organic food vs conventional food essay

• Health Benefits
• Food to Live Store

September 12, 2018 · Written by Foodtolive Team

Organic Food vs. Conventional Food: What is the Difference

Foods are a basic need of humans. It is where we get our nutritional sustenance that makes our body works, grow and restore itself. Since food is an important substance that sustains our life and growth, it is imperative that we choose what we eat to ensure that we get all the nutrients that we need for our bodies to function well.

Choosing the right food can be an overwhelming task considering the many factors that bombards our decision making in exploring what’s out in the market. Factors such as nutritional requirements, cost and accessibility and how the food was processed are some of the determinants that contribute to selecting which food we should eat. All these factors give us insight from the start of how food is cultivated and farmed. There are two ways in which food is grown and produced, the organic way and conventional way. Out of these two methods, we will see which food is good for us to eat, the organic food or the conventional food. Let’s take a good peak on the difference between the two and get to know which one will give great value to our health.

Difference in methodology

There are claims that organically grown food is healthier and more nutritious than conventional food. The term organic means a way of agricultural products grown and processed without the use of synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides, and bioengineered genes. Livestock that is organically raised is given organic feed without the use of any antibiotics and growth hormones. They are grass fed and cage-free. In organic farming, the way they control the growth of weeds around their crops is to engage in crop rotation, hand weeding, and mulching. Organic farming stays away from using chemicals when nourishing the soil instead they use manure or compost to nourish it. It also relies on birds, insects or traps to get rid of pests.

Whereas, conventionally grown food refers to agricultural products such as edible fruits and vegetables and other animal products that adopt the use of fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, chemical herbicides, and genetically modified organisms. In conventional farming, animals are given antibiotics, growth hormones, and other medication to protect them from diseases and improve their growth. Conventional farming also uses pesticides to ward off pests and eliminate its breakouts. It implores the use of herbicides to prevent the growth of weeds around their crops. Conventional farming adopts this method for higher yield, out of season growth, greater resistance from pests, greater food longevity, and generally greater mass.

Safe for consumption

Organic food and conventional food are both safe for human consumption.

The fact that organic farming incorporates natural method in the production of organic food makes it environmentally friendly and safer to consume because the use of natural production method eliminates the risk of underwater and soil contamination, helps in the preservation of biodiversity and wildlife. Using natural method also improves the soil chemical properties that results for nutrient retention and favorable chemical reactions. This demonstrates a higher rate of nutrients in some organic foods.

Even though conventional food contains residue from pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in cultivation, it is still considered to be safe for adults and children to consume. Fruits and animals that used conventional farming method can be eaten without the fear of side effects. Countless studies have been conducted on people who ate conventional food manifests no health risks or have fallen ill. Moreover, pesticides residues in conventionally grown products are at levels that do not exceed the government safety thresholds hence do not pose risk in consumer’s health. However, there are still existing doubts over the consumption of conventional food because its long-term effect is still unknown.

If there’s one thing that is a big deal when buying food is the price. A lot of people tend to compare the price of organic food to conventional food. You may think that because organic food production does not use any harmful chemicals and uses a natural method that it will cost less than conventional food. There are other factors to be considered beyond the price tag on organic foods such as greater labor input as organic food farmers don’t produce enough single products to lower overall costs as a result post-harvest handling and shipping of relatively small quantities accounts for a higher cost. Although organic food comprises of 25 billion dollars of sale in the US, it still accounts for less than 4% of all food purchased. There’s a huge volume of production difference between organic and conventional food. Simply put that organic food cannot compete with the price as that of conventional food because it cannot reach the same economy of scale on a nationwide basis.

However, organic foods don’t always cost more. There are other parts of the country that offer the same price as that of conventional food and the price of organic foods tend to be lower when in season. Nevertheless, a majority of people still prefer to eat organic food despite how much it cost because of the nutritional value it gives that devoid of any chemicals which may cause health-related problems later on.

Whatever choice you made between organic food and conventional food, it is fortunate that we have these options to make. When it comes to our own health it is always a combination of diet, exercise, lifestyle choice, and genetics.

Organic Broccoli Seeds for Sprouting

Alfalfa Seeds for Sprouting

Related Article

Popular Posts

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Organic Foods vs. Conventional Foods, Outline Example

Pages: 2

Words: 578

Hire a Writer for Custom Outline

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Introduction

Attention Getter

• “Cheap is expensive” is a phrase that we have all heard, and we understand what it means. On a walk into supermarket shelves in the grocery section, we may see the same vegetables but have different prices. While organic foods may be pricey, conventional foods are cheap, making them a better alternative for most Americans.  But I repeat to you cheap is expensive as the demerits linked to conventional foods are enormous and it is better you stick to organic foods from now!

Tie to the audience

• It is undeniable that most of us have consumed conventional foods knowingly, thus putting our lives in danger.

Credibility statement

• Research studies have confirmed that long-term exposure to the chemicals used in conventional foods leads to adverse outcomes among consumers (Gonzalez et al., 2019).
• In this speech, I seek to change your perspective on organic food by explaining three distinct points. What organic food is, why organic food is more nutritious than conventional food and why organic food is a safer option compared to conventional foods.
• Transition: Without further delay, let me introduce to what is organic foods
• Main Point 1: We all understand how conventional foods ranging from vegetables, fruits, and animals are reared. The problem we have is that there are many harmful substances used in coming up with conventional food. But are we even aware of what organic food is?
• Supporting evidence 1: Organic food comes from crops and animals where man-made fertilizers and pesticides are not used.
• Supporting evidence 2: Organic food differs significantly from conventional foods in that instead of using fertilizers and pesticides, methods such as crop rotation, hand weeding, and mulches are used. Similarly, instead of injecting hormones into animals, they are left to roam freely (Gonzalez et al., 2019).
• Transition: Next, it is crucial for you to understand why organic foods are more nutritious.
• Main Point 2: We all know petrol and diesel are crucial for the performance of our cars. However, when we are let to make a choice for higher performance, most of us will select diesel. This is the same argument with conventional and organic foods.
• Supporting evidence 1: Organic food contains vitamins C, D, and E as well as other essential minerals. These are crucially in improving the nutrition among its consumers, and these vitamins conspicuously lack in conventional foods.
• Supporting evidence 2: Organic foods do not contain any preservatives, contaminants, artificial sweeteners, or Monosodium Glutamate (MSG’s). Eating organic foods thus lowers incidences of cancer, learning disorders, cardiovascular diseases, and obesity (Popa et al., 2019).
• Transition: Are you still doubting that choosing organic food is a safer option?
• Main point 3: Conventional food growing processes such as the use of pesticides pollute the environment, which in turn affect our health.
• Supporting evidence 1: Organic foods do not release any harmful emissions to their surrounding hence supporting a safer environment.
• Supporting evidence 2: There are over 400 routine chemicals used in the production of vegetables and animal rearing that are not used in organic farming.
• Transition: It is my hope that you are now aware of what organic foods are, why organic foods are more nutritious and why organic foods are a safer option than conventional food.

González, N., Marquès, M., Nadal, M., & Domingo, J. L. (2019). Occurrence of environmental pollutants in foodstuffs: A review of organic vs. conventional food. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 125, 370-375.

Popa, M. E., Mitelut, A. C., Popa, E. E., Stan, A., & Popa, V. I. (2019). Organic foods contribution to nutritional quality and value. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 84, 15-18.

Stuck with your Outline?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Ceasefire Program, Essay Example

Islam and Hinduism, Research Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Outline Samples & Examples

Effective communication, outline example.

Pages: 3

Words: 767

Millennium Development Goals, Outline Example

Pages: 1

Words: 342

The Powerless Nature of Government Agencies, Outline Example

Words: 346

The Difference Between Feminism and Hating Men, Outline Example

Words: 683

Master of Science Capstone Proposal, Outline Example

Words: 643

Advantages of Cycling, Outline Example

Words: 894

The New York Times

Well | organic food vs. conventional food.

Organic Food vs. Conventional Food

Why do consumers buy organic foods?

A new study by Stanford researchers has added fuel to a debate about the differences between organic and conventionally grown foods. The Stanford report, an analysis of 237 studies of organic produce, meats and dairy foods, concluded that organic foods are no more nutritious than their conventional counterparts. Advocates of organic foods, meanwhile, say that the study takes a narrow view of organic food choices, and that most people choose organic because they want to avoid pesticides, hormones and other chemicals used in conventional farming.

Here are answers to some commonly asked questions about the Stanford study and organic foods.

Why would the Stanford team focus on whether there are nutritional differences between organic food and conventionally produced food?

Hundreds of scientific studies have looked at just that question for various fruits and vegetables, based on the idea that fewer pesticides and organic growing methods allow for more nutrients in soil, and therefore could raise the nutritional content of organically grown foods.

And in some cases, researchers have measured significant differences. A 2010 study by Washington State University scientists found organic strawberries have more vitamin C and antioxidants than conventional strawberries. Organic tomatoes also have more of a type of antioxidant called polyphenols than commercially grown tomatoes, according to a study published in July by scientists at the University of Barcelona.

However, other variables, like ripeness, may influence nutritional content even more. A peach or berry that reaches peak ripeness with the use of pesticides could contain considerably more vitamins than a less-ripe organically grown fruit.

The Stanford study reviewed decades of research to determine whether choosing organic produce, meats and milk would lead to better nutrition generally. They concluded the answer was no. That is, just following “organic” for everything does not bring obvious, immediate health benefits.

I’ve heard organic milk is a better option than commercial milk products. Is that true?

Organic milk has risen in popularity in large part because of concerns over bovine growth hormone, used to stimulate milk production on conventional dairy farms. The hormone occurs naturally in cows, and the Food and Drug Administration has argued that use of the hormone does not change the milk.

But producers of organic milk are required to allow their cows to spend a certain amount of time grazing, and that does produce a noticeable effect on the fatty acids in the milk. Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has lower levels of omega-6 fatty acids, which are believed to be unhealthy for the heart in high concentrations, and higher levels of healthful omega-3 fatty acids. The Stanford researchers noted that organic milk does have modestly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, based on a few small studies included in the analysis.

Organic Valley, a cooperative of organic farmers, says its organic milk shows omega-3 levels that are 79 percent higher than those in conventional milk, as well as much lower levels of omega-6.

What about pesticides? Is there a health benefit to eating foods grown without them?

Organic produce has lower levels of pesticide residue than conventional fruits and vegetables. That said, almost all produce, whether it’s organic or conventional, already contains less pesticide residue than the maximum allowed by the Environmental Protection Agency. It then becomes of a question of whether you are comfortable with the E.P.A. standards. Charles Benbrook, who worked as the chief scientist for the Organic Center before moving to Washington State University last month, said the benefits of organic food, in terms of pesticide exposure, would be greatest for pregnant women, for young children and for older people with chronic health problems. He cites research that looked at blood pesticide levels of pregnant women and then followed their children for several years. The studies found that women with the highest pesticide levels during pregnancy gave birth to children who later tested 4 to 7 percent lower on I.Q. tests compared with their elementary school peers.

Aren’t there benefits to organic eating beyond individual gains? What about the health of farm workers and the health of the planet?

The answer to this question is not as clear-cut as one would like it to be.

For farm workers, some pesticides appear to cause some cancers. Over the past few decades the E.P.A. has banned many of the most toxic pesticides, so presumably the risk to workers is lower now than it was. Many people who buy organic foods say they do so because they are concerned about the health of farm workers.

In terms of the environmental effects of organic farming versus conventional farming, it depends on how you view it. One meta-analysis found that organic farming had fewer environmental impacts per acre . However, because of lower yields from organic crops, the environmental effect of organic produce was actually greater per product shipped.

In addition, there are growing concerns about the role of agricultural antibiotics leading to new antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

What are your reasons for buying organic or conventional food? Do you have more you want to know about the Stanford study or organic eating in general? Join the conversation below, and I’ll be jumping in to answer questions as needed.

What's Next

Live Smart Colorado

Organic vs. Conventional Foods

September 13, 2017 by Jessica Clifford

Organic  vs. Conventionally-Produced Food: What’s the Difference?

You have probably seen the USDA Organic seal on foods at the grocery store. In recent years, the organic market has been one of the fastest growing segments of agriculture in the US, with double-digit growth and around 22,000 certified organic operations. People choose organic foods for a variety of reasons–one of which is health. There is debate about whether organic foods are healthier or not, so let’s take a closer look.

What is organically-produced food?

‘ Organic ‘ is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods. The organic standards describe the specific requirements that must be verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before products can be labeled USDA organic. Overall, organic operations must demonstrate that they are protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only approved substances.

Is organic food healthier?

At this time, there is not a clear answer to the question of whether ‘organic’ food is healthier than ‘conventional’ food–

• It may be that other factors, such as freshness, play a larger role in nutrient content.
• The studies noted that consuming organic foods could reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
• A study published in 2014 found a slightly higher antioxidant content in organically-grown fruits and vegetables than in conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables.
• Another study found that organic milk had more healthy omega-3 fatty acids such as EPA and DHA than did conventional milk.

About Jessica Clifford

Jessica Clifford is a registered dietitian nutritionist and works as an Extension Specialist in the Department of Food Science Human Nutrition at Colorado State University. Her interests include nutrition, international cultures and cuisines, and outdoor adventures.

September 14, 2017 at 10:29 am

Thanks Jessica! It will be interesting to see how this research progresses. From our stand point as nutrition educators, I agree, it is good to just help people make better choices about what and how much they are eating first. But, I see how the question of “organic” or not is a concern. Thanks for educating us on the latest!

September 13, 2017 at 6:05 pm

Has it ever been proven that systemic pesticides absorbed by plant roots are indeed present in the food we consume? If so, at what level?

September 14, 2017 at 12:58 pm

This question goes beyond the scope of this article, and I can’t offer much detail. There are many pesticides and many foods, so we cannot make a blanket statement. While some amount of some pesticides may be absorbed by some foods, the USDA and EPA do test produce to assess this (as well as residue on the outside of the produce) and set limits to allowable (safe) amounts of residue based on their standards. These links below may provide you with more clarity. I hope that helps.

https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/PDP2015AnnualSummaryConsumers.pdf

September 13, 2017 at 9:22 am

Nice article, thank you Jessica

September 13, 2017 at 9:13 am

I do think the primary reason people want organic foods is to reduce their exposure to pesticide and antibiotic residues. How much are we able to reduce pesticide residues on produce by properly washing the food before cooking or eating raw?

September 13, 2017 at 2:28 pm

I am not exactly sure by how much certain residues are reduced by washing. However, I do know that washing can reduce some types of residues but not reduce other types of residues. Additionally, washing does not address the pesticide that has been absorbed by the roots and potentially present in the tissue/flesh of the produce. Nonetheless, washing definitely helps and is always advised!

Colorado State University Extension

Available to all.

Colorado State University Extension is an equal opportunity provider. | Colorado State University Extension es un proveedor que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades.

Colorado State University does not discriminate on the basis of disability and is committed to providing reasonable accommodations. | Colorado State University no discrimina por motivos de discapacidad y se compromete a proporcionar adaptaciones razonables.

CSU’s Office of Engagement and Extension ensures meaningful access and equal opportunities to participate to individuals whose first language is not English. | Office of Engagement and Extension de CSU garantiza acceso significativo e igualdad de oportunidades para participar a las personas quienes su primer idioma no es el inglés.

An equal access and equal opportunity University. https://col.st/ll0t3

Equal Opportunity | Disclaimer | Non-Discrimination Statement | Privacy Statement | Webmaster | Apply to CSU | CSU A-Z Search

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• 3rd Party Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(7); 2024 Apr 15
• PMC10987935

Are organics more nutritious than conventional foods? A comprehensive systematic review

Daiane thaise de oliveira faoro.

a Interdisciplinary Center for Studies and Research in Agribusiness – CEPAN, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Brazil

Felipe Dalzotto Artuzo

b Brazilian Institute of Bioeconomy – INBBIO. Bioeconomics Applied to Agribusiness Research Group. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Brazil

João Augusto Rossi Borges

c Graduate Program in Agribusiness, Federal University of Grande Dourados – UFGD, Brazil

Cristian Rogério Foguesatto

d Rural Development Sector, Federal University of Goiás – UFG, Brazil

Homero Dewes

e Department of Biophysics, Institute of Biophysics, and Interdisciplinary Center for Studies and Research in Agribusiness – CEPAN, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Brazil

Edson Talamini

f Department of Economics and International Relations – DERI, Faculty of Economics – FCE, and Bioeconomics Applied to Agribusiness Research Group, Interdisciplinary Center for Studies and Research in Agribusiness – CEPAN, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, Brazil

Associated Data

Data are included or referenced in the article or available in the supplementary material.

The growing consumer interest fueled by the belief in the superiority of organic foods raises questions about their actual nutritional superiority over conventional ones. This assumption remains a controversial issue. The present study addresses scientific evidence to clarify this controversy and provide relevant insights for informed decision-making regarding dietary choices. We collected 147 scientific articles containing 656 comparative analyses based on 1779 samples of 68 vegetable, fruit, and other (cereals, pulses, etc.) foods, 22 nutritional properties, and nine residues. Results show that in 191 (29.1%) comparisons, there were significant differences between organic and conventional foods. In a similar quantity of cases (190; 29.0%), there were divergences in the results since some studies reported significant differences while others did not. Finally, most of the comparative analyses (275; 41.9%) showed no significant difference between organic and conventional foods. Therefore, the results herein show no generalizable superiority of organic over conventional foods. Claims for nutritious advantages would eventually be applied to specific comparisons, depending on the food type and nutritional parameter.

Graphical abstract

1. Introduction

Eating habits have changed in recent decades in pursuit of a lifestyle considered healthier. Reasons for this change are diverse, including the impetus driven by concern over the increase in diseases resulting from inadequate nutrition and diets based on processed foods, which are high in fats, sugars, and sodium [ 1 , 2 ]. Health professionals and the food industry have proposed alternative dietary styles, such as vegan, vegetarian, and ketogenic diets [ [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] ]. Such diets, recognized as healthy, sensitize many consumers due to their role in digestive and immune health [ 8 , 9 ].

The scientific literature points to different definitions related to healthy foods and diets. However, there is a consensus that healthy foods should have, or be close to, high nutritional value, ideal levels of essential macro and micronutrients, low-fat content, and absence of preservative and additive residuals [ [10] , [11] , [12] ]. Furthermore, some trendy foods, fruits, and vegetables are related to healthy foods and a healthier lifestyle [ 13 ]. In this frame, organic foods have a special place [ 14 ], a reason why the production and consumption of organic foods have been growing in recent decades [ [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] ]. Furthermore, some evidence indicates that foods produced without agrochemicals and chemical or synthetic fertilizers might improve the nutritional quality of foods [ [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] ]. However, analyzing these data and conclusions in more depth is of general and scientific interest.

In this respect, some published evidence derives from subjective parameters, such as consumer perception regarding organic food consumption [ [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] ]. In such a situation, the main determinants of organic consumption identified by consumers are related to i) their understanding of the environmental impacts related to food production [ 28 , 29 ]; ii) perceived nutritional attributes [ 30 , 31 ]; and iii) the absence of agrochemical residues [ 32 , 33 ]. The consumers’ perception regarding those determinants is grounded in the individual values and beliefs [ 34 ]. Beliefs and subjective object-related perceptions may directly influence food choice [ 35 , 36 ].

