research paper for organic farming

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 23 October 2017

Comparing crop rotations between organic and conventional farming

• Pietro Barbieri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3248-4487 1 ,
• Sylvain Pellerin 1 &
• Thomas Nesme 2  

Scientific Reports volume  7 , Article number:  13761 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

83 Citations

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agroecology
• Environmental sciences
• Sustainability

Cropland use activities are major drivers of global environmental changes and of farming system resilience. Rotating crops is a critical land-use driver, and a farmers’ key strategy to control environmental stresses and crop performances. Evidence has accumulated that crop rotations have been dramatically simplified over the last 50 years. In contrast, organic farming stands as an alternative production way that promotes crop diversification. However, our understanding of crop rotations is surprisingly limited. In order to understand if organic farming would result in more diversified and multifunctional landscapes, we provide here a novel, systematic comparison of organic-to-conventional crop rotations at the global scale based on a meta-analysis of the scientific literature, paired with an independent analysis of organic-to-conventional land-use. We show that organic farming leads to differences in land-use compared to conventional: overall, crop rotations are 15% longer and result in higher diversity and evener crop species distribution. These changes are driven by a higher abundance of temporary fodders, catch and cover-crops, mostly to the detriment of cereals. We also highlighted differences in organic rotations between Europe and North-America, two leading regions for organic production. This increased complexity of organic crop rotations is likely to enhance ecosystem service provisioning to agroecosystems.

Similar content being viewed by others

Changes in crop rotations would impact food production in an organically farmed world

Pietro Barbieri, Sylvain Pellerin, … Thomas Nesme

Long-term evidence for ecological intensification as a pathway to sustainable agriculture

Chloe MacLaren, Andrew Mead, … Jonathan Storkey

An increase in food production in Europe could dramatically affect farmland biodiversity

Philippe Jeanneret, Gisela Lüscher, … Felix Herzog

Introduction

Land-use activities affect a considerable fraction of the global terrestrial surface 1 , 2 and are key drivers of habitat and biodiversity loss, water use, global nutrient cycles, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration 1 . Among all land-use activities, agriculture plays a key role. Because it occupies about 40% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface - the largest single use of land on the planet 1 , 3 , agriculture contributes to the large appropriation of net primary production by human societies at the global scale 4 . Farming has a tremendous impact on the Earth’s functioning 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and a large body of literature has shown that current agricultural practices and related land-use activities are dominant forces that are driving the planet beyond its safe operating space 9 .

Cropland-use activities are largely driven by crop rotations 10 . Rotating crops in diverse and complex patterns is one of the oldest agronomic approaches used by farmers to control nutrient and water balances, weed, pest and disease infestations and risk exposure, and to improve system resilience as well as to fulfill human and livestock food and feed needs 11 , 12 . Because they have a significant impact on agroecosystem functioning as well as on the economic and environmental consequences and performances of cropping systems, diversified rotations are essential to design more sustainable agricultural systems 13 . However, crop rotations have been dramatically simplified over the past 50 years (e.g., through the reduced number of crop species in crop rotations and the increased proportion of land farmed under monoculture) 14 , 15 due to the advent of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides 16 and to the increased disconnection between crop and livestock production 17 . This decrease in the number of crop species in arable rotations has resulted in simplified land-use patterns in modern farming systems, reaching levels that jeopardize the provision of ecosystem services via agroecosystems 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 .

Organic farming represents a promising attempt at reconciling food production with environmental protection and multiple ecosystem service delivery 22 , 23 . Because synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are banned by organic guidelines, rotations are supposed to assume a strategic role in organic production systems. In particular, it is generally supposed that more complex and diversified rotations are adopted in organic systems to sustain crop yields by providing alternative levers for pest control and nutrient management. However, beyond specific local studies, it has never been demonstrated and systematically quantified whether or not crop rotations are more complex in organic farming than in conventional (i.e., non-organic) farming. More generally, because very little systematic data is available about organic rotations, it has never been established to what extent crop rotations and resulting land-use differ between organic and conventional farming. Yet, such knowledge would be critical to assess whether or not organic farming expansion would result in more diversified and multifunctional landscapes than conventional farming. Better understanding of organic crop rotations and land-use composition is also a key – and currently lacking - component to assess the capacity of organic farming to feed the planet 20 , 24 , 25 .

Data on crop rotations are scarce, highly dispersed and poorly unified, mostly due to the lack of global datasets. Knowledge gaps are especially large when addressing developing countries and organic systems 26 . Crop rotation data are most commonly collected by farm surveys, experimental plots 27 and field maps 28 , and are therefore difficult to retrieve at large spatial scales. Remote sensing has been attempted to collect land-use intensity, i.e., cropping frequency and short crop rotation, but only at the regional scale 29 , 30 , 31 . To overcome these difficulties, we developed a global database using a meta-analysis approach by collecting data on the composition of crop rotations (i.e. regardless of the temporal sequence of crops within rotations) from the scientific literature about organic vs. conventional farming performances. Our database is composed of data from 77 publications with information about 238 unique rotations and covering 26 countries worldwide (Supplementary Fig.  S1 ). We supplemented this analysis by constructing a database on organic and conventional global land-use using data from FAOSTAT and FiBL (see Methods section). This second database provided information about organic vs. conventional crop areas for a series of six annual crop categories at the national scale for 50 countries on five continents. Even if the direct comparison of the two datasets has some limitations –because the rotation dataset assesses temporal crop diversity at the field scale, whereas the land-use dataset assesses spatial diversity at the national scale– pairing these two data sources helps to estimate how results from local-scale studies translate into large scale census. By analyzing this rotational database, complemented by the land-use information, we aimed to (i) estimate to what extent rotations differ between organic and conventional farming; (ii) investigate whether such differences vary in different global regions; and (iii) verify whether global land-use data were consistent with the rotation results. This study focuses on temporary arable crops (excluding perennial and permanent crops and fodders) that together provide the bulk of calories and proteins to humans and livestock animals and that cover 70 and 92% of the global cropland area in organic and conventional farming, respectively.

Organic rotations are more diversified than their conventional counterparts

Our results showed that rotations are more diversified in organic than in conventional farming. On average at the global scale, we found that organic rotations last for 4.5 ± 1.7 years, which is 0.7 years or 15% more than their conventional counterparts, and include 48% more crop categories (Fig.  1 ), thus resulting in higher crop diversity over space, as well as over time (assessed by the Shannon diversity index). This result is in great part due to the higher abundance of catch (defined as any non-harvested cover crop or green manure between two main crops) and undersown cover crops. Our results also showed that organic farming exhibits a more even distribution of the different crop categories (higher Equitability Index in Fig.  1 ), even if differences between production systems are not significant. In contrast, conventional rotations have a lower diversity, especially in the global region “Others”, i.e., in tropical and subtropical countries. However, the land-use dataset did not confirm the higher diversity of organic systems. In fact, land-use tends to be slightly less diverse in organic systems than in their conventional counterparts, in particular for the global tropical and sub-tropical ‘Others’ region. We found similar results for the equitability of crop categories, although most differences were not significant (Fig.  1 ). This result might be because the land-use dataset does not contain information on some crop categories, i.e., fodders, catch crops, etc., that contribute to the higher diversity in the rotation dataset. Additionally, especially in the tropics, organic farming is strongly focused on a few export commodities such as vegetables, permanent crops, spices and fruits 32 . Such specialization on a small set of permanent crops might explain the discrepancy between the two datasets when focusing on arable farming systems only.

Average ( ± standard error of the mean) rotation length [in years], total number of crop categories in organic (green), and conventional (orange) rotations and land-use, as well as the Shannon Index (H) and the Equitability Index (EH) calculated at the global scale and by global region using the rotation and the land-use datasets. H and EH are calculated based on the timeshare of each crop in the rotation (for the rotation dataset), or based on the relative harvested area of each crop category (for the land-use dataset). The total number of crop categories considered was n = 11 in the rotation dataset and n = 6 in the land-use dataset. **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; † P < 0.1.

Organic and conventional rotations have different crop compositions

We found that the composition of rotations significantly differed between farming systems (Table  S1 ). Organic rotations are composed of primary cereals (i.e. wheat, maize and rice; 29 ± 2% of the rotation length), secondary cereals (i.e. spelt, barley, rye, triticale, oat, sorghum, millet and pseudocereals; 17 ± 2%), pulses (15 ± 2%) and temporary fodders (24 ± 2%), whereas the remaining 15% is shared among oilseeds, root crops, industrial crops and vegetables (Fig.  S2 ). Our results also showed that catch crops and undersown cover crops are 2.4 and 8.7 times more frequent in organic systems compared to conventional systems, respectively, even though their total number in rotations remains low. These rotation characteristics based on our meta-analysis dataset were in good agreement with the land-use data. The latter confirmed that cereals (primary and secondary) compose the greatest fraction of organic cropland use (up to 61 ± 4%) and showed that the share of grain pulses was similar in the two datasets, even though the land-use share of oil crops and vegetables was higher than the rotation dataset (Fig.  S2 ).

At the global scale, organic rotations have fewer cereals and more temporary fodders

Our analysis showed that organic rotations have a 10% lower abundance of cereals compared to their conventional counterparts at the global scale (Fig.  2 ). This result was due to a marked decrease in primary cereal species, wheat, maize and rice (that were 1.38 times less abundant in organic rotations), although secondary cereals such as barley, rye and oats exhibited a slight increase of 1.19 times in organic rotations (Fig.  2 ). We also found a higher frequency (4.3 times) of cereal intercropping with legume crops than in conventional systems. In addition, we found that organic rotations have 2.8 times more temporary fodder crops (such as alfalfa, clover, clover-grass, Italian ryegrass, etc.) than conventional systems (Fig.  2 ), which generally occupy land for an entire year. An important share of organic rotations is also dedicated to catch and undersown cover crops, which are 3.2 and 12.1 times more abundant than in conventional rotations, respectively. These results represent critical information about organic systems since most land-use datasets about croplands critically lack data on temporary fodders and non-harvested crops such as cover or catch crops. We also found that, at the global scale, grain pulses (e.g., soybean, beans and peas) are slightly more abundant in organic rotations although the difference was not statistically significant (Table  S1 ). Finally, we found that organic rotations include slightly less oilseed and root crops (Fig.  2 ). These results from the meta-analysis of the scientific literature were confirmed by the global land-use data, which showed 16% lower frequency of cereals in organic compared to conventional systems at the global scale (Fig.  3 ) (although additional details about primary vs. secondary cereals and intercropping were not available in the land-use datasets). The land-use dataset also confirmed that grain pulses are slightly more abundant, while oilseed and root crops are slightly less abundant in organic farming compared to conventional farming (Fig.  3 ).

Difference (organic minus conventional, ± standard error of the mean) in crop categories between organic and conventional rotations at the global scale and by global regions (in % of the total rotation length) based on the rotation dataset. The cereal total is the sum of all cereal categories. The shaded sub-categories – ‘Primary cereal’, ‘Secondary cereal’ and ‘Cereal/Pulse’ - refer to primary cereals (wheat, rice, maize), secondary cereals (spelt, barley, rye, triticale, oat, sorghum, millet and pseudocereals), and cereals intercropped with a pulse, respectively. ‘Fodder’ crops refer to temporary fodder crops (such as alfalfa, clover and ryegrass). Number of observations (organic; conventional): Global (127; 111), Europe (53; 46), North America (63; 54), Others (11; 11). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

Difference (organic minus conventional, ± standard error of the mean) in crop categories between organic and conventional land-use at the global scale and by global region (in % of harvested area under each crop category in relation to the total cropland area farmed organically or conventionally, respectively) based on the land-use dataset. Number of countries: Global (50), Europe (29), North America (2), Others (19). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05; † P < 0.1.

Organic rotations have more nitrogen-fixing crops

Although organic rotations do not significantly exhibit a higher share of grain pulses at the global scale (Fig.  2 ), our results showed that nitrogen-fixing crops are more abundant in organic farming than in conventional farming. This is due to temporary fodder compositions (Fig.  4 ) that include more legumes than their conventional counterparts. It is also due to catch and undersown cover crops that are both more frequent and are more often composed of nitrogen-fixing species than in conventional systems (Fig.  4 ), as well as to the higher frequency of cereal intercropping with legume crops. When combined with a simple estimation of the amount of nitrogen (N) fixed by these leguminous crops, we estimate that, overall, leguminous grain pulses, fodders, catch and undersown cover crops provide 2.6 times more nitrogen to soils farmed organically than they do in conventional rotations. Unfortunately, these crop types have not been tracked in the land-use datasets, making it difficult to assess how representative the results from our meta-analysis are for the crops grown on actual organic vs. conventional farms.

