Should everybody eat organic? Proponents argue that organic food is more nutritious, healthier, free from pesticides, better for the planet, and better for animal welfare. In that case, shouldn’t we all be eating it? Or are the benefits of organic food being exaggerated? Are they just another “green lie” being promoted by companies marketing to people concerned about health and sustainability?

Soil Association polling shows 55% of shoppers consider “healthy eating” a key reason to buy organic food, while 53% said they did it to avoid “chemical residues”. However, the science tends to be more sceptical about the health benefits of organic. Some studies have indeed found that organic food has more antioxidant compounds linked to better health, and lower toxic metal levels. However, a major 2012 study showed that there are no significant health benefits from organic food.

Critics argue that organic food is expensive, and that yields on organic farms are lower than on conventional farms. Supporters, however, counter that the gap between organic and conventional farms is closing, and argue that we already produce enough food to feed the world (the problem is just one of food waste, distribution, and equal access to food).

Should all food be organic? Does organic food really make a difference? Or are the benefits of going organic being exaggerated? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

Foto: Bigstock (c) – romrodinka

25 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar

    Could Europe grow only organic without risk of starvation?

    Let’s try, but with small steps, like the recent ban on certain pesticides.

    • avatar

      It could, but we’d have to designate someone who will decide what forests we’ll need to cut down. One at least the size of 20% of Europe. Which ones wiuld you pick?

    • avatar

      Let’s try something with a risk of starvation? :O Let’s not!

    • avatar

      I wouldn’t deforest Europe, I would switch from growing food for livestock to human food.

  2. avatar

    It would cause a worldwide famine followed by a worldwide pandemic of numerous diseases just so a small number of regressive’s can virtual signal to the world ? Suicide is never a good option.

  3. avatar
    catherine benning

    Should all food be organic?

    Food that is healthy to eat and not prone to destroying the cells of the body, be that human or animal, can only be organic produce. Anything else is not conducive to the health of the planet. Over time, as with Monsanto products, it destroys what it touches. Nature, believe it or not, knows what it is doing, Man is a severely flawed entity. Or, you could use the word ‘idiotic.’

    And as important.

  4. avatar
    Sabine Munzebrock

    Organic farming actually is the best option, because intensive farming is exhausting our soil and poisoning water & air alike. It uses dangerous pesticides and endangers the diversity of habitats . It’s main goal is not providing food for all, but profit-maximization at all costs.

  5. avatar

    Organic farming is best way to save the soil from exhaustion, water & air from pollution.
    Intensive farming’s main goal is not food for all, but profit-maximization.

  6. avatar
    EU Reform- Proactive

    Should one genuinely be interested in “personal health concepts”- the internet pages or ones grandmother’s wisdom offer plenty of good advice!

    The EU/DE politicians are not the appropriate forum to judge & advice how to live healthier or happier. Its political concept neither produces nor conserves “sovereign political biodiversity”.

    To deflect discussions to personal and family matters is in step with EU policy who believes in the dumbness of voters & a ban of one man one vote binding referendums on important constitutional EU matters.

    Why waste our time with disingenuous issues while supporting toxicity and chemical giants like Bayer/Monsanto & industrial farming? Shame!

  7. avatar

    Give me an example of synthetic food.
    And then… beam me up Scotti, I’ve been craving replicator-food for years.

  8. avatar

    Real organic should be the absolute standard. From kids to adults. Then people could go for choice.

  9. avatar

    Um… all food is organic. Earth to woo brigade, come in woo brigade.

  10. avatar

    Yes, but also get prepared to eat less and more expensive.

  11. avatar

    If it is your intention to starve billions of people sure, great idea.

  12. avatar

    Yes you mean like in the old days. Today they call it organic and you need a special license. Meanwhile all that is full of chemicals doesn’t need a license. What an insane world.

  13. avatar

    In the middle: not organic but not full of chemicals in excess.

  14. avatar

    it should? yes
    It can? No

  15. avatar
    Ambreen Asif Qureshi

    It should be, yes.

    But organic cannot cope with alarming pace of population growth. So what to do?

  16. avatar

    It should be, yes. But with ever increasing population, organic cannot match pace. So what would it lead to, if not war for food

    • avatar

      Well, then we should incrementally reduce the population.

  17. avatar

    Most definately yes. I wouldn’t pour chemicals or poison on my food then wash it off if I was cooking. Why buy it already poisoned by chemicals? Plus heavy metal allergies are on the increase.

  18. avatar

    I would say that we might want to converge on some standards over time, but”Organic” labels are not the best yardstick of healthy nutritious environmentally sustainable food, unfortunately. How do I know it? I’ll give my caveats first:

    It might be that the labels have figured out some good level of pesticide use that we might want to achieve (as foods labeled organic still use pesticides under some circumstances). It is a trade-off between wasting food and using less pesticides. This particular target could also be achieved by e.g. “reduced pesticides” label.

    It might be that they have figured out other standards as well (water use, antibiotics, carbon footprint), though from what I have read, e.g. the carbon footprint of “organic” meat production is even more awfully high. This is still not my main issue, though.

    What makes me absolutely certain that the label “organic” was not designed to be environmentally friendly but rather play to people’s fears, though, is that they completely rule out modern techniques of gene editing. The one technology that could bring us both nutritious and healthy food, while minimizing the use of antibiotics, water and reducing carbon footprint. As the EU has concluded in the largest meta study conducted on their safety and environmental impacts: the technology is safe. The fact that the “organic” label and its lobbyists reject and oppose carefully considered modifications to genome, while accepting random mutations caused by radiation (both environmental and those caused by intentionally exposing plants to radioactive materials, which is how we used to do it before modern gene editing technologies) is the decision that has doomed millions of people to starvation and malnutrition while also increasing the risk of catastrophic climate change. If the EU farming giants saw profits in things like the golden rice, which has brought relief from lack of vitamin A in the diets of poor South-East Asians, we would be much better off. We need this technology to save ourselves and others.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

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

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.