Fear and concerns are among the factors influencing the beliefs construction [ 37 ]. Therefore, these factors are also related to food choice. For example, worries about the possible undesirable health effects caused by agrochemical residues may lead consumers to prefer organic because they believe those foods are safer and, consequently, healthier [ 14 , 31 , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] ]. However, some published studies have shown no evidence that organic foods are nutritionally superior to conventional foods [ 42 , 43 ].

Given this backdrop, information about the nutritional superiority of organic or conventional foods remains controversial. Despite this, putative results and conclusions support advertising campaigns that inform or misinform consumers and induce them to think about the superiority of one kind of food – or the other [ 44 , 45 ]. Skewed practices lead to motivations based on in-vogue sense and subjective knowledge rather than supported by scientific evidence.

It is of scientific and public interest to align the consumer's perception of the nutritional superiority of organic or conventional foods with objective information produced by science. Several studies evaluate and compare organic and conventional foods using different nutritional and residual parameters [ 17 , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] ]. While these studies provide relevant findings, to the best of our knowledge, there is no updated review on this topic, i.e., on organic and conventional foods, seeking to synthesize the scientific results regarding the nutritional values of these two types of food. The reviews close to this proposal refer to specific foods and nutritional parameters [ 36 , 40 , 41 , 55 ]. For example, the study carried out by Ref. [ 44 ] compares only the nutrients of organic and conventional tomatoes, while the analysis by Ref. [ 57 ] is restricted to 11 nutritional parameters of organic and conventional foods.

Therefore, it is relevant to gather scientific articles comparing organic and conventional foods' nutritional and residual parameters and synthesize the accumulated knowledge. In the present data synthesis, we address the answer to the following research questions: i) are there significant differences in nutritional and residual parameters between organic and conventional foods? ii) are organics nutritionally superior to conventional foods? Answering these questions is relevant for many reasons. First, by providing relevant information for consumers regarding the nutritional attributes of organic and conventional foods. Second, by presenting an updated set of results that can support new research avenues. Third, our findings help clarify the controversial debates about organic and conventional foods and their respective nutrients and residues. Therefore, the present study aims to synthesize scientific evidence confirming or refuting the nutritional superiority of organic foods over conventional foods.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. search and data collection criteria.

The scientific literature on measuring and comparing the nutritional properties of organic and conventional foods is abundant. However, this body of studies has generally compared specific nutritional or residual parameters and was restricted to some foods. Therefore, results from a limited set of studies do not allow for a general and consistent conclusion regarding a possible nutritional superiority and the absence of residues between organic and conventional foods. Then, an analysis broad in scope and restricted in terms of evidence and how to present the results is needed, addressing as many studies as possible comparing organic and conventional foods under various nutritional and residual parameters.

We performed a comprehensive search on the topic from February to July 2020. We used widely referenced scientific databases, including Google Scholar, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. In addition, the following keywords were combined in the query.

• a) Nutritional parameter keywords: ‘nutritional’ OR ‘nutrient’ OR ‘nutritious’ OR ‘nutritional quality.’
• b) Residual parameter keywords: ‘heavy metals’ OR ‘residues’ OR ‘nitrate’ OR ‘nitrite.’
• c) Food keywords: ‘vegetable’ OR ‘fruit’ OR ‘grains’ OR ‘greeneries’ OR “leafy vegetables.” and,
• d) Cropping system keywords: “organic and conventional.”

We consider studies published in the last three decades, from January 1990 to March 2020.

Fig. 1 shows the complete procedures used to identify and screen the literature and the criteria for deciding on the final inclusion or exclusion for the analysis.

Scientific literature search and screening process procedures.

The initial search retrieved 591 studies. After removing the duplicate studies, 528 remained for screening by analyzing the titles, abstracts, and results presented in tables. The following inclusion criteria were considered during the screening procedures: (i) studies concerning foods of vegetal origin and for fresh consumption; (ii) studies that quantitatively analyzed and compared the nutritional and residual parameters of foods grown in organic and conventional cropping systems based on laboratory analysis; (iii) studies based on controlled experiments in which foods were produced under organic and conventional cultivation standards and protocols, and studies in which samples of foods were obtained in supermarkets, fairs or directly from the farmers. None of the selected articles compared agrochemical residues, probably because using agrochemicals in organic farming is not allowed [ 22 , 23 ]. Thus, the residual parameters synthesized in the present study refer to heavy metals, nitrate, and nitrite.

Based on the criteria, we discarded 331 studies not following the scope of our analysis, such as studies on processed or ultra-processed foods, animal products, and duplicate comparisons that already appeared in another study. Therefore, 193 studies were shortlisted, of which 46 were removed based on the criteria set for screening. Finally, we reached the number of 147 studies that met the requirements. The list of selected studies used for data synthesis is available in Appendix A .

2.2. Data extraction and data synthesis

From the 147 selected articles, the following data and information were extracted and recorded: i) food: fruits (acerola, apple, banana, etc.), vegetables (arugula, broccoli, lettuce, etc.), and others (barley, bean, pea, etc.); ii) sample origin (experiment or market shelf); iii) nutritional or residual parameter; iv) mean value of the nutritional or residual parameter analyzed in each organic and conventional food sample; v) unit of measure of the analyzed nutritional and residual parameter (g/g, mg/g, etc.); and, vi) statistical significance of the difference between organic and conventional food for the nutritional or residual parameter under analysis ( Fig. 2 ).

Process of systematization of information extracted from the analyzed studies.

Statistical significance was used as a decision criterion for the presence or absence of nutritional and residual differences between organic and conventional foods for each nutrient and residue analyzed (See Appendix B ). After extracting the information from the set of studies, 68 foods, 23 nutritional parameters, and nine residual parameters were identified. Some studies compared just one organic and conventional food, while others compared two or more. The same fact occurred for nutritional and residual properties.

Data were systematized and divided into food groups and parameters ( Fig. 3 ). The foods were grouped according to the classification of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [ 58 ] and the Brazilian Table of Food Composition [ 59 ], in which Group 1 relates to Fruits and derivatives; Group 2: Vegetables, root, tubers and derivatives, and Group 3: Cereals, pulses, seeds, nuts, and derivatives. Nutritional and residual parameters were divided into Macronutrients: carbohydrates, lipids, protein, total sugar, and fibers [ 59 , 60 ]; Micronutrients: vitamin C, Calcium (Ca), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Magnesium (Mg), Manganese (Mn), Phosphor (P), Potassium (K), Sodium (Na), Sulfur (S) and Zinc (Zn) [ 59 , 60 ]; residuals (nitrate and nitrite) and the heavy metals Aluminum (Al), Arsenic (As), Cadmium (Cd), Chrome (Cr), Lead (Pb), Mercury (Hg) and Nickel (Ni); and d) Others: lycopene, β-carotene, total flavonoids, total phenolic acids, total polyphenols, and yield [ 59 , 60 ].