Above : Average differences (organic minus conventional, ± standard error of the mean) between the organic and conventional share of fodders, catch and undersown cover crops (in % of the total rotation length) at the global scale and by global region. Below : Contribution of grass, mixed (any intercropping of legume and grass) and legume species to temporary fodders, catch crops and undersown cover crop compositions in organic and conventional rotations at the global scale and by global region. Number of observations (organic; conventional): Global (127; 111), Europe (53; 46), North America (63; 54), Others (11; 11). ***P < 0.001; **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

These differences vary among global regions

Beyond the differences highlighted between organic and conventional farming at the global scale, our study also revealed that these differences strongly vary according to the global regions (Tables  S1 , S2 ). For example, we found that cereals were far less abundant in European organic rotations compared to conventional farming, while the difference was much smaller and nuanced in North America (Figs  2 , 3 ). This was due to different behaviors for primary vs. secondary cereals on the two continents: European organic rotations exhibited lower abundance (compared to conventional farming) of both primary and secondary cereals, while secondary cereals were more abundant in North America (Fig.  2 ). The difference among continents was even more striking regarding pulses: while grain pulses were 65% more abundant in organic rotations and land-use in Europe, we found a 13% lower frequency for these crops in North America. This result is probably due to strong differences in the frequency of these crops in conventional farming – low in Europe, high in North America - largely explained by greater and more stable yield performances of grain pulses in North America and due to difference in both public and economic policies 33 .

Despite their key role in cropping system performances, crop rotations lack systematic analysis in the scientific literature. Our study made it possible to address part of this knowledge gap by comparing organic vs. conventional rotations. In particular, our meta-analysis approach allowed to retrieve systematic information on rotations from a large body of scientific papers and reports. In addition, the comparative approach adopted in this study, which also included an assessment of organic vs. conventional land-use in different crop types at the national scale, was essential to provide information on both organic and conventional production and to highlight system differences between organic and conventional farms. Importantly, our results emphasized the role of temporary fodders, catch and undersown cover crops in organic systems - crops that are typically not included in national land-use databases on organic or conventional agriculture 34 , 35 . This specific information is of great importance since these non-harvested crops often play critical and multifunctional roles in both organic and conventional farming.

However, our study has some limitations. Firstly, rotation data are difficult to identify based on abstract screening of publications since crop rotations are typically not the focus of a study and information about crop rotations is generally presented in the Materials and Methods section. Some data may therefore have been discarded during our literature search. Secondly, scientific papers mainly report information from experimental field trials, which are not necessarily representative of real farming rotations 36 . In our dataset, 88% of rotations was derived from experimental data, whereas the remaining 12% was derived from on-farm data. Experimental scientific studies today are often focused on crop species that are difficult to manage organically (such as cereals and oilseeds), and cereal-based rotations may therefore be overrepresented. Additionally, the choice of crops within experimental studies may reflect that trials are often carried out in situations where the use of grazing livestock is restricted. Studies addressing a better characterization of real organic farm rotations are clearly necessary. Thirdly, most studies included in our analysis were carried out in North America and Europe, while developing and emergent countries are poorly represented (Fig.  S1 ). Additional studies are particularly required in tropical regions where a large proportion of the organic land area and the majority of organic producers are located 36 . Our parallel analysis based on land-use data made it possible to at least partly address these problems since it allowed to include information on the crop types grown in the countries under-represented in the meta-analysis dataset. However, the comparison of the two datasets is not straightforward. Indeed, while most rotation data were extracted from agronomic papers aiming at comparing cropping systems that were designed based on sound agronomic knowledge and that were possibly designed to test new cropping systems, land-use developed by farmers may be driven by non-agronomic drivers, e.g., economic factors. In addition, the rotation dataset provides temporal data from small-scale studies whereas the land-use dataset brings spatial results about the global crop area. Yet, making the parallel between the two datasets is unique to estimate how local results translate into global, spatial census. Despite all the above-mentioned shortcomings, our analysis represents an important – and to our knowledge, pioneering - step in the characterization of organic farming system land-use patterns.

The deep differences in rotations and land-use that we found between organic and conventional production systems are in line with many organic principles and regulations that often require diverse crop rotations 37 . Our analysis showed that organic systems represent more diversified farming systems with a higher diversity and evenness of crop categories than conventional systems, and with longer rotations. These more diversified systems are associated with multiple benefits 38 . More diverse crop rotations are important management tools for controlling weeds, pests and diseases by creating biotic barriers and interrupting their cycles without the use of synthetic pesticides 38 , 39 , 40 . Additionally, the fact that we found organic rotations to be longer and more diversified than their conventional counterparts indicates that organic systems are likely to be more resilient to abiotic stresses 41 as well, by especially being more capable of buffering the effect of climate stresses such as increased temperature and rainfall variability 42 . Altogether, these diversification strategies are likely to result in the improved provisioning of ecosystem services to both agroecosystems and the wider environment 21 , 43 . Specifically, enhanced diversification and the resulting service provisioning may help to narrow the yield gap between organic and conventional farming systems, as suggested by Ponisio et al . 44 who found lower gaps when diversification practices such as intercropping and diversified crop rotations were implemented in organic systems but not in conventional systems. Adopting strategies to narrow the organic-to-conventional yield gap can therefore have the co-benefit of reducing the loss of biodiversity often associated with conventional cropping systems. More diversified agricultural systems could also potentially result in positive impacts on global food security since a higher diversification of food commodities provides more micronutrients than production systems with less diversity 45 . Indeed, this higher diversification might also be due to how organic crop rotation might have been affected by the legislative development of organic farming, especially trough public subsidies to certain areas and crop types.

The differences in rotations and land-use that we found between organic and conventional production systems show that organic systems have been designed to satisfy the fertilization requirements determined by the different organic principles and regulations. Indeed, meeting crop nutrient demand, in particular for nitrogen, by appropriate and ‘organic-compatible’ practices is a key lever to close the organic-to-conventional yield gap 44 , 46 . The greater abundance of nitrogen-fixing crop species found in organic rotations reflects the multifunctional role played by temporary fodders to achieve organic principles, not only to control pests but to fix N in soils as well 47 . In particular, the fact that we very frequently observed the use of legume and mixed legume-grass fodders in organic systems means that cropping practices have been designed to compensate for the lower external supply of N to crops due to the prohibition of synthetic N fertilizers under organic management. Our analysis also showed that this greater use of leguminous fodders is accompanied by a lower frequency of grain pulses found in organic rotations. Such a choice is agronomically sound because temporary fodders provide additional services besides N fertilization (weed control, disease break crop, carbon sequestration in soils, feed production, etc.) 47 and because the occurrence of several pulse crops in a short timespan can favor problematic diseases such as anthracnose and downy mildew 48 . Additionally, organic farms are often mixed farms (especially in Europe), and the greater use of fodders is also in line with the need to produce animal feed within the region, as required, for example, by European organic regulations 49 . Finally, the greater use of catch and undersown cover crops found in organic systems suggests that farmers have adopted agronomic strategies to limit N leaching– a problem due to difficulties in synchronizing fertilization practices and crop nutrient uptake 50 , 51 - and soil erosion, and to compensate for the high economic cost of external organic N sources.

Finally, this analysis of organic rotation and land-use analysis, although limited by the availability of data at the global scale, represents a necessary step to conduct organic vs. conventional comparisons at the cropping system rather than at the crop level 52 , 53 . This step is important because estimating the crop production capacity of organic agriculture requires consideration of whole production systems and not just individual crop species 53 . A better understanding of organic crop rotations is also important to estimate the crop nutrient requirements and ecosystem service provisioning that would result from the expansion of organic farming. The differences in crop rotations under organic management that we observed in our study would result in drastic modifications of crop nutrient requirements and services provided by agricultural landscapes, as well as in possible imbalances in human vs. animal needs due to the strong differences in the crop categories produced. However, these changes have been poorly captured so far in prospective studies that assess food security in organic production scenarios at large scales. Such changes are indeed more complex than a simple increase in N-fixing crops, a parameter that is supposed to encompass all land-use changes when modeling conversion to organic agriculture up until now 24 , 54 . More detailed information about temporary fodders at the global scale and by global region is necessary to better assess food and feed provisioning over the entire organic cropping system 46 , 52 , 53 . This is because longer rotations that include more fodder crops might undermine food provisioning by competing with grain crop species on the one hand, and have strong consequences for the livestock sector on the other hand. By alleviating these caveats, our results provide a foundation to build more realistic hypotheses about land-use change and to improve future models to assess the contribution of organic farming to feed the planet.

In summary, to our knowledge, this study represents the first comparative analysis of organic vs. conventional rotations at the global scale. The results of our analysis clearly revealed that the ban of synthetic inputs in organic production forced organic rotations to adopt major changes compared to their conventional counterparts: increased rotation length, higher crop diversity, more frequent temporary fodders, nitrogen-fixing crops and intercropping. The increased complexity and diversity of crop rotations that result from the conversion to organic farming is likely to provide strong environmental benefits and enhanced ecosystem services. Such information is of key importance to guide the conversion to organic farming as a way to achieve global food security without compromising the protection of the environment.

Materials and Methods

Rotation dataset, literature search and publication screening.

We collected the data on organic vs. conventional rotations through both an original literature search and the reuse of existing databases on similar topics. The original literature search was undertaken using the ‘Web of Science’ portal. We used a complex Boolean search containing (i) the term ecological , biological or organic next to (ii) the term farming , agriculture , cropping or production , in combination with (iii) the term rotation , comparison or conventional . The last search was conducted on October 28, 2016, turning up 431 papers. In addition to this literature search, we retrieved the databases referenced by Seufert et al . 46 , De Ponti et al . 52 , and Ponisio et al . 44 about organic vs. conventional crop yields. These databases accounted for an additional 264 publications, leading to a total of 695 papers.

The abstracts of these 695 initially retrieved papers were first screened to verify whether crop rotation data were actually present, resulting in the selection of 301 records. These 301 papers were further screened by checking if (i) they provided different organic and conventional treatments, i.e. if equal rotation were reported, the study was discarded, (ii) they reported complete rotation schemes, and (iii) the organic treatment was either certified organic or in line with the definition of organic agriculture given in the Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) 55 . Papers’ methods that provide equal rotations in both conventional and organic cropping systems may -in most cases- be interpreted as a choice to attenuate the difference between the two farming systems, since they might focus on different parameters but the rotation itself. We also excluded multiple publications reporting on the same trials to avoid double counting. Publications reporting rotations in multiple countries were considered as different entries, using the country as the discriminating criterion. As suggested by De Ponti et al . 52 , data prior to 1985 were not included because they were considered outdated, with the exception of long-term trials. Following such criteria, the screening yielded only 77 publications for further analysis, including 238 unique rotations covering 26 countries worldwide (Fig.  S3 ). The majority of data came from Europe (42%) and North America (49%). The complete list of studies is provided in the Supplementary Table  S3 .

Data extraction

Information on rotation length, number of crops, catch and undersown cover crops were recorded from each publication, regardless of their temporal sequence in the rotation. We defined as crop any crop species that stands on a field over a cropping season, with a duration of maximum one year. Therefore, if several crop species were grown simultaneously on the same field in the same year, only the main crop was considered (with the exception of cereals intercropped with pulses and temporary fodders that were recorded as such). We also recorded information on non-harvested crops. To derive the total number of crop species present in each rotation (proxy for crop species diversity), we counted only the net number of crops (e.g., if one crop species was present for two or more years in the rotation, it was counted as just one). We also counted the real number of crops to estimate the timeshare of each crop category in the rotation. For instance, if one crop species was present for two years in the rotation, we counted it as one to derive the total number of crop species in the rotation (proxy for crop species diversity), but we counted it as 2 in order to calculate the timeshare of such crop in the rotation. We defined as undersown cover crop any relay intercropped species, and as catch crop any green manure or winter catch crop. Crops were then classified according to the following crop categories: (i) primary cereals (wheat, rice, maize); (ii) secondary cereals (spelt, barley, rye, triticale, oat, sorghum, millet and pseudocereals); (iii) intercropped cereals with pulses; (iv) pulses (including soybeans); (v) oilseeds; (vi) root crops (potato, sugar beets, cassava, sweet potato); (vii) industrial crops (flax, tobacco); and (viii) temporary fodders. For temporary fodders, catch crops and undersown cover crops, we recorded whether the corresponding species was a legume, a grass or a mixture of the two (e.g., clover-grass mixture). For each rotation, the time share of each crop category was calculated by dividing the number of crops in each crop category by the total rotation length. Finally, the location of each study was retrieved through the country in which the study took place. Countries were grouped according to three main global regions: Europe, North America and Others (Fig.  S1 ). Countries other than European and North American were grouped into one single region due to the low number of data retrieved in such countries (n = 22, 9% of the dataset), in order to obtain balanced data groups for the statistical analysis. Overall, the number of organic rotations was slightly higher than the conventional one (53% and 47%, respectively). This is because some studies reported one conventional rotation compared to two, or more, organic rotations.

We estimated the nitrogen fixed by pulses, temporary fodders, catch and undersown cover crops by assigning a leguminous species to each crop category (i.e., pea for pulses, alfalfa for fodders and vetch for catch and cover crops) and using the model of Høgh-Jensen 56 . Calculations were computed considering a field size of 1 ha.

Land-use dataset

We created an original database on organic vs. conventional land-use by collecting country-level statistical data from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL, Switzerland) 34 for organic agricultural land-use and from FAOSTAT 35 for conventional agricultural land-use, for the years 2010–2014. Since the original structure of the two databases differed, datasets were restructured in order to allow data comparability of arable crop categories. To do so, land-use data, i.e., the harvested area for each crop category, were expressed according to the following crop categories: cereals (primary and secondary), pulses (including soybeans), oilseeds, root crops, industrial crops and vegetables. No information on organic temporary fodders was available in either of the databases. Hence, we could not compare the two systems’ land-use based on this specific crop category. Information at the crop species level in the FiBL database was not detailed enough to run an analysis at that level.

The data about land-use under conventional agriculture were retrieved by subtracting the area under organic farming (provided by FiBL) from the data on arable land-use provided by FAOSTAT for each country. The across-years land-use average was calculated and used for further analysis. For each country and production system (organic and conventional), the land-use share of each crop category was calculated as the area under the specific crop category divided by the cropland area under the total number of crop categories considered. The data were filtered by removing countries for which the share of organic area was lower than 0.5% of the total agricultural area. Overall, land-use from 50 countries were compared. European and North America countries represent 62% of the dataset, followed by Asian (16%), Latin American (10%), African (10%) and Oceanian (2%) countries. Countries were grouped according to the same three global regions defined for the rotation dataset (i.e., Europe, North America and Others) to facilitate comparisons of datasets as much as possible. Nevertheless, the region “Others” was not directly comparable between the two datasets since the composition of the countries was slightly different.

Statistical analysis

We examined richness and diversity of organic and conventional rotations and land-use by using Shannon’s diversity and equitability indices. Shannon’s diversity index (H, Eq.  1 ) helped to assess the relative abundance of crop categories, providing an indication about species diversity, while the Equitability index (E H , Eq.  2 ) helped to assess whether the different crop categories have an even share in both rotations and land-use. The two indices were calculated as follows:

where p i represents the proportion of crop category i

where S is the total number of crop categories.The data expressed as counts (i.e., rotation length, total number of crops and number of catch and undersown cover crops) were analyzed using a Generalized Mixed Model following a Poisson distribution. The production system (organic vs. conventional), global region and their interaction were included as fixed factors. The ‘study’ was included as a random effect to account for possible “study effects” and data overdispersion.

The data expressed as percentages (i.e., share of the different crop categories in each rotation and land-use) were analyzed using a Permutational Analysis of Variance (non-parametric MANOVA) with distance matrices to test the null hypothesis of no difference between production systems, global regions and their interactions. This made it possible to partition distance matrices among sources of variation and to fit a linear model to the different matrices. The partial R-squared (r 2 ) obtained indicates the percentage of variance that is explained by the factors. The significance of each explanatory variable was computed from F-tests based on sequential sums of squares from permutations of the raw data 57 . The analysis was run using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index, and the number of permutations to compute the significance tests was set to 999. We tested the differences in the share of each crop category between production systems, global regions and their interactions using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by a post-hock pairwise Dunn test.

Differences between production systems in terms of Shannon diversity were tested by using a Linear Mixed Model (production system as the fixed factor; studies’ number as a random effect to account for possible “study effects”), and a Linear Model (production system as the fixed factor), respectively, for the rotation and the land-use datasets, followed by a classical analysis of variance. Normality of data was verified through a Shapiro-Wilk test and residual check plots. The equitability indices were far from being normally distributed and their differences between organic vs. conventional systems were therefore tested using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. We calculate the Shannon and the equitability indices using both all the data across the 4-year period and the across-year average. Since we did not find any effect due to the variation over time, we finally kept the calculation done using the across-year average.

All the analyses were performed in R Open 3.3.2 (MRAN 2016), using the “lme4” package for mixed models 58 , the “rcompanion” package for non-parametric models 59 , the “FSA” package to evaluate the significance of the effects 60 , and the “vegan” package for descriptive community ecology 61 .

Data availability

The authors declare that the main data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Information files. Extra data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Foley, J. A. et al . Global consequences of land use. Science 309 , 570–574 (2005).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Foley, J. A. et al . Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22 , 1–19 (2008).

Google Scholar  

Haberl, H. et al . Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 , 12942–12947 (2007).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science. 304 , 1623–1627 (2004).

Hertel, T. W. et al . Effects of US Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated Responses. Bioscience 60 , 223–231 (2010).

Article   Google Scholar  

Lambin, E. F. & Meyfroidt, P. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 , 3465–3472 (2011).

Tubiello, F. N. et al . The Contribution of Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use activities to Global Warming, 1990–2012. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21 , 2655–2660 (2015).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Steffen, W. et al . Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 , 1259855 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wibberley, J. A brief history of rotations, economic considerations and future directions. Asp. Appl. Biol (1996).

Castellazzi, M. S. et al . A systematic representation of crop rotations. Agric. Syst. 97 , 26–33 (2008).

Chongtham, I. R. et al . Factors influencing crop rotation strategies on organic farms with different time periods since conversion to organic production. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 33 , 14–27 (2016).

Schönhart, M., Schmid, E. & Schneider, U. A. CropRota - A crop rotation model to support integrated land use assessments. Eur. J. Agron. 34 , 263–277 (2011).

Plourde, J. D., Pijanowski, B. C. & Pekin, B. K. Evidence for increased monoculture cropping in the Central United States. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 165 , 50–59 (2013).

Hijmans, R. J., Choe, H. & Perlman, J. Spatiotemporal Patterns of Field Crop Diversity in the United States, 1870–2012. Agric. Environ. Lett. 1 , 160022 (2016).

Tuck, S. L. et al . Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: A hierarchical meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 51 , 746–755 (2014).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Matson, P., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. & Swift, M. J. Agricultural Intensification and Ecosystem Properties. Science 277 , 504–509 (1997).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418 , 671–7 (2002).

Sahajpal, R., Zhang, X., Izaurralde, R. C., Gelfand, I. & Hurtt, G. C. Identifying representative crop rotation patterns and grassland loss in the US Western Corn Belt. Comput. Electron. Agric. 108 , 173–182 (2014).

Erb, K. et al . Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun . 7 , (2016).

Lamy, T., Liss, K. N., Gonzalez, A. & Bennet, E. M. Landscape structure affects the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 124017 (2016).

De Schutter, O. ‘Agroecology and the Right to Food’, Report presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49] (2011).

Reganold, J. P. & Wachter, J. M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2 , 15221 (2016).

Badgley, M. C. et al . Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22 , 86–108 (2007).

Connor, D. Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. F. Crop. Res. 106 , 187–190 (2008).

Kuemmerle, T. et al . Challenges and opportunities in mapping land use intensity globally. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 , 484–493 (2013).

Lorenz, M., Fürst, C. & Thiel, E. A methodological approach for deriving regional crop rotations as basis for the assessment of the impact of agricultural strategies using soil erosion as example. J. Environ. Manage. 127 , 37–47 (2013).

Castellazzi, M. S. et al . New measures and tests of temporal and spatial pattern of crops in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. 1 Environ. 118 , 339–349 (2007).

Spera, S. A. et al . Recent cropping frequency, expansion, and abandonment in Mato Grosso, Brazil had selective land characteristics. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 , 1–12 (2014).

le Maire, G., Dupuy, S., Nouvellon, Y., Loos, R. A. & Hakamada, R. Mapping short-rotation plantations at regional scale using MODIS time series: Case of eucalypt plantations in Brazil. Remote Sens. Environ. 152 , 136–149 (2014).

Estel, S., Kuemmerle, T., Levers, C., Baumann, M. & Hostert, P. Mapping cropland-use intensity across Europe using MODIS NDVI time series. Environ. Res. Lett. 11 , 24015 (2016).

Willer, H. & Lernoud, J. The World of Organic Agriculture . Statistics and Emerging Trends 2017 . (2017).

Cernay, C., Ben-Ari, T., Pelzer, E., Meynard, J.-M. & Makowski, D. Estimating variability in grain legume yields across Europe and the Americas. Sci. Rep. 5 , 11171 (2015).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

FiBL. Data on organic agriculture 2005–2013. The Organic-World.net website maintained by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. at http://www.organic-world.net/statistics/ (2015).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Statistics Database. at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (2016).

Seufert, V. & Ramankutty, N. Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3 , e1602638 (2017).

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Mayerhofer, T. What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy 68 , 10–20 (2017).

Kremen, C., Iles, A. & Bacon, C. Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc . 17 , (2012).

Poveda, K., Gomez, M. & Martinez, E. Diversification practices: their effect on pest regulation and production. Rev. Colomb. Entomol. 34 , 131–144 (2008).

Rusch, A., Bommarco, R., Jonsson, M., Smith, H. G. & Ekbom, B. Flow and stability of natural pest control services depend on complexity and crop rotation at the landscape scale. J. Appl. Ecol. 50 , 345–354 (2013).

Borron, S. Building resilience for an unpredictable future: how organic agriculture can help farmers adapt to climate change. Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, Rome (2006).

Lin, B. B. Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. Bioscience 61 , 183–193 (2011).

Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., Cullen, R. & Case, B. The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol. Econ. 64 , 835–848 (2008).

Ponisio, L. C. et al . Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B 282 , 1–7 (2015).

Herrero, M. et al . Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet Heal. 1 , 33–42 (2017).

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485 , 229–232 (2012).

Lampkin, N. Organic Farmin g (1990).

Baldoni, R. & Giardini, L. Coltivazioni erbacee - cereali e proteaginose (Patron Editore, 2000).

European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. Official Journal of the European Union (2008).

Pang, X. P. & Letey, J. Organic Farming: Challenge of Timing Nitrogen Availability to Crop Nitrogen Requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64 , 247–253 (2000).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Askegaard, M., Olesen, J. E. & Kristensen, K. Nitrate leaching from organic arable crop rotations: effects of location, manure and catch crop. Soil Use Manag. 21 , 181–188 (2005).

De Ponti, T., Rijk, B. & Van Ittersum, M. K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 108 , 1–9 (2012).

Connor, D. J. Organically grown crops do not a cropping system make and nor can organic agriculture nearly feed the world. F. Crop. Res. 144 , 145–147 (2013).

Schader, C. et al . Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J. R. Soc. Interface 12 , (2015).

IFOAM. The IFOAM Norms Organic Production Processing. International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement version 20 , 1–252 (2014).

Høgh-Jensen, H., Loges, R., Jørgensen, F. V., Vinther, F. P. & Jensen, E. S. An empirical model for quantification of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in grass-clover mixtures. Agric. Syst. 82 , 181–194 (2004).

Anderson, M. J. A new method for non parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol. 26 , 32–46 (2001).

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bates, D., Maechler Martin & Walker, S. Package ‘lme4’: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. CRAN Repos . 1–113 (2016).

Mangiafico, S. Package ‘rcompanion’. CRAN Repos . 1–71 (2017).

Ogle, D. Package ‘FSA’. CRAN Repos . 1–206 (2017).

