“Eating well is not about doing everything perfectly, but about making good choices most of the time.”
— NourishMum
A few years ago, I thought that buying organic simply meant buying better.
If a food carried the organic label, it seemed logical to assume that it would contain more nutrients, fewer pesticides, taste better and, on top of that, be a little kinder to the planet.
Over time, I’ve realised that the answer isn’t quite that simple.
Because organic foods do have some advantages that are worth understanding, but there are also things that are not as different as we might think.
So, are they really healthier?
The short answer would be: it depends on what we mean by “healthier” and which food we are talking about.
What does organic actually mean?
Before comparing organic and conventional foods, there is something important to clarify.
In Europe, an organic food is not simply a food that has been grown “naturally”.
Organic production is regulated and has to meet specific standards covering fertilisers, plant protection products, antibiotics, genetically modified organisms and other aspects of food production. Products used in organic farming must also be authorised under European regulations.
This means that organic does not mean “pesticide-free”.
Organic farming can use certain substances to protect crops, as long as they are authorised.
The difference lies in which substances can be used and under what conditions.
And this distinction is important because it helps us move away from the idea that there is one category of food that is completely free from substances used to protect crops, and another that is full of them.
Are organic foods more nutritious?
This is probably one of the first questions we ask.
Does an organic apple have more vitamins?
Does an organic carrot contain more minerals?
Is an organic tomato nutritionally superior?
The answer does not appear to be a general yes.
A systematic review published in 2024 analysed 147 scientific papers and hundreds of comparisons between organic and conventional foods. In 41.9% of the comparisons, it found no significant differences in the nutritional properties studied. In other comparisons, differences were found, but the results were not consistent enough to conclude that organic foods are, in general, more nutritious.
This does not mean that differences never exist.
Some studies have found slightly higher levels of certain compounds, such as particular polyphenols or vitamin C, in some organic foods. But the type of food, variety, soil, climate, ripeness and growing conditions can all have such an influence that it is difficult to attribute a particular difference solely to whether a food is organic.
So I wouldn’t buy an organic fruit simply because I thought it necessarily contained many more vitamins than the same conventional fruit.
The nutritional difference does not appear to be the main reason to choose organic.
What about pesticides?
This is where we find a clearer difference.
Organic foods generally show lower levels of pesticide residues, although this does not mean that conventional foods are unsafe.
The European Union sets maximum residue levels and regularly monitors the foods that reach the market. EFSA’s 2024 report found that 98.2% of the 86,449 samples analysed complied with the maximum residue levels established in the EU, and its assessment of exposure concluded that the estimated risk to consumers was low for the foods analysed.
At the same time, studies comparing organic and conventional diets consistently find lower pesticide exposure among people who eat organic foods.
It is a difference that may be meaningful for people who want to reduce their exposure to pesticide residues. Although research into the long-term health effects is still limited, and studies looking at overall health do not allow us to draw a definitive conclusion.
Do organic foods taste better?
This is probably one of the most difficult questions to answer scientifically.
Because taste is not measured in quite the same way as a vitamin.
And because a tomato picked when perfectly ripe, grown locally and eaten in season can taste far better than an organic tomato that has travelled thousands of miles and was picked before it was fully ripe.
In controlled sensory studies, differences in taste between organic and conventional products are not consistent.
In other words, organic does not necessarily mean tastier.
However, there is something that can influence how we perceive flavour.
When we believe that a food is healthier or more natural, we may also perceive it as tasting better. Some studies have observed precisely this effect associated with organic labelling.
So, if an organic tomato tastes much better to you, enjoy it.
But the reason may have more to do with the variety, ripeness, season, freshness and your own preferences than with the organic label itself.
And what about the environment?
Organic farming can offer important environmental benefits. Among other things, it restricts certain synthetic pesticides and fertilisers and can support biodiversity and soil health. The European Commission highlights greater biodiversity on organic farmland and particular benefits for pollinators.
But it would also be inaccurate to say that every organic food automatically has a lower environmental footprint.
One of the issues is yield.
For some crops, organic farming produces less food per hectare. This means that more land may be needed to produce the same amount of food.
A review of 100 life-cycle assessment studies found that organic systems tended to have lower environmental impacts per unit of land, but higher land use per unit of food produced. When measured per kilogram of food, the differences can change considerably depending on the food and the environmental indicator being considered.
So, when we talk about sustainability, we cannot simply look at one word on a label.
We also need to consider what the food is, how it is produced, how much land it requires, what resources it uses, where it comes from, and how it is transported and stored.
Organic farming can be an important part of a more sustainable food system, but it is not the only part.
So, when is it worth paying more?
This is where I think the question becomes much more useful.
Because we can agree that organic foods have some advantages while also recognising that we cannot — or may not want to — pay the extra cost for everything we buy.
And that is absolutely fine.
If your budget is limited, I would prioritise buying enough fruit and vegetables over buying smaller amounts simply because they are organic.
Eating a good variety of foods is much more important than making sure every single one carries an organic label.
That said, there are some situations where it may make sense to prioritise organic:
Fruit and vegetables we eat with the skin
If you regularly eat fruit and vegetables with the skin on, choosing organic can be a simple way of reducing exposure to certain pesticide residues.
It is not a requirement.
But it may be a personal priority if this is something you are particularly concerned about.
Foods we eat very frequently
If there is a food that appears on our table almost every day, it may make more sense to invest in its organic version rather than doing so indiscriminately across the whole shop.
For example, if we eat apples every day, that might be one food we choose to prioritise.
Foods for young children
When it comes to children, some families prefer to prioritise organic foods specifically to reduce pesticide exposure.
This is a perfectly reasonable choice if it fits within the family budget, but it should not become a source of worry.
Conventional foods that comply with European legislation are subject to controls and residue limits designed to protect consumers.
And, above all, a child who eats a good variety of fresh foods is not eating badly simply because not everything is organic.
And when is it probably not worth paying more?
There are also situations where I would not feel that we need to.
For example, if choosing organic for everything means buying less fruit and vegetables because the price becomes too high.
Or if the food we want to buy has a very large price difference and it is simply not a priority for us.
There are also foods where the difference between organic and conventional production may not make much difference to our purchasing decision.
And there is something even more important: the organic label does not turn a highly processed food into a healthy food.
Organic biscuits are still biscuits.
An organic soft drink is still a soft drink.
And an organic chocolate-hazelnut spread can still contain a considerable amount of sugar.
The organic label mainly tells us about how the ingredients have been produced, not that the food is nutritionally perfect.
So, before looking at the organic label, I would still look at the food itself.
Is there a middle ground?
I think there is.
We do not need to choose between buying everything organic and never buying anything organic.
We can simply prioritise.
Buy organic when the price feels reasonable.
Choose seasonal and local foods when it makes sense.
Buy directly from local producers when we have access to them.
Wash fruit and vegetables thoroughly before eating them.
And, above all, fill our kitchens with a varied selection of minimally processed foods.
Because perhaps one of the things we most easily forget in this debate is that the overall quality of our diet matters far more than one single characteristic of each individual food.
A diet based on vegetables, fruit, pulses, eggs, fish, meat, nuts, olive oil and other minimally processed foods does not stop being a good diet simply because some of those fruit and vegetables do not carry an organic label.
So… are organic foods really healthier?
After looking at all of this, I think the most honest answer is:
We cannot say that organic foods are, in general, much more nutritious or automatically healthier.
There are differences.
Exposure to pesticide residues tends to be lower.
There are differences in certain nutrients and plant compounds in some foods, although they are not consistent enough to claim overall nutritional superiority.
And organic farming can offer environmental benefits, particularly in areas such as biodiversity and the use of certain agricultural inputs, although it can also require more land per unit of food produced.
So, for me, the question is not so much “organic or conventional?”
But rather:
“What is worth prioritising within our diet and within our budget?”
If we can afford organic foods and enjoy choosing them, that’s great.
If we cannot make our entire shop organic, there is no need to worry.
We can choose some organic foods, others conventional, buy seasonally, cook more at home and, above all, eat a good variety of real foods.
In the end, eating well should not become another source of pressure.
Perhaps it is simply about making slightly better choices when we can, without feeling that we have to do everything perfectly.
Because a healthy diet does not begin with a label.
It begins with the foods we put on our table every day.
References
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Pesticide residues in food: latest data released.
- European Commission. Organic production and products.
- Faoro, D.T.O. et al. (2024). Are organics more nutritious than conventional foods? A comprehensive systematic review. Heliyon.
- Poulia, K.-A. et al. (2025). Impact of organic foods on chronic diseases and health perception: a systematic review of the evidence. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
- Potential Health Benefits of a Diet Rich in Organic Fruit and Vegetables versus a Diet Based on Conventional Produce: A Systematic Review. Nutrition Reviews.
- Organic food has lower environmental impacts per area unit and similar climate impacts per mass unit compared to conventional. Communications Earth & Environment.