Meaning of each symbol used in synthesizing the data. Note: Convergences: (fx1), all analyses showed significant differences; and (fx2), all analyses showed no significant differences. Divergence: (fx3), some results showed significant differences, while others did not.

2.2.1. Data synthesis

In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used [ 61 ]. First, we intended to perform a meta-analysis using the data reported in the selected articles. However, particularities in the procedures and presentation of the data would make it impossible to include all selected articles. Alternatively, we resorted to data synthesis to ensure that we could use the information with the necessary accuracy to use all the comparisons between organic and conventional foods reported in the selected articles. Data synthesis has been widely used in many scientific areas, like environmental [ 62 ] and health sciences [ 63 ].

The variables belonging to the parameters were analyzed according to the statistical significance between organic and conventional foods, classified as ‘Yes’ when there was a significant difference and ‘No’ when there was no significant difference. We tabulated and analyzed all variables (more details in Appendix B and C ).

In order to facilitate the visualization of the results, the categorization of the variables of each parameter and for each food was represented by the following symbols: a) green circle (fx1), when all the collected articles converge in showing a significant difference for a particular parameter of a specific food; b) red square (fx2), when all collected articles converge in showing no significant difference for a particular parameter of a specific food; and c) blue triangle (fx3), when all the collected articles showed divergence in the significant difference for a particular parameter of a specific food. For instance, some studies showed a significant difference, while others showed no significant difference for the same variable and food ( Fig. 3 ).

The ‘fx1’ and ‘fx2’ symbols indicate convergence between the results, showing a consensus among the studies. The agreement may be related to the presence (‘yes’) or absence (‘no’) of nutritional or residual superiority between organic and conventional foods. Conversely, the ‘fx3’ symbol indicates divergence between the results, meaning that not all studies reached the same conclusion regarding the presence or absence of superiority between organic and conventional foods - for a specific variable belonging to one of the parameters.

From the 147 reviewed articles, 1779 laboratory samples of organic and conventional foods were identified regarding their respective nutritional and residue parameters. This figure corresponds to 432 fruit samples, 1020 vegetable samples, and 338 from other categories. These data, when synthesized, yielded 656 comparative analyses between organic and conventional foods. Not all analyses featured the same number of samples, owing to treatment variations and repetitions within the reviewed articles. Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of sample quantities and comparisons among the food groups.

Absolute frequency of individual food samples regarding the convergent and divergent results.

Note: fx1 = all articles converge in showing a significant difference for a particular parameter of a specific food; fx2 = all articles converge in showing no significant difference for a certain parameter of a specific food; and fx3 = all articles showed divergence in the significant difference for a certain parameter of a specific food.

3.1. Convergence and divergence into food groups

The ‘vegetables’ group corresponds to 57.33% of the individual food samples, followed by the ‘fruits’ group (23.67%) and ‘others’ (19.00%). Regarding the synthesized data on convergence or divergence, the ‘vegetables’ group shares 47.71% of the total synthesized results, followed by ‘fruits’ (34.91%) and ‘others’ (17.38%) groups. On average, each 3.26, 2.96, and 1.84 individual food samples correspond to one synthesized data for the groups ‘vegetables,’ ‘other,’ and ‘fruits,’ respectively, illustrating the average comparisons reported in the articles examined.

In most synthesized situations (71.03%), there was convergence (fx1+fx2) among the reported findings. In 41.92% of the cases, there was no significant difference (fx2) for a certain nutritional or residual parameter when comparing a specific organic and conventional food. A significant difference (fx1) was found in only 29.11% of the cases. On the other hand, in 28.96% of the synthesized situations, there was a divergence (fx3) between the results. In this case, some studies reported a significant difference and others found no significant difference for a certain nutritional or residual parameter when comparing a specific organic and conventional food. Most of the food samples from the ‘fruits’ and ‘others’ groups were synthesized under a convergent (fx2) situation with 50.21% and 49.12%, respectively. As for the ‘vegetables’ group, most of the samples (37.06%) were synthesized under the divergent (fx3) category.

The situations of convergence and divergence among the studies were synthesized based on the characteristics of the samples and laboratory analyses whose results were extracted from the reviewed articles. Table 2 shows the absolute and relative frequency with which the samples occurred, considering the nutritional or residual parameters and the convergence/divergence situation associated with them. The first column lists the macronutrients, micronutrients, heavy metal residues, nitrite and nitrate, and others as a group of parameters. The second column lists the nutrients compared within each parameter. The other columns show the absolute and relative frequency of convergence/divergence according to data extracted from the systematic literature review.

Absolute and relative frequency of individual food samples by nutritional and residual parameters under a convergent or divergent situation.

The absolute frequency corresponds to the number of comparisons that did or did not show significant differences (convergence/divergence). For example, in the ‘macronutrients’ parameter, the protein variable showed 14 significant differences (fx1) in the protein value between organic and conventional foods; in 11 comparisons, the protein value showed no differences (fx2), and in 56 comparisons, there was at least one sample showing a significant difference in the protein value of organic and conventional foods (fx3). The relative frequency shows that in 64.19% of the comparisons, there was a difference in the protein value of organic and conventional foods; in only 17.28% of the comparisons, there were significant differences.

The results show substantial differences in the frequency of individual samples between the groups of nutritional parameters. ‘Micronutrients’ comprised most of the nutritional parameters analyzed in food samples (56.21%), followed by ‘others’ (16.64%), ‘heavy metals, nitrite, and nitrate’ (16.25%), and ‘macronutrients’ (10.90%) parameters.

Carbohydrates is the only macronutrient for which there was convergence in all the pairs of samples analyzed. Most comparisons (59.26%) showed no significant differences in the amount of carbohydrates in organic and conventional foods, compared to 40.74% that found statistically significant differences. However, for all parameters, the highest frequency was for divergence (fx3); some studies have reported results favoring organic foods, while others found better outcomes for conventional foods when comparing the same parameter in the same food item.

Among the 'micronutrients,' magnesium showed divergence in 79.13% of the comparisons of pairs of samples, followed by potassium (76.86%), calcium (63.39%), and iron (61.76%). The findings suggest that these micronutrients seem more sensitive to variables other than the cultivation system (organic or conventional).