Oksanen, J. et al . Package ‘vegan’ | Community Ecology Package. CRAN Repos . 1–292 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the authors of the 77 studies whose extensive field work provided the data for this analysis. We would like to thank FiBL colleagues Helga Willer and Julia Lernoud for providing land-use data, Verena Seufert for providing part of the literature database and for valuable discussion and feedback on the manuscript, Gail Wagman for improving the English, and Laurent Augusto, David Makowski, Laura Armengot, Adrien Rusch and Maya Gonzalez for help with the statistical analysis. We are also grateful to the anonymous Reviewers and Editor for their valuable comments. This work was funded by the Bordeaux Sciences Agro School and INRA’s GloFoodS metaprogramme.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

INRA, UMR 1391 ISPA, CS 20032, 33882, Villenave d’Ornon, France

Pietro Barbieri & Sylvain Pellerin

Bordeaux Science Agro, Univ. Bordeaux, UMR 1391 ISPA, CS 40201, 33175, Gradignan Cedex, France

• Thomas Nesme

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

P.B., T.N. and S.P. designed the study; P.B. collected the data and performed the statistical analysis; all authors were involved in the interpretation of results and contributed to writing and revising the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pietro Barbieri .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary tables and figures, crop rotation dataset, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Barbieri, P., Pellerin, S. & Nesme, T. Comparing crop rotations between organic and conventional farming. Sci Rep 7 , 13761 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14271-6

Download citation

Received : 06 June 2017

Accepted : 06 October 2017

Published : 23 October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14271-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Improving agri-environmental schemes: suggestions from farmers and nature managers in a central european region.

• Manuela Zindler
• Maria Haensel
• Thomas Koellner

Environmental Management (2024)

Soil organic carbon stocks potentially at risk of decline with organic farming expansion

• Ulysse Gaudaré
• Matthias Kuhnert

Nature Climate Change (2023)

Economic assessment of rice farmers’ climate change adaptation options and their sustainability: a case of Pabna district, Bangladesh

• Sunita Rani Das
• Farjana Eyasmin
• Bikash Chandra Ghosh

SN Business & Economics (2023)

The reflection of principles and values in worldwide organic agricultural research viewed through a crop diversification lens. A bibliometric review

• Pierre Chopin
• Alexander Menegat
• Christine A Watson

Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2023)

Use of Mulches in Various Tillage Conditions Reduces the Greenhouse Gas Emission—an Overview

• Syed Tanveer Shah
• Abdul Basit
• Ayesha Sohrab

Gesunde Pflanzen (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Advertisement

Environmental impacts of organic agriculture and the controversial scientific debates

• Original research paper
• Open access
• Published: 10 February 2022
• Volume 12 , pages 1–15, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Emil Debuschewitz 1 &
• Jürn Sanders 1  

6953 Accesses

8 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The environmental impacts of organic agriculture have been controversially discussed in the scientific community for many years. There are still conflicting views on how far organic agriculture can help address environmental and resource challenges, and whether its promotion is an appropriate policy approach to solving existing socioecological problems. So far, no clear perspective on these questions has been established. How can this be explained? And is there a “lock-in” of the scientific discourse? The aim of this paper is to retrace the scientific discourse on this topic and to derive possible explanations as to why environmental impacts of organic agriculture continue to be assessed differently. To this end, a qualitative content analysis was conducted with a sample of n = 93 scientific publications. In addition, expert interviews were conducted to verify the results of the literature analysis. Two main lines of discussion were identified: first, the extent to which aspects of food security should be included in the assessment of environmental aspects (thematic frame); second, the extent to which net environmental impacts or possible leakage effects because of lower yield levels should be considered (spatial frame). It is concluded that the polarizing debate mainly results from the often-binary initial question (is organic agriculture superior to conventional agriculture?). Further, aspects that have been insufficiently illuminated so far, such as the choice of reference units or normative basic assumptions in scientific sustainability assessments, should be given greater consideration in the discourse.

Similar content being viewed by others

Seven myths of organic agriculture and food research

Bernhard Freyer, Jim Bingen & Valentin Fiala

The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification: a review

Alexander Wezel, Gizachew Soboksa, … Apolline Boissau

The reflection of principles and values in worldwide organic agricultural research viewed through a crop diversification lens. A bibliometric review

Pierre Chopin, Alexander Menegat, … Christine A Watson

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Organic agriculture (OA) is considered a particularly environmentally friendly way of farming based on the interconnected principles of health, ecology, fairness, and care (IFOAM 2021 ). Especially in the European Union (EU), policymakers have therefore advocated an expansion of the area under organic management. In Germany, for example, a growth target was set in 2001: the aim is to achieve a 20% share of organically managed land (BMEL 2019 ). More recently, the EU Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy has called for at least 25% of agricultural land in the EU to be farmed organically by 2030, in view of the expected positive environmental and resource-related effects (European Commission 2020 ).

The political support of OA and its advantages in environmental protection have been the subject of intense political and scientific discussions for more than twenty years (Sanders 2016 ). Repeatedly, several scholars have provided empirical evidence for the relative advantages of OA (cf. Reganold and Wachter 2016 ; Stolze 2000 ), whereas others have produced contrary findings and concluded the opposite (cf. Bergström and Kirchmann 2016 ; Trewavas 2001 ).

Thus, there is reason to assume that scientific debates on the relative merits of OA have taken place in an overall fruitless way since the beginning of the political support debates. This is especially true for the question of what role OA is to play nationally and internationally in addressing the critical socioecological problems facing agriculture. Footnote 1 In this context, there is an urgent need to solve such environmental issues related to critically exceeded planetary boundaries, as proposed by Steffen et al. ( 2015 ), that are primarily impacted by agriculture, e.g., biosphere integrity and biogeochemical flows. This highlights the importance of science being able to provide clear and well-justified conclusions about environmental impacts of alternative agricultural systems. The question thus arises as to whether there is a “lock-in” of scientific debate.

Against this background, this paper does not provide additional evidence whether or in which areas OA provides greater environmental performance than conventional agriculture (CA). Rather, it attempts to analyze comprehensively the controversial assessments of OA in scientific debates in terms of the underlying argumentation. Further, it explores the question of why such disparate views still exist in the scientific community. Specifically, the aim of this paper is to retrace the scientific discourse on this topic in order to derive possible explanations why environmental impacts of OA continue to be assessed controversially in the scientific community.

Material and methods

Systematic literature search.

The analyzed material is scientific publications that were obtained through a systematic literature search. The literature search was based on the four-phase flow diagram of the PRISMA Statement Footnote 2 (cf. Moher et al. 2009 ) and is illustrated in Fig.  1 . It consisted of a search string-based query Footnote 3 of the online database Scopus (n = 22 cases) and a complementary web-based search via Google and Google Scholar, mainly using the snowball system (n = 71 cases).

Flow diagram of the systematic literature search combined of a string-based Scopus search and a web-based search (modified according to Moher et al. ( 2009 ))

The search string query was conducted in English as it could be assumed that the publications relevant to the discourse to be analyzed are mainly written in English. The search string was not limited to specific environmental dimensions as the interest in knowledge was focused on argumentations that move across different performance areas. Further, it was assumed that the term “yield” is a strong indicator of a publication’s relevance to the subject matter, as studies that do not consider yield in any form are unlikely to comprehensively address the question of how to evaluate environmental performance and impacts of any agricultural system.

The complementary search was intended to include relevant literature not captured by the Scopus inquiry, as well as literature that is not subject to peer-reviewed publication but contributes to the debates under investigation. In total, the dataset consisted of n = 93 scientific publications. The full record of the analyzed cases is provided in Online Resource 1 .

Qualitative content analysis

To obtain the desired information from the retrieved cases, a qualitative content analysis was carried out. The content structuring qualitative content analysis applied here is based on Mayring ( 2015 ) and Kuckartz ( 2018 ). The analysis was conducted using the data analysis software MAXQDA 2020 (VERBI Software 2019 ). To obtain the content-related information from the analysis units, i.e., scientific publications, these were coded, which is equivalent to categorizing text segments (Kuckartz 2018 ). The codebook (including the coding frame with all main and sub-codes that were used and the code descriptions with application examples) is provided in Online Resource 2 .

Due to the explorative and descriptive orientation of the research aim, a mixed form of a-priori code creation and code creation directly on the material, i.e., deductive-inductive coding, was applied (Kuckartz 2018 ). The starting point for code creation was a coding frame consisting of relatively few codes, which were derived from the first examination of texts during the process of literature search as described above. Central publications in this examination were Gomiero et al. ( 2011 ), Meemken and Qaim ( 2018 ), and Sanders and Heß ( 2019 ).

Expert interviews

In addition to the scientific publications, qualitative data were obtained in four expert interviews. The interviews specifically aimed at exploring i) possible explanations for the course of the scientific debates and ii) lessons to be learned for the ongoing discourse.

The interviewees were considered suitable experts based on their academic careers and scientific research that has contributed and is closely related to the debates under investigation. All interviewees hold professorships at various international universities, including the research areas of organic agriculture, sustainable land use and food systems, ecology, agricultural economics and development, and sustainability science.

The interviews were conducted via video calls and followed a semi-structured guideline to meet the explorative research objective. All the interviews took place after the literature analysis had been completed. The transcripts of the interviews (provided in German language in Online Resource 3 , including the transcription system in Table S1) were then qualitatively analyzed.

The environmental impacts of OA were first comprehensively described by Stolze ( 2000 ). Based on the literature available at the time, the authors concluded that OA—like any type of agriculture—entails environmental impacts, but that these impacts are less harmful than in CA. This finding was subsequently affirmed by further literature (cf. Gomiero et al. 2011 ; Reganold and Wachter 2016 ; Sanders and Heß 2019). However, the conclusion that the environmental performance of OA is superior to that of CA, or simply put, “OA is more environmentally friendly than CA,” is not shared by all scientific studies.

Over the past twenty years or so, two key counterarguments have been raised claiming that OA is not superior to CA regarding environmental impacts. As discussed further in detail below and illustrated schematically in Fig.  2 , numerous studies argue that impacts on food security should be considered in the face of productivity issues when assessing environmental impacts. Second, it is argued that the assessment should also consider potential leakage effects given different land use (LU) efficiencies, i.e., it should not only consider the spatially immediate impacts of organic systems. Based on these intertwined counterarguments, two lines of scientific discussion have emerged in which the two counterarguments are reinforced or relativized, respectively. Thus, the main ambiguity is how broadly to draw the thematic (chapter Importance of food security in assessments of environmental impacts ) and spatial (chapter Importance of leakage effects in assessments of environmental impacts ) frames in the assessments.

Two identified lines of discussion that trace back to two key counterarguments against environmental benefits of organic agriculture (OA). The two lines illustrate the ambiguity regarding the thematic and spatial boundary in the debates. Each box depicts a set of subsumed arguments. A change of color between two boxes indicates the relativization of the preceding one. Mixed-colored boxes indicate that both relativizing and affirming arguments are subsumed in the box. The terms in bold type are highlighted in italics in the text (own illustration)

Importance of food security in assessments of environmental impacts

It becomes clear that the first line of argumentation (Fig.  2 ) can be traced back to the fundamental critique of OA regarding lower productivity. This is commonly considered problematic with reference to increasing population growth and the overarching goal of food security (cf. Goklany 2002 ; Kirchmann et al. 2007 ). Consequently, a relevant component of these debates is the yield gap between organic and conventional systems, which are mainly discussed in light of a few key meta-studies (cf. Ponisio et al. 2015 ; Ponti et al. 2012 ; Seufert et al. 2012 ). In addition, the concept of yield stability, i.e., the temporal variability and reliability of production, has been argued to be important when comparing organic and conventional agriculture regarding food security (cf. Knapp and van der Heijden 2018 ).

In the context of yield gaps, the empirical evidence to date clearly points to lower average yields in OA (cf. Meemken and Qaim 2018 ). However, beyond averages, it has also been noted that the available data are highly context-dependent , i.e., there is considerable variability depending on system and site characteristics; it is also argued that biases in study selection (e.g., by geographic location) should be taken into account in meta-analyses, as well as the multitude of yield-limiting factors that have been insufficiently understood to date (cf. Lorenz and Lal 2016 ; Seufert 2019 ). In general, it is increasingly recognized that yield is only one factor among a multitude of complex economic and ecological interrelationships that need to be included in the sustainability assessment of different farming systems (cf. Ponisio and Ehrlich 2016 ; Seufert and Ramankutty 2017 ). This argument has been put forward by researchers calling for a more holistic agri-food systems perspective beyond productivity aspects (cf. IPES-Food 2016 ) by greater inclusion of ecosystem services (cf. van der Werf et al. 2020 ) when it comes to assessing the relative merits of alternative farming systems. In particular, it is argued that a primary focus on yields and “eco-efficiency” assessments does not sufficiently address ecological or nutritional issues, as, for example, rebound effects may occur in complex LU systems (cf. Ponisio and Kremen 2016 ) or efforts to reduce crop and food waste need to be taken into account regarding the goal of food security (cf. Müller et al. 2016 ).

