Organic food, defined as food produced with no chemical, has presented as a modern solution to the environmental damage caused by agriculture and a healthier alternative to conventional food. There have been claims that organic food may be a cancer cure and can eliminate the pesticides deposited into the environment by modern farming techniques. For consumers to separate the advertisement from the data, an analysis of the actual scientific findings regarding organic food is needed. Organic food is not better for the environment or nutrition as data supporting its benefits is limited; additionally, it has no proven effect on people’s health.
First, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that organic farming is more beneficial to the environment. One of the selling points of organic food is the lack of synthetic pesticides used in production. However, there is evidence that to reach similar yields, farmers must use significantly more, albeit natural, pesticides. Melinda Wenner Moyer, a journalist and editor for Scientific American found that farms that use natural pesticides have to spray the produce nearly twice as often as non-organic farms (Moyer). Furthermore, the organic farms produced less than the non-organic farms, despite using significantly fewer pesticides. In a market economy, where a farm needs a competitive production to survive, organic farms would be forced to use significantly increased amounts of pesticides to compete. Natural pesticides, while less harmful than synthetic pesticides, are still damaging to the environment.
Moreover, organic farming would increase methane emissions argues a BBC article by Matt McGrath, an environmental correspondent. Organic farming of livestock produces significantly less food, which could lead to food shortages. Food imports would be required to make up for these shortages, increasing land use for agriculture worldwide. Animals raised using organic techniques yield less food, requiring more animals in general to meet food demands. The article argues that fully transitioning to this sort of farming would lead to a 21% increase in methane emissions in the UK alone (McGrath). Overall, organic food has no marked advantages over conventional food regarding environmental effects.
The second argument is that there is little evidence that organic food is more nutritious than conventional food. In general, articles on the topic indicate little difference in the nutrition levels of both types of food. A study by Claire Williamson, a researcher working for the British Nutrition Foundation, found that there was simply no difference in the nutritional value of organic versus conventional products (107). For instance, there was no difference in the levels of calcium in organic milk compared to non-organic milk. Additionally, in the cases where there were actual differences in nutrition, the amounts were insignificant to have a negligible effect on human health. The article notes that nutritional amounts vary even among food created in the same manner, so the differences in nutrition may be attributable to other environmental factors and not the foods (Williamson 105). Overall, it is impossible to claim that organic food is more nutritious, as there is too little data, and the available information is inconclusive.
Lastly, the widespread assumptions that organic foods have a positive effect on cancer prevention and treatment are not scientifically supported. According to a health journalist and epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, the studies conducted on the matter have various scientific limitations to them. Some of the main criticism is connected to the high potential of other essential factors influencing the outcomes, lack of representativeness, and inconclusive results (Meyerowitz-Katz). Thus, the research examining the topic of cancer prevention does not provide sufficient evidence, which is often contradictory to advertisements that marketers use while promoting organic fruits and vegetables. Moreover, Norwegian health experts provided evidence that individuals with cancer that were consuming organic products did not experience any positive change within their diagnosis (Brantsæter et al. 305). Thus, the overall assumption that organic products can treat or prevent cancer is not proven scientifically.
Furthermore, individuals who claim that organic food has clear environmental and health benefits do not have substantial arguments when carefully examined. First, scientists and consumers advocating for organic products suggest that they have a direct beneficial effect on various aspects of human well-being, including obesity and allergy. For instance, European clinical experts indicate that the consumption of organic products can decrease the risks of becoming overweight and obese (Mie et al. 15). The argument is insufficient as people that often choose to eat organic products are preoccupied with their health and tend to have an active lifestyle. Thus, the typical statement connected to the levels of obesity in society is flawed, as individuals proposing it do not consider other essential factors.
Another argument used by organic food supporters is focused on the idea that conventional fruits and vegetables are harmful to human development and well-being. For instance, the same group of scientists claims that the moderate use of pesticides in organic agriculture is particularly important to consider while purchasing food (Mie et al. 15). Conventional fruits and vegetables are the primary sources of human exposure to dangerous chemicals, and some studies discovered the unfavorable effects of some pesticides on people’s cognitive development (Mie et al. 15). However, the argument is harmful to farmers using conventional ways to produce their food. There is a direct link between eating healthy products, such as fruits and vegetables, and people’s overall well-being. Thus, the created competition harms the reputation of fruits and vegetables because both organic and traditional products have a well-studied positive affect on physical and psychological health.
In conclusion, the debate about the positive effects of organic foods has been prevalent in both the scientific community and regular consumers. Some individuals indicate their interest in the topic of naturally-produced fruits and vegetables; thus, supporting organic food production over the conventionally produced goods. However, the scientific evidence examining the matter is insufficient, as most of the studies have little to no conclusive data supporting the overall benefits of organic foods. Overall, the consumption of organic fruits and vegetables is not better for both environment and human health.
Works Cited
Brantsæter, Anne Lise, et al. “Organic Food in the Diet: Exposure and Health Implications.” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 38, no. 1, 2017, pp. 295–313,
McGrath, Matt. “Climate: 100% Organic Farming Would Boost Emissions.” BBC, 2019, Web.
Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon. “Don’t Believe the Hype, Organic Food Doesn’t Prevent Cancer.” The Guardian, 2018, Web.
Mie, Axel, et al. “Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture: a Comprehensive Review.” Environmental Health, vol. 16, no. 1, 2017, Web.
Moyer, Melinda. “Organic Shmorganic Conventional Fruits and Vegetables Are Perfectly Healthy for Kids.” Slate, 2014, Web.
Williamson, Claire. “Is Organic Food Better for Our Health?” Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 32, no. 2, 2007, pp. 104–108, Web.