However, parameters belonging to ‘Heavy Metals, nitrate, and nitrite,’ although the second most frequent in variety, have been scarcely considered and need further comparative studies, especially for Hg (3), Ar (3), and Al (7). Except for carbohydrates, Al, Ar, Hg, and nitrite, which only presented convergence (fx1 or fx2) for a given organic and conventional food, all other parameters were convergent (fx1 and fx2) and divergent (fx3), depending on the studies. So far, there is a scientific consensus regarding carbohydrates, Al, Ar, Hg, and nitrite for some specific foods when comparing organic and conventional ones.

Higher frequencies of divergent situations between pairs of samples can also be observed in the 'other' parameters. The three most prominent nutritional variables are lycopene, β-carotene and polyphenols, where 84.62%, 70.31%, and 69.57% of the pairs of samples did not reach a consensus on the nutritional superiority of organic or conventional foods, respectively.

The debate on whether organic or conventional foods are superior in nutrition is ongoing. In fact, out of the pairs of samples analyzed, 59.08% showed a divergence in nutritional parameters, meaning there was disagreement on which type of food was better. On the other hand, 24.56% of the pairs showed convergence, suggesting no significant differences were found between organic and conventional. It was found that higher nutritional values were present in only 16.36% of the pairs of samples analyzed, whether organic or conventional.

3.1.1. Fruits

The fruit group comprises 24 foods, 421 individual samples, and 229 synthesized convergence/divergence situations. In most synthesized situations (50.22%), studies were convergent to say no significant difference exists between organic and conventional foods for a parameter evaluated (fx2). The convergence in the opposite direction was found in 32.31% of synthesized situations; depending on the type of fruit and the nutritional parameter being compared, studies converge there is a significant difference (fx1) between organic and conventional foods. In a smaller set of synthesized situations (17.47%), the scientific evidence is divergent (fx3) regarding the existence or not of a significant difference between organic and conventional foods; for a given fruit and specific nutritional parameter, for instance, some studies reported ‘yes’ and other ‘no’ differences.

The most compared fruits were apple, grape, and strawberry, with 90, 55, and 48 individual samples and 20, 15, and 21 synthesized convergence/divergence situations, respectively (see Fig. 4 ). Conversely, fruits like pear, blackcurrant, and goji berry were less frequently compared with 23, 18, and 17 individual samples and 18, 17, and 17 synthesized situations, respectively. These fruits presented a higher rate of synthesized situation per number of unique food samples compared to grapes, for instance, meaning that in grape-related studies, there are more samples involved in a synthesized situation.

Frequency of individual samples (numbers) and synthesized convergence/divergence situations (graphical elements) comparing nutritional and residual parameters of organic and conventional fruits .

Except for flavonoids and phenolic acids, for which only one study (one individual sample) compared organic and conventional grapes, all other variables in the literature presented three studies or more. For example, the opposite situation happened with the pear, in which some convergence/divergence was synthesized based only on one study (e.g., results for Ca, P, and K parameters). The most analyzed parameters are micronutrients, namely potassium, calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus, with 40, 38, 37, and 32 individual samples and 16, 15, 15, and 14 synthesized samples, respectively.

3.1.2. Vegetables

The vegetable group comprises 33 foods, 1020 individual samples, and 313 convergence/divergency syntheses. The number of synthesized situations in vegetables varied less among the convergent and divergent situations (fx1 29.71%; fx2 33.22%, and fx3 37.06%) than in fruits. Most of the individual food samples (62.93%) are convergent regarding significant differences in nutritional or residual parameters when comparing organic and conventional vegetables (fx1 = ‘yes’ + fx2 = ‘no’).

Tomato, potato, lettuce, carrot, and pepper with 275, 160, 94, 93, and 65 individual samples and 28, 24, 25, 29, and 19 convergence/divergence synthesized situations, respectively, were the most analyzed vegetables (see Fig. 5 ). On the other hand, endive, bell pepper, buckwheat, chickpea, and jambu plant were the less compared vegetables, with only one to three individual samples and convergence or divergence situation synthesized.

Frequency of individual samples (numbers) and synthesized convergence/divergence situations (graphical elements) comparing nutritional and residual parameters of organic and conventional vegetables. Source: elaborated by the authors based on research data.

Micronutrients were most frequently parameters in comparing organic and conventional vegetables, mainly K, Mg, and Cu, with 59, 57, and 55 individual food samples and 16, 12, and 15 synthesized convergence/divergence situations, respectively. However, protein, belonging to the ‘macronutrients’ parameters, with 50 individual samples and 12 synthesized situations, and nitrate, with 68 individual samples and 14 synthesized situations, also presented an expressive number of comparisons.

3.1.3. Others

The ‘others’ group comprises cereals, legumes, seeds/grains, and other non-fruit and non-vegetable foods. The ‘others’ group shall include 11 foods, 338 individual samples, and 114 convergence/divergence syntheses. Most syntheses (49.12%) showed no significant difference between organic and conventional foods (fx2) regarding the evaluated nutritional or residual parameters. Divergent situations (fx3) with 29.82% ranked second, followed by situations converging to a significant difference (fx1; 21.05%) between organic and conventional foods.

‘Others’ most frequently analyzed foods were wheat, rice, cashew nuts, and beans, with 133, 42, 36, and 31 individual samples and 20, 19, 9, and 16 synthesized convergence/divergence situations, respectively (see Fig. 6 ). However, in the specific case of peas, the number of synthesized situations (10) was greater than that of cashew nuts and with fewer individual samples (10). Therefore, for instance, in the case of cashew nuts, a convergence or divergence situation was synthesized based on a larger number of samples. Unlike peas, where each synthesized situation had only one sample, all parameters reported in the literature for cashew nuts had four samples.

Frequency of individual samples (numbers) and synthesized convergence/divergence situations (graphical elements) comparing nutritional and residual parameters in ‘others’ organic and conventional foods. Source: elaborated by the authors based on research data.

Micronutrients were the most frequently analyzed nutritional parameters in the ‘others’ foods. Zinc, iron, copper, and potassium with 29, 28, 26, and 22 individual samples and 9, 9, 8, and 6 synthesized situations were the most compared in other organic and conventional foods.