Accordingly, some researchers emphasize the benefits of OA for sustainable food systems and argue that yield gaps could be closed in the long term if, for example, agroecological conditions and changes in dietary behavior were promoted or possible synergistic effects of large contiguous areas of OA were taken more into consideration (cf. Fess and Benedito 2018 ; Müller et al. 2017 ; Ponisio et al. 2015 ). Others disagree, sometimes vehemently, invoking nutrient limitations in organic systems or the erroneous equation of yield ratios between individual crops with system productivity in some comparative studies, as additional land for nitrogen fixation would be needed in OA (cf. Connor 2018 ; Kirchmann et al. 2016 ; Leifeld 2016 ).

Consequently, the existing limitations of empirical evidence on yield gaps not only influence discussions on food security, but also significantly influence discussions on the assessment of environmental impacts of OA. Although a “conventional wisdom” in scientific discourse has already been described by Holt-Giménez et al. ( 2012 ), which advocates a combination of organic and conventional methods with the aim of increasing productivity in a sustainable manner (cf. Meemken and Qaim 2018 ), this has not led to a reduction in controversial debates. For example, Tal ( 2018 : 9) notes that the binary organic vs. conventional debates foster “a tendency on both sides of the […] divide to caricaturize the other and cherry pick extreme examples of environmentally problematic practices.” Seufert and Ramankutty ( 2017 : 1) also roughly divide the discourse into those researchers promoting OA as a solution to sustainable food security challenges and others who “condemn it as a backward and romanticized version of agriculture that would lead to hunger and environmental devastation.”

Accordingly, along the debates on the role of OA in global food security, arguments have been identified that address the policy relevance of certain scientific issues. In this context, it is striking that the question of whether OA can “ feed the world ” is a type of framing (cf. IPES-Food 2016 ) that has persisted throughout the period in which the analyzed literature was published (cf. Goklany 2002 ; Meemken and Qaim 2018 ; Müller et al. 2017 ; Ponti et al. 2012 ). Again, however, there is disagreement regarding the appropriate focus of research questions. Tittonell ( 2013 ), for example, considers the “feed the world” framing as oversimplified and thus not very policy-relevant, whereas others argue that this very question is crucial (Niggli 2015 ) or an interesting thought experiment (Meemken and Qaim 2018 ).

In addition, there are previously marginalized narratives that argue from the political economy perspective of unequal global power relations, thus criticizing Western industrialized development narratives, and highlighting the importance of food sovereignty (cf. Scoones et al. 2019 ). Overall, it becomes clear that the discussions about the role of OA in the context of food security are strongly influenced by normative assumptions on socioeconomic and agricultural development and are correspondingly divergent.

Importance of leakage effects in assessments of environmental impacts

Regarding environmental impacts, which are condensed in a second line of discussion (Fig.  2 ), the lower yield performance of OA and the resulting lower land use (LU) efficiency emerge as the main points of criticism, analogous to the first line of discussion. Here, the aspects regarding yield gaps, as described above, are reflected in the use of the concept of leakage effects as a prominent reasoning.

Overall, the discussions on environmental merits of OA predominantly appear as tradeoff analyses. Regarding biodiversity effects, for example, the general argumentation dominates that local biodiversity benefits of OA are offset or even turn into disadvantages due to higher land requirements when expanded (cf. Tuck et al. 2014 ). In this context, the logic of leakage effects assumes that an expansion of generally more extensive OA may lead to LU intensification elsewhere, resulting in net negative environmental impacts, e.g., higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through LU change or biodiversity loss through habitat conversion (cf. Bergström and Kirchmann 2016 ; Gabriel et al. 2013 ; Kirchmann et al. 2007 ; Kirchmann 2019 ; Leifeld 2016 ; Searchinger et al. 2018 ).

By the same token, OA is criticized in terms of increased nutrient leaching, assuming that large-scale conversion would lead to arable land expansion to meet the unchanged (or increasing) demand for agricultural products due to yield gaps (cf. Bergström and Kirchmann 2016 ; Tuomisto et al. 2012 ). Although there are studies that find lower eutrophication potential in OA (cf. Schader et al. 2012 ) and more efficient nutrient use on a given area (cf. Mäder et al. 2002 ; Niggli 2015 ) due to system boundaries, some researchers also point out that a lack of data , especially on water conservation, does not allow robust general conclusions (cf. Kusche et al. 2019 ; Seufert and Ramankutty 2017 ). Further, regarding biodiversity and GHG emissions, estimating the effects of large-scale adoption of OA is argued to be ambiguous because there exists uncertainty about the relationship between yield-levels and land in production or conversion of natural habitat (cf. Ponisio and Kremen 2016 ; Reganold and Wachter 2016 ; van der Werf et al. 2020 ).

In addition, there are arguments indicating that so far unmeasured and potentially positive effects of OA are not covered by comparative studies conducted to date (cf. Clark and Tilman 2017 ; Tuck et al. 2014 ); e.g., positive biodiversity effects from large contiguous areas of OA (cf. Meng et al. 2017 ; Stein-Bachinger et al. 2019 ). Hence, some authors argue that expanding OA might be the most cost-effective strategy from the perspective of integrated policy measures that address improvements in multiple environmental dimensions simultaneously (cf. Jespersen et al. 2017 ).

The role of reference units in environmental impact assessments

What further becomes clear from the above is that study results and their conclusions regarding the benefits of OA significantly depend on the choice of reference unit . That is, whether environmental impacts are expressed per unit of farmed area or per unit of produced output. The central role of the reference units in environmental impact assessments becomes particularly clear regarding nutrient leaching and GHG emissions (cf. Halberg et al. 2005 ; Schader et al. 2012 ).

As Meemken and Qaim ( 2018 ) summarize, most evidence suggests that OA has lower environmental impacts in terms of GHG emissions when expressed per unit area, and higher impacts per unit output, respectively. However, as Sanders and Heß (2019) point out, in many studies the choice of the appropriate reference unit—despite its centrality to the results and conclusions—is inadequately justified. The latter authors argue that the question of the appropriate reference unit from a societal perspective Footnote 4 needs further scrutiny by considering i) the spatial scope of a solution to reduce environmental impacts (is the public environmental good to be provided on a local or global scale?), ii) the regional characteristics of environmental impacts (how scarce are specific public environmental goods in a region?), and iii) the risk and extent of leakage effects (does the provision of a public environmental good in one region result in negative environmental impacts in another region?).

Regarding the (rarely explicit) backing argumentation for the use of different reference units, c ontradictory justifications could be identified in the present study. Some scholars argue that the primary use of the output-reference is misleading because absolute, rather than relative (to the yield), environmental impacts are decisive; thus, the primary focus on the output-reference would not do justice to the complexity of goods and services provided as well as to the systems approach of OA Footnote 5 (cf. Müller et al. 2016 ; Niggli 2015 ; Ponisio and Kremen 2016 ).

On the other hand, it is argued that expressing environmental impacts per unit area is misleading if it does not take into account system productivity (which is usually lower in OA) and LU efficiency; thus, in the context of a growing world population and global environmental impacts, yield units would be the primarily relevant reference (cf. Kirchmann 2019 ; Meemken and Qaim 2018 ; Tuomisto et al. 2012 ). It is noteworthy in this context that already about twenty years ago, Geier ( 2000 ) stated that there is no consensus on the use of the functional unit within the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology Footnote 6 and thus the main problem is the question of when it is reasonable to relate environmental impacts to the output and when to the area. The disparate views on the appropriate choice of reference units that since have been brought forward illustrate the difficulty to debate environmental impacts within consistent thematic and spatial boundaries.

The partly contrary argumentation is aggravated by a weak empirical evidence base on leakage effects that could result from an expansion of OA, especially on a global scale. For example, Seufert and Ramankutty ( 2017 ) note that potential impacts of a large-scale shift to OA are highly uncertain due to, among other issues, existing knowledge gaps on system-level feedback effects that ultimately influence future food production and demand. Other studies emphasize that regarding leakage effects, analogous to the implications for food security, it is crucial in an assessment of OA to also include dietary habits and the origin of demanded foods (cf. Haller et al. 2020 ; Müller et al. 2017 ). Accordingly, the German Advisory Council on Global Change has recently pointed out that the argument of leakage effects cannot be the sole focus when aiming to safeguard globally important ecosystems, but the various dimensions of leakage must be embedded in cross-sectoral measures that go far beyond issues of domestic LU efficiency (WBGU 2020 ).

Synopsis of the expert interviews

In addition to the qualitative content analysis of the literature, four expert interviews were conducted and qualitatively analyzed. Across all interviews, it became clear that the nexus of science, policy, and values Footnote 7 that has so far led to research agendas and political initiatives to promote OA (or the general transformation toward sustainable agricultural systems) needs to be adapted to the increasingly complex problem situation described in the Introduction. At the same time, the barriers that might impede such adaptation were addressed. In this context, the interviews also repeatedly referred to the formation of entrenched positions (sometimes referred to as “paradigms” or “camps”) through established academic networks and associated normative foundations that may be dominant in the investigated scientific discourse. The resulting implications are discussed in the chapter Reasons for the lock-in and what to learn from it .

Table 1 shows the synopsis of statements across all interviews that are related to possible explanations for the course of the scientific debates or to possible ways to alleviate the persisting controversies.

Lock-in of scientific discourse

The analysis at hand shows that two lines of discussion have emerged along two main arguments that relativize the environmental performance of OA in terms of lower productivity. Strikingly, from an argumentative point of view, these lines do not show a substantial development over the course of the last twenty years or so.

Against this background, the present analysis provides evidence for the validity of the assumption formulated at the beginning that the scientific discourse on the relative environmental merits of OA have taken place in an altogether little fruitful manner. In summary, since the beginning of the political support debates, no scientific consensus could be formulated on the extent to which an expansion of organically managed land, which is politically embedded in many places, will help address the environmental and resource challenges.

Certainly, it is not the goal of research to produce as homogeneous scientific knowledge as possible. However, in view of the long period of debates and the partly opposing positions that continue to exist in academic circles, it is remarkable that the productive nature of scientific research in the sense of formulating syntheses has not sufficiently taken place. Given the urgency of environmental and resource problems to be solved and that OA has gained much attention as a possible strategy, the course of scientific debates appears even more problematic.

Thus, we argue that a “lock-in” of scientific debate prevails. Various reasons for and implications of this development are conceivable and will be discussed in the following chapter.

Reasons for the lock-in and what to learn from it

First and foremost, it appears that the binary initial question regarding relative merits of OA compared to CA favors a polarizing discussion space. Accordingly, conclusions are likely to move in dichotomies. This has already been addressed by Mehrabi et al. ( 2017 ) in the context of alternative approaches to conventional intensification. The authors argue that binary “organic versus conventional” system classifications have exceedingly poor explanatory power; this holds, especially for making clear evidence-based decisions regarding socioecological outcomes of different farming systems on a global scale. Thus, they advocate “more contextual and outcome-based experiments of farming practices” to turn away from “divisive discourse” (Mehrabi et al. 2017 : 721) and to promote socioecological benefits of different farming systems.

Further, the expert interviews suggest that the research and development of “hybrid” farming systems might be a way to foster the debates on sustainable agriculture. Other researchers already have called for the deliberate reframing of binary research questions regarding a more differentiated consideration of the multilayered ecological problems and approaches to solutions (cf. Kremen 2015 ; Seufert and Ramankutty 2017 ; Shennan et al. 2017 ). In this context, a final settlement of the “ideologically charged ‘organic versus conventional’ debate” (Seufert et al. 2012 : 231) seems important to avoid fruitless discourse.

Indeed, alternative concepts beyond the organic-conventional dichotomy increasingly diversify both scientific and societal discussions about sustainable agriculture. For example, the agroecology concept is gaining recognition in policy-making (cf. Bisoffi 2019 ; FAO 2018 ), but other (partly interrelated) concepts such as conservation agriculture (cf. Kassam et al. 2019 ; Page et al. 2020 ), sustainable intensification (cf. Cassman and Grassini 2020 ; Pretty et al. 2018 ), ecological intensification (cf. Kernecker et al. 2021 ; Kremen 2020 ), or regenerative agriculture (cf. LaCanne and Lundgren 2018 ; Lal 2020 ) are also being debated internationally. Footnote 8 However, in the European context, OA continues to be the key benchmark for “greening” conventional systems (WBAE 2020 ). Regarding the “growing enthusiasm” for regenerative agriculture, Giller et al. ( 2021 : 22), in line with the reasoning of this paper, see “the need for agronomists to be more explicit about the fact that many of the […] dichotomies that frame public, and to some degree the scientific debates about agriculture, have little if any analytical purchase.”

