you're reading...
Economic and Social Policies, PUBLICATIONS

Is organic food really good for our health?

Written by Gianluca Quaglio,

fruits on forks


Despite strong public interest in the subject, very few studies directly investigate the effect of organic food on human health. To help fill this gap, STOA commissioned a study to review scientific evidence regarding the impact of organic food on human health. The development of environmentally sustainable and healthy food systems is an international priority, and this report discusses how organic food and organic agriculture can contribute, from the point of view of public health.

The study analyses the following aspects of organic food and organic agriculture:

  • health effects of organic food in humans;
  • organic food consumption and sustainable diets;
  • experimental in vitro and animal studies;
  • the role of pesticides;
  • the production system and the composition of plant foods;
  • the production system and the composition of animal foods; and
  • the problem of antibiotic resistance.

The study, presented by its authors to the STOA Panel in November 2016, is now available online.

During the presentation, Professor Axel Mie from the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, highlighted indications from epidemiological studies that organic food may reduce the risk of allergies and obesity, but noted the evidence is not conclusive. Animal experiments suggest that identically composed feed has a different impact on the development of animals, according to whether it comes from organic or conventional production. However, it is not currently possible to conclude from these experiments that either production system delivers the healthier food.

Professor Philippe Grandjean from the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, noted that epidemiological studies point to the negative effects of certain insecticides on children’s cognitive development at current levels of exposure. Such risks can be minimised with organic food, and by introducing non-pesticidal plant protection in conventional agriculture.

In their presentations, the authors also argued that tough restriction of antibiotics in organic animal production serves to minimise the risk of development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. In the EU, more antibiotics are used in animals than in humans, and the development of resistance presents a major public health threat.

The authors added that there are few compositional differences between organic and conventional crops. There are indications that organic crops have a lower cadmium content than conventional crops, which is highly relevant from a public health perspective, but knowledge gaps remain. On the other hand, while organic milk has a higher content of omega-3 fatty acids compared to conventional milk, the nutritional importance of this difference seems to be small. Similarly, slight differences in the content of nutrients and other beneficial compounds between organic and conventional plant foods are probably of low relevance for human health.

In conclusion, the authors highlighted that the ultimate interest should not be in the question as to whether  organic or conventional food is healthier, but rather how we can use this knowledge to shape future healthy food systems.

In addition to Professors Axel Mie and Philippe Grandjean, the full team of authors includes the following experts: Stefan Gunnarsson (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Department of Animal Environment and Health, Skara, Sweden), Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot (Research Unit on Nutritional Epidemiology (U1153 Inserm, U1125 INRA, CNAM, Université Paris 13), Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France), Johannes Kahl (University of Copenhagen, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Frederiksberg, Denmark), Ewa Rembiałkowska (Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Department of Functional & Organic Food & Commodities, Warsaw, Poland) and Helle Raun Andersen (University of Southern Denmark, Department of Public Health, Odense, Denmark).

About Scientific Foresight (STOA)

The Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) carries out interdisciplinary research and provides strategic advice in the field of science and technology options assessment and scientific foresight. It undertakes in-depth studies and organises workshops on developments in these fields, and it hosts the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH), a platform to promote networking, training and knowledge sharing between the EP, the scientific community and the media. All this work is carried out under the guidance of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA), composed of 27 MEPs nominated by 11 EP Committees. The STOA Panel forms an integral part of the structure of the EP.


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Download the EPRS App

EPRS App on Google Play
EPRS App on App Store
What Europe Does For You
EU Legislation in Progress
Topical Digests
EPRS Podcasts

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,550 other subscribers

RSS Link to Scientific Foresight (STOA)

Disclaimer and Copyright statement

The content of all documents (and articles) contained in this blog is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

For a comprehensive description of our cookie and data protection policies, please visit Terms and Conditions page.

Copyright © European Union, 2014-2019. All rights reserved.

%d bloggers like this: