Organic agriculture and food are not scientifically superior to conventional methods: they are neither safer, nor more nutritious, nor better for the environment, nor entirely free of pesticides.

noli's read

It is fascinating to see how scientific data nuances the idealized image of organic products. On one hand, organic produce is indeed not free of pesticides: it uses substances of natural origin that also have their own toxicity profiles, as food safety agencies regularly point out. Regarding the environment, a landmark meta-analysis by Clark & Tilman (2017) confirms that while organic farming better preserves local biodiversity per hectare, its lower yields require more land, which can equal or even exceed the carbon footprint of conventional farming per portion produced. Regarding nutrition, the scientific debate remains very balanced. A major meta-analysis from Stanford University (Smith-Spangler et al., 2012) found no significant nutritional difference for our well-being. Conversely, another meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Nutrition (Barański et al., 2014) notes that organic crops show significantly higher concentrations of antioxidants (beneficial against oxidative stress). Finally, the author's comparison equating the choice of organic products to an anti-vaccine movement is a personal opinion of a rhetorical nature, not scientific evidence.

the sources

1. 1Smith-Spangler C et al. 2012
2. 2Baranski M et al. 2014