Moreover, although the emphasis on inter- and transdisciplinary research (cf. Veerman et al. 2020 ) to meet the complex problem space seems like a logical conclusion, it can be assumed that it is no panacea. As Bruhn et al. ( 2019 ) point out, such endeavors would ideally be structured in a reflexive and co-creative way to advise transformative policy. However, it is not only the issue of lacking standardized frameworks and different traditions and vocabularies of the various disciplines involved (cf. Garibaldi et al. 2017 ) that needs to be overcome. When operationalizing sustainability in agri-food systems, also different value systems and related normative assumptions of the involved researchers must be considered (cf. Fischer et al. 2014 ; Halberg et al. 2005 ; Kuyper and Struik 2014 ; Thompson 2010 ).

Consequently, overcoming ideological barriers between supporters and critics of OA is also recognized as a prerequisite for developing and implementing more sustainable farming systems and their research (cf. Eyhorn et al. 2019 ; Meemken and Qaim 2018 ). In general, however, the expert interviews suggest that “path dependencies” regarding certain narratives of agricultural development and a lack of awareness in natural sciences as to how the framing of research questions are embedded in scientific discourse might be major obstacles for such deliberation.

In this context, the argument made by Sanders and Heß (2019) on inadequate justifications for appropriate reference units can be taken further in light of the present results. The backing argumentation, as described in the chapter The role of reference units in environmental impact assessments , reveals that basic normative assumptions in the choice of a reference unit are an implicit part of the discussions and likely are conducive to a polarizing overall debate. For example, there is the question of whether (arable) land is understood as a substitutable input to the agricultural production process or as an integral part of the agroecosystem (cf. Berlin and Uhlin 2004 ; Tuomisto et al. 2012 ). Or the question of which “purpose” agricultural systems primarily are to fulfill in the societal context (cf. Leifeld 2016 ; Ponisio and Kremen 2016 ) and which framework is to be prioritized in the assessment of environmental impacts accordingly. Here, it becomes clear that different understandings of sustainability are implicitly involved, which can be subsumed under the terms “resource sufficiency” and “functional integrity” Footnote 9 (cf. Halberg 2012 ; Thompson 2010 ).

Table 2 characterizes these two concepts according to Thompson ( 2010 ) and the “three schools of defining agricultural sustainability” (Halberg 2012 : 983–984) according to Douglass ( 1984 ), on which the former are based.

Importantly, Halberg ( 2012 ) recognizes that the different schools of agricultural sustainability according to Douglass ( 1984 ) are still present in contemporary debates, “but many users of the sustainability term seem not to be fully aware of the normative content” (Halberg 2012 : 983). Hence, the confounding influence that the sustainability term potentially has on binary scientific debates at hand is pointed out by Seufert ( 2019 : 196): “critics argue that organic agriculture may actually not be more sustainable than conventional agriculture […]” while advocates of OA “argue that the jury on comparative yields […] is still out […] or that yields are not the right metric to assess farming systems by.”

However, no substantial discussion of these frameworks, which are influenced by value systems when at work in the assessment of environmental impacts of OA, could be identified in the analyzed literature. It can therefore be assumed that the choice of a reference unit can be an entry point for critical reflection on the inevitable associated normative basic assumptions in environmental impact assessments and that the overall discourse could thus gain in transparency.

The paper aimed at retracing the scientific discourse on environmental impacts of OA and exploring why these continue to be assessed controversially. It could be shown that the debates are characterized by a “lock-in” which is complicated by persisting disagreement in the scientific community on appropriate thematic and spatial boundaries for the assessment of environmental impacts.

We conclude that it appears central to overcome binary questions to alleviate the consequent polarizing logic of the debates under investigation. Thus, the question arises, for example, to what extent comparative case studies that aim to quantify environmental impacts between OA and CA under controlled conditions can make a substantial contribution to the political debate on the future role of OA.

The paper further suggests that the insufficient empirical evidence, particularly on leakage effects and on studies directly linking yield data and environmental impacts on the same fields or farms, complicates the debates. It cannot be assumed, however, that gathering more data will be the sole key to reducing controversy. Consequently, it is increasingly appropriate to discuss the usefulness of research questions by considering a broader view of societies’ underpinnings facing increasing global crises. Researchers engaged with environmental impact assessments of agriculture should therefore be aware of their role in the process of co-creating narratives and thus exerting power (cf. Scoones et al. 2019 ). This is especially true for the implicit operationalization of different sustainability concepts, which is often mediated by the choice of reference units.

Against this background, basic normative assumptions should be more strongly reflected and disclosed when assessing environmental impacts of alternative farming systems. As Nielsen et al. ( 2019 ) point out, when considering agricultural LU from the perspective of complex human–environment land systems, there is a need for increased discussion about the normative implications of the scientific research process. Here, it appears crucial to create discussion spaces for agricultural research to appropriately consider the normative aspects that are intrinsic to the sustainability assessments of alternative farming systems. This could make the scientific debates at hand more productive and lead to greater transparency in advising political transformation processes of agri-food systems.

Availability of data and material

The analyzed literature is all published literature. A full record list with bibliographic data is available in Online Resource 1 . The analyzed interview transcripts are available in German language in Online Resource 3 .

Today, the scope of agricultural production is extended far beyond the provision of food and includes numerous environmental and resource-related challenges. In a global context, agriculture’s most critical environmental impacts include soil and water degradation, habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss, freshwater withdrawal, disrupted nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, and greenhouse gas emissions (Foley et al. 2011 ). At the same time, hunger is on the rise again with over 800 million people undernourished or lacking sufficient nutrients, while overweight and obesity are also increasing rapidly across the globe, leading to a “triple burden” of malnutrition (Gómez et al. 2013 ; HLPE 2017 ; Ingram 2020 ). Such challenges increasingly gain traction in science and policy arenas, not least due to the overarching debate on climate change, making evident the interconnectedness between global warming and food systems and thus its socioecological consequences (IPCC 2019 ).

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement comprises guidelines that address conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (cf. Moher et al. 2009 ).

Search string (applied on 28/01/2020): TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“organic farm*” OR “organic agricul*”) AND (“environment* impact” OR “environment* effect”) AND yield) .

This refers to the environmental dimensions of biodiversity, water protection, climate protection, and climate adaptation. The reference units for assessing impacts on soil fertility (area) and resource (N and energy) efficiency (output) were considered immanent (Sanders and Heß 2019).

For example, Müller et al. ( 2016 : 16) argue that single-criteria assessments such as emissions per unit output disregard negative externalities, e.g., through the production of synthetic inputs or concentrate feed. Similarly, the IPES-Food ( 2016 : 68) finds that classical measures of agricultural productivity systematically undervalue benefits of diversified systems; thus, new “measures of success” should be established which account for, e.g., total resource flows and interactions between the agricultural sector and the wider economy.

Within the LCA methodology, the term "functional unit" is used (according to the “function” attributed to a studied system) and “serves as the reference basis for all calculations regarding impact assessment” (Arzoumanidis et al. 2020 : 1). Thus, in the context of this study, "functional unit" can be considered synonymous with the term "reference unit" (cf. van der Werf et al. 2020 ).

As Douglas ( 2016 : 475) states, “Policy influences which science we pursue and how we pursue it in practice, as well as how science ultimately informs policy. Values inform our choices in these areas, as values shape the research agendas scientists pursue, the issues debated as we decide on policy, and what counts as sufficient warrant in any given case”.

For a characterization of some of the mentioned concepts, see Garibaldi et al. ( 2017 ). For discussions about different perspectives on agricultural intensification to foster sustainability and the associated scientific controversy, see Kuyper and Struik ( 2014 ) and Struik et al. ( 2014 ).

Note that Müller et al. ( 2016 ), for example, use the term “resource sufficiency” for describing approaches that reduce wastage or the consumption of animal products regarding climate change mitigation in food systems. They further argue that for an encompassing sustainability assessment of OA it is crucial to consider not only “efficiency” and “sufficiency” measures but also the "consistency" of resource use, i.e., approaches to optimal resource use that address “the question of the roles different resources play in the context of a sustainable food system” (Müller et al. 2016 : 42).

Alrøe HF, Byrne J, Glover L (2006) Organic agriculture and ecological justice: ethics and practice. In: Halberg N, Alrøe HF, Knudsen MT, Kristensen ES (eds) Global development of organic agriculture: Challenges and prospects. CABI, Wallingford, pp 75–112

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Arzoumanidis I, D’Eusanio M, Raggi A, Petti L (2020) Functional Unit Definition Criteria in Life Cycle Assessment and Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Discussion. In: Traverso M, Petti L, Zamagni A (eds) Perspectives on Social LCA. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01508-4_1

Bergström L, Kirchmann H (2016) Are the claimed benefits of organic agriculture justified? Nat Plants 2:16099. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.99

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Berlin D, Uhlin H-E (2004) Opportunity cost principles for life cycle assessment: toward strategic decision making in agriculture. PIE 1:187. https://doi.org/10.1504/PIE.2004.004678

Article   Google Scholar  

Bisoffi S (2019) A meta-analysis of recent foresight documents in support of the 5th SCAR Foresight Exercise. https://scar-europe.org/index.php/foresight/documents . Accessed 24 November 2020

BMEL (2019) Zukunftsstrategie ökologischer Landbau: Impulse für mehr Nachhaltigkeit in Deutschland. https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/ZukunftsstrategieOekologischerLandbau2019.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 . Accessed 6 May 2021

Bruhn T, Herberg J, Molinengo G, Oppold D, Stasiak D, Nanz P (2019) Grounded Action Design: A Model of Scientific Support for Processes to Address Complex Challenges A Concept Developed by the Research Project Co-Creation and Contemporary Policy Advice. Potsdam. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2019.054

Cassman KG, Grassini P (2020) A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat Sustain 3:262–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0507-8

Clark M, Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 12:64016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Connor DJ (2018) Organic agriculture and food security: A decade of unreason finally implodes. Field Crop Res 225:128–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.06.008

Douglas HE (2016) Science, Policy, Values: Exploring the Nexus. Perspect Sci 24:475–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_e_00219

Douglass GK (1984) The Meanings of Agricultural Sustainability. In: Douglass GK (ed) Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 3–29

Google Scholar  

European Commission (2020) Farm to Fork Strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf . Accessed 8 November 2021

Eyhorn F, Müller A, Reganold JP, Frison E, Herren HR, Luttikholt L, Mueller A, Sanders J, Scialabba NE-H, Seufert V, Smith P (2019) Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat Sustain 2:253–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0266-6

FAO (2018) FAO's work on Agroecology: A Pathway to Achieving the SDGs. https://www.fao.org/3/i9021en/i9021en.pdf . Accessed 11 November 2021

Fess TL, Benedito VA (2018) Organic versus Conventional Cropping Sustainability: A Comparative System Analysis. Sustainability 10:272. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010272

Fischer J, Abson DJ, van Butsic CMJ, Ekroos J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T, Smith HG, von Wehrden H (2014) Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward. Conserv Lett 7:149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12084

Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gabriel D, Sait SM, Kunin WE, Benton TG (2013) Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture. J Appl Ecol 50:355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12035

Garibaldi LA, Gemmill-Herren B, D’Annolfo R, Graeub BE, Cunningham SA, Breeze TD (2017) Farming Approaches for Greater Biodiversity, Livelihoods, and Food Security. Trends Ecol Evol 32:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.001

Geier U (2000) Anwendung der Ökobilanz-Methode in der Landwirtschaft: Dargestellt am Beispiel einer Prozess-Ökobilanz konventioneller und organischer Bewirtschaftung. Schriftenreihe Institut für Organischen Landbau, [13]. Köster, Berlin

Giller KE, Hijbeek R, Andersson JA, Sumberg J (2021) Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric 50:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021998063

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Goklany IM (2002) The ins and outs of organic farming. Science 298:1889–1890. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5600.1889b

