The Myth of Organic Superiority

Is it really worth buying organic food? On average, it costs about 40% more than conventional produce. Advocates claim it’s tastier and more nutritious, free from pesticide residues, and produced with less environmental impact. They also argue it supports small farmers instead of large corporations. But does all that hold up?

What does “organic” actually mean?

In Brazil, “organic agriculture” is a legally defined category. According to Law 10.831/2003, organic farming must optimize natural resources, avoid GMOs and irradiation, and prioritize biological and mechanical methods over synthetic ones.

This means genetic modification and even ionizing radiation for decontamination are banned. Instead, organic farmers rely on natural methods of pest control.

Pesticide-free? Not exactly.

Organic farming does use pesticides—but only those of “natural origin.” The problem is, “natural” does not mean safe or effective. Many natural substances are toxic. For example, to fight fungi, organic farmers often use copper sulfate—a natural but highly toxic compound. It damages the liver and kidneys, poisons birds and aquatic life, and persists in soil and water. It’s labeled with a skull-and-crossbones warning.

Meanwhile, modern synthetic pesticides are often designed to break down quickly, reducing harm to people and the environment. So in some cases, organic farming can actually mean more toxic pesticides.

A USDA study found 20% of organic lettuce in the U.S. carried pesticide residues. But the levels were extremely low and well within safety limits—just as they are in conventional produce.

Are they healthier?

Not according to science. A large 2012 review of over 240 studies found no nutritional or health advantage for organics. In fact, organics may carry higher risks of contamination because they use manure as fertilizer.

In 2011, contaminated organic sprouts in Germany sickened more than 3,000 people and killed 53. Regulators like the USDA are clear: the “organic” label is a marketing tool. It does not guarantee better nutrition or quality.

One upside is that organic animal farming bans antibiotics, which helps limit antibiotic resistance. But it also means sick animals sometimes go untreated, raising ethical concerns.

Better for the planet?

Not necessarily. Because organics forbid GMOs and most synthetic chemicals, yields are lower. This means more land, water, and fuel are needed—raising greenhouse gas emissions.

A Nature study from Sweden found that organic farming’s lower productivity creates a higher “carbon opportunity cost.” More deforestation would be required to make up for lost output.

Other studies show GM crops, like insect-resistant Bt corn and cotton, dramatically reduce pesticide use, fuel consumption, and emissions. In Brazil, virus-resistant GMO beans cut insecticide spraying from 15–20 times per season to just three.

Rejecting biotechnology in favor of “natural” methods often backfires, making food less sustainable, not more.

The social myth

Some argue organics support small farmers. But organics are big business: Whole Foods was bought by Amazon for $13.7 billion, and the Brazilian organic market moved R$4 billion in 2018. Organics are a luxury market, not a realistic way to feed 8 billion people.

Even worse, fear marketing around “conventional” food makes poorer families avoid fruits and vegetables they can afford—undermining public health.

And global companies sometimes make disingenuous “organic” shifts. Hershey’s replaced GMO beet sugar with cane sugar—nutritionally identical, but worse for the environment. Chipotle swapped soybean oil for sunflower oil, which actually requires more pesticide. Whole Foods has imported “organic” dairy from countries with weaker safety standards, raising contamination risks.

The solution? Good farming practices—for all.

Organic foods are safe and nutritious, but no better than conventional ones. The real problem is the false dichotomy between “organic” and “conventional.” Both systems should adopt the best sustainable practices: crop rotation, integrated pest management, animal welfare standards, and—yes—biotech innovations that reduce pesticides and water use.

The “organic label” is more about marketing than science. Instead of pitting one system against the other, we should demand evidence-based agriculture across the board.

✍️ Natalia Pasternak is a biologist, researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Sciences (ICB) at USP, and president of the Instituto Questão de Ciência.