3.2. Nutritional and residual superiority

The syntheses denoted by ‘fx1’ indicate convergence among scientific studies in reporting a significant difference in the values of nutritional or residual parameters of a specific food, agreeing on the superior performance of organic against conventional or vice versa. We found more convergent situations in the ‘vegetables’ group, with 151 individual samples, followed by the ‘fruit’ groups, with 92 individual samples, and the ‘others’ with 48 individual samples. However, the pattern changes among the groups. While superior values in the macronutrient parameters were found in 80% of the individual samples of conventional ‘fruits,’ 68.2% of the individual samples converged to show superior macronutrient values for organic ‘vegetables’ (see Fig. 7 ).

Comparing the nutritional and residual superiority between groups of organic and conventional fruits, vegetables, and others.

The articles examined pairs of fruit and vegetable samples, focusing on micronutrient analysis. Out of 53 pairs of fruit, 75.47% showed organic products to be nutritionally superior in some micronutrients, while 24.53% showed conventional products to be superior. A similar trend was observed in vegetables, where 73.21% of 56 analyses indicated organic food's nutritional superiority compared to 26.79% for conventional food. However, in the 'other' category, 53.85% of the 13 pairs of samples showed the nutritional superiority of organic food over conventional food, while 38.46% showed the superiority of conventional food over organic food.

Among the micronutrients analyzed in fruit and vegetables grown in organic and conventional systems, higher levels of vitamin C, magnesium, and potassium were found in organic products. On the other hand, a significant difference was found in the manganese content, favoring the vegetables grown in the conventional system.

Heavy metals, nitrite, and nitrate residual parameters were higher in 71.4% and 67.56% of the individual samples of conventional fruits and vegetables, respectively. On the other hand, the values associated with the other parameters, such as lycopene, flavonoids, etc., were higher in 55.6% of the individual organic food samples.

Our findings indicate that the nutritional superiority of organic foods over conventional foods, or vice versa, depends on the type of food and the nutritional/residual parameter being compared. For example, there is a convergence among studies that carbohydrate levels are higher in goji berries and strawberries produced in conventional systems versus those produced in organic systems. On the other hand, when the levels of carbohydrates present in kiwifruit are analyzed, the analyzed articles report that the values found in organic kiwifruit are higher than those grown in conventional systems. Similar behavior was seen for the other parameters of macro and micronutrients, heavy metals, nitrite, nitrate, and others (See Appendix D for details).

3.3. Association between syntheses (fx2, fx1, andfx3) and food groups

A Chi-square test was performed to statistically substantiate the synthesized results. The Chi-square parameters show an association between ratings (fx2, fx1, andfx3) and food groups (fruits, vegetables, and others) [χ 2 (4) = 31.91, p < 0.001] ( Table 3 ). This association is due to i) studies that diverged in their results between organic and conventional ‘fruits’ and ‘vegetables,’ ii) studies that converged in reporting a significant difference between ‘other’ organic and conventional foods, and iii) studies that converged in reporting a significant difference between organic and conventional ‘fruits’ and ‘vegetables.’

Chi-square test comparing convergence/divergence syntheses among food groups.

Note: *Chi-square test at the significance level of p < 0.001.

We can assess the significance between the observed values comprising the data extracted from scientific studies and the expected values for each category. Residual values between −1.96 and 1.96 (−1.96 ≤ Adjusted residuals ≤1.96) do not indicate a significant difference between the expected and observed frequency. Thus, we observed a significant difference in the ‘fruits’ and ‘vegetables’ group for the fx3 and fx2 syntheses and in the ‘others’ group for the fx1 syntheses. For example, the group of vegetables has a lower tendency to show divergence (fx3) than convergence (fx2) in the value of the nutritional and residual parameters when comparing organic and conventional foods.

4. Discussion

The organic food production system avoids using synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms [ 26 ]. Instead, organic agriculture relies primarily on crop rotation, nitrogen-fixing plants, and organic fertilizers to maintain soil crop yields and pest control. Like conventional foods, organic foods must meet food safety requirements, and, in order to maintain an organic label, organic farmers must produce under organic norms and regulations [ 64 ]. Organic regulations may vary between countries, and no universal reference standard exists in Ref. [ 65 ]. It is important to note that the organic labels only indicate that a specific product was produced or prepared according to some guidelines; it is not related to the final and intrinsic attributes of the product. This remark is important as organic foods are routinely promoted for their ultimate characteristics, using the organic label as supposed proof of nutritional superiority and free of residues.

It is important to highlight that studies have been significantly focused on comparing micronutrients between organic and conventional foods, reflecting the growing interest in nutritional quality. Micronutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, are essential for the proper functioning of the body and directly impact health [ 66 ]. Among the micronutrients frequently studied in fruits and vegetables, vitamin C stands out as an antioxidant found in citrus fruits and leafy greens [ 67 ]. Conversely, magnesium in leafy green vegetables, nuts, and seeds plays a crucial role in muscle function and bone health [ 68 ]. Meanwhile, manganese in fruits like pineapple and leafy green vegetables is essential for metabolism and bone formation [ 69 ].

Regular intake of fruits and vegetables has been associated with a reduced risk of various chronic diseases, including, among others, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer [ 8 , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] ]. This benefit is attributed to the abundance of bioactive compounds present in these foods, such as polyphenols, vitamin C, and carotenoids. These bioactive compounds are crucial in neutralizing free radicals and protecting the body against oxidative damage [ 8 , 9 ]. The results of our research highlight vitamin C as one of the main components under analysis, revealing a notable difference in concentration between organic and conventional foods. The analysis of 21 comparisons indicated a predominance of 85.71% higher vitamin C content in organic compared to 14.3% in conventional ( Fig. 7 ). On the other hand, lycopene and β-carotene were 100% higher in fruits and vegetables grown in the conventional system ( Fig. 7 ). The nutritional content of food can be affected by various variables such as soil type, cultivation method, soil cover, and organic production system maturity, and even season, farmer to farmer or year to year [ [71] , [72] , [73] ]. These findings highlight that both types of food have potential health benefits for consumers.

Therefore, it is essential to emphasize that food quality plays a pivotal role in microbiota health and promoting a conducive intestinal environment for probiotics [ 75 , 76 ]. Both organic and conventional foods can contribute to diet quality, provided they are adequately produced, processed, and prepared. Fresh foods, abundant in fiber, nutrients, and low chemical additives, are critical for maintaining intestinal microbiota balance [ 77 , 78 ]. A diet rich in fruits and vegetables supplies substrates for the growth of beneficial bacteria in the gut, whereas processed and ultra-processed foods, high in saturated fats, sugars, and additives, can hinder microbiota diversity and inhibit probiotic growth [ 76 ].