Gómez MI, Barrett CB, Raney T, Pinstrup-Andersen P, Meerman J, Croppenstedt A, Carisma B, Thompson B (2013) Post-green revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutrition. Food Policy 42:129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.06.009

Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG (2011) Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:95–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554355

Halberg N (2012) Assessment of the environmental sustainability of organic farming: Definitions, indicators and the major challenges. Can J Plant Sci 92:981–996. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps2012-035

Halberg N, van der Werf HMG, Basset-Mens C, Dalgaard R, de Boer IJM (2005) Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of European livestock production systems. Livest Prod Sci 96:33–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.013

Haller L, Moakes S, Niggli U, Riedel J, Stolze M, Thompson M (2020) Entwicklungsperspektiven der ökologischen Landwirtschaft in Deutschland. Texte. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1410/publikationen/2020-03-17_texte_32-2020_oekologische-landwirtschaft.pdf . Accessed 29 October 2020

HLPE (2017) Nutrition and food systems: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf . Accessed 19 November 2020

Holt-Giménez E, Shattuck A, Altieri M, Herren H, Gliessman S (2012) We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People … and Still Can’t End Hunger. J Sustain Agric 36:595–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331

IFOAM (2021) Priciples of Organic Agriculture: Preamble. https://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/2020-03/poa_english_web.pdf . Accessed 8 November 2021

Ingram J (2020) Nutrition security is more than food security. Nat Food 1:2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0002-4

IPCC (2019) Summary for Policymakers. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner H-O, Roberts D, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Portugal Pereira J, Vyas P, Huntley E, Kissick K, Belkacemi M, Malley J (eds) Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ . Accessed 9 November 2021

IPES-Food (2016) From university to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. http://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf . Accessed 23 October 2020

Jespersen LM, Baggesen DL, Fog E, Halsnæs K, Hermansen JE, Andreasen L, Strandberg B, Sørensen JT, Halberg N (2017) Contribution of organic farming to public goods in Denmark. Org Agr 7:243–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0193-7

Kassam A, Friedrich T, Derpsch R (2019) Global spread of Conservation Agriculture. Int J Environ Stud 76:29–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2018.1494927

Kernecker M, Seufert V, Chapman M (2021) Farmer-centered ecological intensification: Using innovation characteristics to identify barriers and opportunities for a transition of agroecosystems towards sustainability. Agric Syst 191:103142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103142

Kirchmann H (2019) Why organic farming is not the way forward. Outlook Agric 48:22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019831702

Kirchmann H, Bergström L, Kätterer T, Mattsson L, Gesslein S (2007) Comparison of Long-Term Organic and Conventional Crop-Livestock Systems on a Previously Nutrient-Depleted Soil in Sweden. Agron J 99:960. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0061

Kirchmann H, Kätterer T, Bergström L, Börjesson G, Bolinder MA (2016) Flaws and criteria for design and evaluation of comparative organic and conventional cropping systems. Field Crop Res 186:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.11.006

Knapp S, van der Heijden MGA (2018) A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat Commun 9:3632. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kremen C (2020) Ecological intensification and diversification approaches to maintain biodiversity, ecosystem services and food production in a changing world. Emerg Top Life Sci 4:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190205

Kremen C (2015) Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1355:52–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12845

Kuckartz U (2018) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung, 4th edn. Grundlagentexte Methoden. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim

Kusche D, Hoppe J, Hupe A, Heß J (2019) Wasserschutz. In: Sanders J, Heß J (eds) Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, pp 59–91

Kuyper TW, Struik PC (2014) Epilogue: global food security, rhetoric, and the sustainable intensification debate. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8:71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.09.004

LaCanne CE, Lundgren JG (2018) Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6:e4428. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4428

Lal R (2020) Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. J Soil Water Conserv 75:123A-124A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.2020.0620A

Leifeld J (2016) Current approaches neglect possible agricultural cutback under large-scale organic farming. A comment to Ponisio et al. Proc Biol Sci 283(1824):2015–1623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1623

Lorenz K, Lal R (2016) Environmental Impact of Organic Agriculture. Adv Agron 139:99–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.05.003

Mäder P, Fließbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U (2002) The ins and outs of organic farming [Response]. Science 298:1889–1890. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5600.1889b

Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken, 12th edn. Beltz Pädagogik. Beltz, Weinheim

Meemken E-M, Qaim M (2018) Organic Agriculture, Food Security, and the Environment. Annu Rev Resour Econ 10:39–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023252

Mehrabi Z, Seufert V, Ramankutty NThe Conventional Versus Alternative Agricultural Divide: A Response to Garibaldi, et al (2017) Trends Ecol Evol 32:720–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.07.011

Meng F, Qiao Y, Wu W, Smith P, Scott S (2017) Environmental impacts and production performances of organic agriculture in China: A monetary valuation. J Environ Manage 188:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.080

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Müller A, Bautze L, Meier M, Gattinger A, Gall E, Chatzinikolaou E, Meredith S, Ukas T, Ullmann L (2016) Organic farming, climate change mitigation and beyond: Reducing the environmental impacts of EU agriculture, Brussels. https://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/ifoameu_advocacy_climate_change_report_2016.pdf . Accessed 3 May 2020

Müller A, Schader C, El-Hage Scialabba N, Brüggemann J, Isensee A, Erb K-H, Smith P, Klocke P, Leiber F, Stolze M, Niggli U (2017) Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun 8:1290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w

Nielsen JØ, de Bremond A, Roy Chowdhury R, Friis C, Metternicht G, Meyfroidt P, Munroe D, Pascual U, Thomson A (2019) Toward a normative land systems science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 38:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.02.003

Niggli U (2015) Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations. Proc Nutr Soc 74:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665114001438

Page KL, Dang YP, Dalal RC (2020) The Ability of Conservation Agriculture to Conserve Soil Organic Carbon and the Subsequent Impact on Soil Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties and Yield. Front Sustain Food Syst 4:17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00031

Ponisio L, Ehrlich P (2016) Diversification, Yield and a New Agricultural Revolution: Problems and Prospects. Sustainability 8:1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111118

Ponisio LC, Kremen C (2016) System-level approach needed to evaluate the transition to more sustainable agriculture. Proc Biol Sci 283:20152913. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2913

Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino J, de Valpine P, Kremen C (2015) Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc Biol Sci 282:20141396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396

de Ponti T, Rijk B, van Ittersum MK (2012) The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Syst 108:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.12.004

Pretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, Godfray HCJ, Goulson D, Hartley S, Lampkin N, Morris C, Pierzynski G, Prasad PVV, Reganold J, Rockström J, Smith P, Thorne P, Wratten S (2018) Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat Sustain 1:441–446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0

Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat Plants 2:15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221

Sanders J (2016) Agrarpolitik. In: Freyer B (ed) Ökologischer Landbau: Grundlagen, Wissensstand und Herausforderungen. Haupt Verlag, Bern, pp 279–297

Sanders J, Heß J (eds) (2019) Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Thünen-Report, vol 65. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.298449

Schader C, Stolze M, Gattinger A (2012) Environmental performance of organic farming. In: Boye JI, Arcand Y (eds) Green technologies in food production and processing. Springer, New York, pp 183–210

Scoones I, Smalley R, Hall R, Tsikata D (2019) Narratives of scarcity: Framing the global land rush. Geoforum 101:231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.006

Searchinger TD, Wirsenius S, Beringer T, Dumas P (2018) Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564:249–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z

Seufert V (2019) Comparing Yields: Organic Versus Conventional Agriculture. In: Ferranti P, Berry E, Jock A (eds) Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.22027-1

Seufert V, Ramankutty N (2017) Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci Adv 3:e1602638. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602638

Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069

Shennan C, Krupnik TJ, Baird G, Cohen H, Forbush K, Lovell RJ, Olimpi EM (2017) Organic and Conventional Agriculture: A Useful Framing? Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:317–346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085750

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Stein-Bachinger K, Haub A, Gottwald F (2019) Biodiversität. In: Sanders J, Heß J (eds) Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig, pp 129–163

Stolze M (2000) The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. Organic farming in Europe economics and policy, vol 6. Inst. für Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre, Stuttgart-Hohenheim

Struik PC, Kuyper TW, Brussaard L, Leeuwis C (2014) Deconstructing and unpacking scientific controversies in intensification and sustainability: why the tensions in concepts and values? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8:80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.002

Tal A (2018) Making Conventional Agriculture Environmentally Friendly: Moving beyond the Glorification of Organic Agriculture and the Demonization of Conventional Agriculture. Sustainability 10:1078. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041078

Thompson PB (2010) The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky, Culture of the land

Book   Google Scholar  

Tittonell PA (2013) Farming systems ecology: Towards ecological intensification of world agriculture. Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen

Trewavas A (2001) Urban myths of organic farming. Nature 410:409–410. https://doi.org/10.1038/35068639

Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, Ahnström J, Turnbull LA, Bengtsson J (2014) Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51:746–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219

Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? - A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manage 112:309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018

van der Werf HMG, Knudsen MT, Cederberg C (2020) Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment. Nat Sustain 3:419–425. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0489-6

Veerman C, Pinto-Correia T, Bastioli C, Biro B, Bouma J, Cienciala E, Emmett B, Frison EA, Grand A, Hristov L, Kriaučiūnienė Z, Pogrzeba M, Soussana J-F, Vela C, Wittkowski R (2020) Caring for soil is caring for life: Ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for healthy food, people, nature and climate : interim report of the mission board for soil health and food. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

VERBI Software (2019) MAXQDA 2020, Berlin. https://www.maxqda.com/

WBAE (2020) Politik für eine nachhaltigere Ernährung: Eine integrierte Ernährungspolitik entwickeln und faire Ernährungsumgebungen gestalten, Berlin. https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ministerium/Beiraete/agrarpolitik/wbae-gutachten-nachhaltige-ernaehrung.html . Accessed 8 November 2021

WBGU (2020) Landwende im Anthropozän: Von der Konkurrenz zur Integration, Berlin. https://www.wbgu.de/de/publikationen/publikation/landwende . Accessed 8 November 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Christian Schleyer for valuable suggestions on and supervision of the master's thesis that resulted in this paper. Further, the authors would like to thank the reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions on the first draft of the manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Thünen Institute of Farm Economics, Bundesallee 63, 38116, Braunschweig, Germany

Emil Debuschewitz & Jürn Sanders

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and analysis was performed by Emil Debuschewitz. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Emil Debuschewitz and Jürn Sanders commented and partly complemented previous versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emil Debuschewitz .

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication.

All interviewees signed a declaration of consent in which they consented to the anonymized excerpt publication of the collected data.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 23 KB)

Supplementary file2 (docx 33 kb), supplementary file3 (docx 78 kb), rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Debuschewitz, E., Sanders, J. Environmental impacts of organic agriculture and the controversial scientific debates. Org. Agr. 12 , 1–15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-021-00381-z

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2021

Accepted : 27 December 2021

Published : 10 February 2022

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-021-00381-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable agriculture
• Leakage effects
• Reference unit
• Research framing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Food Quality and Safety
• About Zhejiang University Press
• Editorial Board
• Outstanding Reviewers
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, organic farming process, benefits of organic farming, organic agriculture and sustainable development, status of organic farming in india: production, popularity, and economic growth, future prospects of organic farming in india, conclusions, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Suryatapa Das, Annalakshmi Chatterjee, Tapan Kumar Pal, Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation, Food Quality and Safety , Volume 4, Issue 2, May 2020, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/fqsafe/fyaa018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Food quality and safety are the two important factors that have gained ever-increasing attention in general consumers. Conventionally grown foods have immense adverse health effects due to the presence of higher pesticide residue, more nitrate, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotic residue, and also genetically modified organisms. Moreover, conventionally grown foods are less nutritious and contain lesser amounts of protective antioxidants. In the quest for safer food, the demand for organically grown foods has increased during the last decades due to their probable health benefits and food safety concerns. Organic food production is defined as cultivation without the application of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides or genetically modified organisms, growth hormones, and antibiotics. The popularity of organically grown foods is increasing day by day owing to their nutritional and health benefits. Organic farming also protects the environment and has a greater socio-economic impact on a nation. India is a country that is bestowed with indigenous skills and potentiality for growth in organic agriculture. Although India was far behind in the adoption of organic farming due to several reasons, presently it has achieved rapid growth in organic agriculture and now becomes one of the largest organic producers in the world. Therefore, organic farming has a great impact on the health of a nation like India by ensuring sustainable development.

