ instead promotes the benefits on the planet. Saying that the conventional way requires pesticides and unnatrual additives in order to make the food grow faster and in larger sizes so as to accomadate for the current market. This increases green house gases and has potential for allowing harmful chemicals into our food. The original article listed is incredibly biased and aggressive against to opposing view in a way that is distracting from their overall argument. They fail to acknowledge both sides or the cost difference of the two. Both articles insure that organic is better for your health but don't include that organic is less affordable and not available to all. Similarly many would be out of a job if everything turned to organic as markets would slow down to accomadate the slower turn around.

Answer 9

The first two published PubMed articles I found when researching the topic make contrasting claims. The first, written in 2010 by Naturopathic Medicine doctor Walter J. Crinnion, claims that studies indicate higher amounts of iron, magnesium, and vitamin C can be found in organic food. He does not, however, provide any linked sources to back up his claim. 

The second article was written in 2024 by a team of students studying at the Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Toronto. It states that “All in all, the evidence was not strong enough to suggest that organic foods are more nutritious than non-organic foods.” There were four sources cited showing differences in the nutritional values of certain organic crops, but a lot of reported differences could be attributed to both farming practices and study biases. 

The Mayo Clinic and an article published by UC Davis back up the claims in the second PubMed article, stating that “Organic doesn't automatically mean the food has more nutrients,” and “Organic foods are not healthier, per se, in terms of nutrients. You are still getting the same benefits in conventionally grown foods as you are in organic foods.” So, the consensus seems to range from “unsure” to “probably not”. 

The idea that organic foods are more nutrient-dense than non-organic foods likely originates from a false assumption, as the consumption of organic foods is proven to have many other health benefits due to the lack of pesticides and harmful chemicals used. It’s also possible that there's lobbying from organic food producers to overstate the benefits of consuming organic food, given that biased studies are being produced. That being said, it can be concluded from the information above that this claim is false. 

Sources:

PubMed Article 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20359265/

PubMed Article 2: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10814746/ 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/organic-food/art-20043880

https://health.ucdavis.edu/blog/good-food/are-organic-foods-really-healthier-two-pediatricians-break-it-down/2019/04

Answer 10

While the article cited provides reasons as to why organic foods can be more nutritious, it is also dated, and more studies and articles have come out over time that disagree with this claim. For example, Mayo Clinic highlights that while there is less pesticide residue on organic foods, there isn't a clear correlation as to whether or not this means organic produce is healthier or more nutritious. Furthermore, UC Davis states that along with less pesticides, there is also less antibiotic exposure, but again this doesn't mean that food that is organic is going to have any more nutritional benefits than a food that isn't. Overall, organic foods do have some benefits, but being "more nutritious" is not one of them.