Food quality extends beyond the choice between organic and conventional, encompassing the entire production process from cultivation to the consumer's table. Organic farming, grounded in sustainable practices and the reduction of synthetic pesticides, can offer foods with lower residue levels [ 79 , 80 ]. However, conventional production can also adhere to stringent food safety regulations. Hence, diet quality hinges on consumer awareness, the selection of minimally processed foods, and a preference for trustworthy, healthy products, irrespective of organic or conventional labels. Maintaining a balanced and diversified diet, focusing on food quality, is paramount for the health of intestinal microbiota and support for probiotics in the digestive system.

Currently, consumers are concerned about the food they consume [ 81 , 82 ]. Food scandals and the widely publicized controversy over genetically modified organisms may have contributed to a growing search for alternative foods considered safer than conventional ones. Food crises such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease), H5N1 (bird flu), and H1N1 (swine flu) have sensitized consumers about food quality and safety [ 83 , 84 ]. These scandals aided the ever-increasing demand for organic foods, arising from the perception that organic foods are safer than conventional ones [ 11 , 85 ].

The pro-organic movement is grounded in the belief that organic food is free of agrochemicals, nitrates, or other residual contaminants, creating the acceptance that organics are superior and practically free of dangers [ 85 ]. However, some studies have indicated higher nitrate levels in organic foods compared to conventional foods, mainly in vegetables [ 50 , [86] , [87] , [88] , [89] , [90] ] ( Fig. 7 ). The consumers’ belief that organic food is a safer alternative is not supported by science due to the lack of consistent scientific evidence for generalizing such superiority [ 91 ].

In the present study, such a statement can be corroborated by i) the divergences reported in scientific studies comparing nutritional and residual parameters of organic and conventional foods (fx3); ii) the convergences between scientists reporting results that indicate the absence of significant differences between organic and conventional foods regarding specific foods and parameters (fx2); and iii) the convergence of scientific findings pointing to a significant difference between organic and conventional foods regarding specific foods and parameters (fx1). Therefore, science does not support the claim for nutritional and residual superiority on the part of organic foods. Sometimes, a particular organic food is nutritionally superior in a specific parameter, in others, the same food grown in a conventional system is superior in another parameter ( Fig. 4 , Fig. 5 , Fig. 6 ).

Thus, some specific claims can be made. For example, conventional potatoes have a higher carbohydrate (macronutrient) content than organic potatoes [ 92 ]. On the other hand, organic broccoli has a higher carbohydrate (macronutrient) content than conventional broccoli [ 93 ]. Organic carrots have a higher aluminum content (heavy metals) than conventional carrots [ 17 ]. Meanwhile, conventional rice has a higher aluminum content (heavy metals) than organic rice [ 94 ]. So, it is necessary to be specific and not generalist when comparing organic and conventional foods’ nutritional and residual values. The results vary depending on foods and parameters (nutrients or residues), as statistically evidenced in Table 3 . Therefore, the alleged superiority is not generalizable and will depend on the food and the parameter being compared, evidence that aligns with the conclusion of other studies, such as in Refs. [ [93] , [94] , [95] ].

5. Conclusions

The prevalence of subjectivity of personal convictions, based on emotions and beliefs, compared to objective knowledge (derived from verifiable scientific evidence), can produce contradictory information regarding the nutritional and residual content in organic and conventional foods. Contradicting information can cause confusion and misunderstandings for consumers. However, our findings show that the generalizations are debatable, and strong statements linking organic foods to a synonym for superior foods need to be considered more.

Based on the findings of our data synthesis, we can conclude that.

• a. It was not possible to identify a generalized superiority of organic foods over conventional ones, nor of conventional foods over organics.
• b. Superiority claims can only be made for specific comparisons, depending on the food and the nutritional or residual parameter.
• c. A particular organic food may be superior in a given nutrient or residue and inferior in another compared to its conventional equivalent.
• d. Specific organic foods may also have a higher content of certain heavy metals than their conventional counterpart.

Therefore, if a belief in the nutritional superiority of organic foods over conventional foods is established among consumers, such a belief can only be grounded in subjective knowledge.

Limitations of the study and future research

The present study has some limitations that can be addressed in future research. First is the difficulty in gathering homogeneous data to apply more sophisticated statistical analysis that could support the analyses and conclusions. Future research may employ a meta-analysis to review, improving the understanding of differences between organic and conventional foods. Second, our analysis compared the nutritional values of foods produced under organic and conventional systems. Future research may consider other types of production systems, for example, the hydroponic system. Our research aimed to determine whether there is a nutritional and residual difference between organic and conventional food systems. Future studies could examine the environmental impact associated with the nutritional content of both farming methods. Another area for improvement is the keywords used in the query; although comprehensive, some scientific articles may have been excluded from the data synthesis.

Data availability statement

This work was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development under Grant Number 302517/2022-7.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Daiane Thaise de Oliveira Faoro: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Felipe Dalzotto Artuzo: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. João Augusto Rossi Borges: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Cristian Rogério Foguesatto: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. Homero Dewes: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. Edson Talamini: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28288 .

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article:

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Organic vs. Conventional Foods

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Organic vs. Conventional Foods. (2016, Sep 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/organic-vs-conventional-foods-essay

"Organic vs. Conventional Foods." StudyMoose , 15 Sep 2016, https://studymoose.com/organic-vs-conventional-foods-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Organic vs. Conventional Foods . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/organic-vs-conventional-foods-essay [Accessed: 17 Aug. 2024]

"Organic vs. Conventional Foods." StudyMoose, Sep 15, 2016. Accessed August 17, 2024. https://studymoose.com/organic-vs-conventional-foods-essay

"Organic vs. Conventional Foods," StudyMoose , 15-Sep-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/organic-vs-conventional-foods-essay. [Accessed: 17-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Organic vs. Conventional Foods . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/organic-vs-conventional-foods-essay [Accessed: 17-Aug-2024]

• Organic food vs. non-organic food Pages: 13 (3897 words)
• Marketing Campaign: Organic Foods Pages: 8 (2164 words)
• Reflection Paper: Organic Foods Pages: 3 (776 words)
• Organic Foods Motivations Factors for Consumers Pages: 5 (1256 words)
• The Controversies of Organic Foods Pages: 6 (1622 words)
• Compare and Contrast Fresh Foods vs. Canned Foods Pages: 8 (2149 words)
• Conventional Morality Pages: 7 (1922 words)
• Operations Management: A conventional “bricks and mortar” Pages: 7 (1811 words)
• Retail Branding Strategy in Conventional Supermarkets Pages: 5 (1449 words)
• Dowd’s Laughter Against the Conventional Wisdom Pages: 4 (979 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.