Food quality and safety are two vital factors that have attained constant attention in common people. Growing environmental awareness and several food hazards (e.g. dioxins, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and bacterial contamination) have substantially decreased the consumer’s trust towards food quality in the last decades. Intensive conventional farming can add contamination to the food chain. For these reasons, consumers are quested for safer and better foods that are produced through more ecologically and authentically by local systems. Organically grown food and food products are believed to meet these demands ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

In recent years, organic farming as a cultivation process is gaining increasing popularity ( Dangour et al. , 2010 ). Organically grown foods have become one of the best choices for both consumers and farmers. Organically grown foods are part of go green lifestyle. But the question is that what is meant by organic farming? ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The term ‘organic’ was first coined by Northbourne, in 1940, in his book entitled ‘Look to the Land’.

Northbourne stated that ‘the farm itself should have biological completeness; it must be a living entity; it must be a unit which has within itself a balanced organic life’( Nourthbourne, 2003 ). Northbourne also defined organic farming as ‘an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity’. According to Winter and Davis (2006) , ‘it is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony’.

They mentioned that organic produce is not grown with synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, application of genetic modification techniques (such as genetically modified crops), sewage sludge, or chemical fertilizers.

Whereas, conventional farming is the cultivation process where synthetic pesticide and chemical fertilizers are applied to gain higher crop yield and profit. In conventional farming, synthetic pesticides and chemicals are able to eliminate insects, weeds, and pests and growth factors such as synthetic hormones and fertilizers increase growth rate ( Worthington, 2001 ).

As synthetically produced pesticides and chemical fertilizers are utilized in conventional farming, consumption of conventionally grown foods is discouraged, and for these reasons, the popularity of organic farming is increasing gradually.

Organic farming and food processing practices are wide-ranging and necessitate the development of socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable food production system. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has suggested the basic four principles of organic farming, i.e. the principle of health, ecology, fairness, and care ( Figure 1 ). The main principles and practices of organic food production are to inspire and enhance biological cycles in the farming system, keep and enhance deep-rooted soil fertility, reduce all types of pollution, evade the application of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, conserve genetic diversity in food, consider the vast socio-ecological impact of food production, and produce high-quality food in sufficient quantity ( IFOAM, 1998 ).

Principles of organic farming (adapted from IFOAM, 1998 ).

According to the National Organic Programme implemented by USDA Organic Food Production Act (OFPA, 1990), agriculture needs specific prerequisites for both crop cultivation and animal husbandry. To be acceptable as organic, crops should be cultivated in lands without any synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and herbicides for 3 years before harvesting with enough buffer zone to lower contamination from the adjacent farms. Genetically engineered products, sewage sludge, and ionizing radiation are strictly prohibited. Fertility and nutrient content of soil are managed primarily by farming practices, with crop rotation, and using cover crops that are boosted with animal and plant waste manures. Pests, diseases, and weeds are mainly controlled with the adaptation of physical and biological control systems without using herbicides and synthetic pesticides. Organic livestock should be reared devoid of scheduled application of growth hormones or antibiotics and they should be provided with enough access to the outdoor. Preventive health practices such as routine vaccination, vitamins and minerals supplementation are also needed (OFPA, 1990).

Nutritional benefits and health safety

Magnusson et al. (2003) and Brandt and MØlgaord (2001) mentioned that the growing demand for organically farmed fresh products has created an interest in both consumer and producer regarding the nutritional value of organically and conventionally grown foods. According to a study conducted by AFSSA (2003) , organically grown foods, especially leafy vegetables and tubers, have higher dry matter as compared to conventionally grown foods. Woëse et al. (1997) and Bourn and Prescott (2002) also found similar results. Although organic cereals and their products contain lesser protein than conventional cereals, they have higher quality proteins with better amino acid scores. Lysine content in organic wheat has been reported to be 25%–30% more than conventional wheat ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ; Brandt et al. , 2000 ).

Organically grazed cows and sheep contain less fat and more lean meat as compared to conventional counterparts ( Hansson et al. , 2000 ). In a study conducted by Nürnberg et al. (2002) , organically fed cow’s muscle contains fourfold more linolenic acid, which is a recommended cardio-protective ω-3 fatty acid, with accompanying decrease in oleic acid and linoleic acid. Pastushenko et al. (2000) found that meat from an organically grazed cow contains high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The milk produced from the organic farm contains higher polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E ( Lund, 1991 ). Vitamin E and carotenoids are found in a nutritionally desirable amount in organic milk ( Nürnberg et al. , 2002 ). Higher oleic acid has been found in organic virgin olive oil ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). Organic plants contain significantly more magnesium, iron, and phosphorous. They also contain more calcium, sodium, and potassium as major elements and manganese, iodine, chromium, molybdenum, selenium, boron, copper, vanadium, and zinc as trace elements ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

According to a review of Lairon (2010) which was based on the French Agency for food safety (AFSSA) report, organic products contain more dry matter, minerals, and antioxidants such as polyphenols and salicylic acid. Organic foods (94%–100%) contain no pesticide residues in comparison to conventionally grown foods.

Fruits and vegetables contain a wide variety of phytochemicals such as polyphenols, resveratrol, and pro-vitamin C and carotenoids which are generally secondary metabolites of plants. In a study of Lairon (2010) , organic fruits and vegetables contain 27% more vitamin C than conventional fruits and vegetables. These secondary metabolites have substantial regulatory effects at cellular levels and hence found to be protective against certain diseases such as cancers, chronic inflammations, and other diseases ( Lairon, 2010 ).

According to a Food Marketing Institute (2008) , some organic foods such as corn, strawberries, and marionberries have greater than 30% of cancer-fighting antioxidants. The phenols and polyphenolic antioxidants are in higher level in organic fruits and vegetables. It has been estimated that organic plants contain double the amount of phenolic compounds than conventional ones ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ). Organic wine has been reported to contain a higher level of resveratrol ( Levite et al. , 2000 ).

Rossi et al. (2008) stated that organically grown tomatoes contain more salicylic acid than conventional counterparts. Salicylic acid is a naturally occurring phytochemical having anti-inflammatory and anti-stress effects and prevents hardening of arteries and bowel cancer ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ; Butler et al. , 2008 ).

Total sugar content is more in organic fruits because of which they taste better to consumers. Bread made from organically grown grain was found to have better flavour and also had better crumb elasticity ( BjØrn and Fruekidle, 2003 ). Organically grown fruits and vegetables have been proved to taste better and smell good ( Rembialkowska, 2000 ).

Organic vegetables normally have far less nitrate content than conventional vegetables ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ). Nitrates are used in farming as soil fertilizer but they can be easily transformed into nitrites, a matter of public health concern. Nitrites are highly reactive nitrogen species that are capable of competing with oxygen in the blood to bind with haemoglobin, thus leading to methemoglobinemia. It also binds to the secondary amine to generate nitrosamine which is a potent carcinogen ( Lairon, 2010 ).

As organically grown foods are cultivated without the use of pesticides and sewage sludge, they are less contaminated with pesticide residue and pathogenic organisms such as Listeria monocytogenes or Salmonella sp. or Escherichia coli ( Van Renterghem et al. , 1991 ; Lung et al. , 2001 ; Warnick et al. , 2001 ).

Therefore, organic foods ensure better nutritional benefits and health safety.

Environmental impact

Organic farming has a protective role in environmental conservation. The effect of organic and conventional agriculture on the environment has been extensively studied. It is believed that organic farming is less harmful to the environment as it does not allow synthetic pesticides, most of which are potentially harmful to water, soil, and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife ( Oquist et al. , 2007 ). In addition, organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining biodiversity, due to practices of crop rotation. Organic farming improves physico-biological properties of soil consisting of more organic matter, biomass, higher enzyme, better soil stability, enhanced water percolation, holding capacities, lesser water, and wind erosion compared to conventionally farming soil ( Fliessbach & Mäder, 2000 ; Edwards, 2007 ; Fileβbach et al. , 2007 ). Organic farming uses lesser energy and produces less waste per unit area or per unit yield ( Stolze et al. , 2000 ; Hansen et al. , 2001 ). In addition, organically managed soils are of greater quality and water retention capacity, resulting in higher yield in organic farms even during the drought years ( Pimentel et al. , 2005 ).

Socioeconomic impact

Organic cultivation requires a higher level of labour, hence produces more income-generating jobs per farm ( Halberg, 2008 ). According to Winter and Davis (2006), an organic product typically costs 10%–40% more than the similar conventionally crops and it depends on multiple factors both in the input and the output arms. On the input side, factors that enhance the price of organic foods include the high cost of obtaining the organic certification, the high cost of manpower in the field, lack of subsidies on organics in India, unlike chemical inputs. But consumers are willing to pay a high price as there is increasing health awareness. Some organic products also have short supply against high demand with a resultant increase in cost ( Mukherjee et al. , 2018 ).

Biofertilizers and pesticides can be produced locally, so yearly inputs invested by the farmers are also low ( Lobley et al. , 2005 ). As the labours working in organic farms are less likely to be exposed to agricultural chemicals, their occupational health is improved ( Thompson and Kidwell, 1998 ). Organic food has a longer shelf life than conventional foods due to lesser nitrates and greater antioxidants. Nitrates hasten food spoilage, whereas antioxidants help to enhance the shelf life of foods ( Shreck et al. , 2006 ). Organic farming is now an expanding economic sector as a result of the profit incurred by organic produce and thereby leading to a growing inclination towards organic agriculture by the farmers.

The concept of sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals—environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. The concept of sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The very basic approach to organic farming for the sustainable environment includes the following ( Yadav, 2017 ):

Improvement and maintenance of the natural landscape and agro-ecosystem.

Avoidance of overexploitation and pollution of natural resources.

Minimization of the consumption of non-renewable energy resources.

Exploitation synergies that exist in a natural ecosystem.

Maintenance and improve soil health by stimulating activity or soil organic manures and avoid harming them with pesticides.

Optimum economic returns, with a safe, secure, and healthy working environment.

Acknowledgement of the virtues of indigenous know-how and traditional farming system.

Long-term economic viability can only be possible by organic farming and because of its premium price in the market, organic farming is more profitable. The increase in the cost of production by the use of pesticides and fertilizers in conventional farming and its negative impact on farmer’s health affect economic balance in a community and benefits only go to the manufacturer of these pesticides. Continuous degradation of soil fertility by chemical fertilizers leads to production loss and hence increases the cost of production which makes the farming economically unsustainable. Implementation of a strategy encompassing food security, generation of rural employment, poverty alleviation, conservation of the natural resource, adoption of an export-oriented production system, sound infrastructure, active participation of government, and private-public sector will be helpful to make revamp economic sustainability in agriculture ( Soumya, 2015 ).

Social sustainability

It is defined as a process or framework that promotes the wellbeing of members of an organization while supporting the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community. Social sustainability can be improved by enabling rural poor to get benefit from agricultural development, giving respect to indigenous knowledge and practices along with modern technologies, promoting gender equality in labour, full participation of vibrant rural communities to enhance their confidence and mental health, and thus decreasing suicidal rates among the farmers. Organic farming appears to generate 30% more employment in rural areas and labour achieves higher returns per unit of labour input ( Pandey and Singh, 2012 ).

Organic food and farming have continued to grow across the world. Since 1985, the total area of farmland under organic production has been increased steadily over the last three decades ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). By 2017, there was a total of 69.8 million hectares of organically managed land recorded globally which represents a 20% growth or 11.7 million hectares of land in comparison to the year 2016. This is the largest growth ever recorded in organic farming ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). The countries with the largest areas of organic agricultural land recorded in the year 2017 are given in Figure 2 . Australia has the largest organic lands with an area of 35.65 million hectares and India acquired the eighth position with a total organic agriculture area of 1.78 million hectares ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Country-wise areas of organic agriculture land, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

In 2017, it was also reported that day to day the number of organic produces increases considerably all over the world. Asia contributes to the largest percentage (40%) of organic production in the world and India contributes to be largest number of organic producer (835 000) ( Figures 3 and 4 ).

Organic producers by region, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Largest organic producers in the world, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The growth of organic farming in India was quite dawdling with only 41 000 hectares of organic land comprising merely 0.03% of the total cultivated area. In India during 2002, the production of organic farming was about 14 000 tonnes of which 85% of it was exported ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ). The most important barrier considered in the progress of organic agriculture in India was the lacunae in the government policies of making a firm decision to promote organic agriculture. Moreover, there were several major drawbacks in the growth of organic farming in India which include lack of awareness, lack of good marketing policies, shortage of biomass, inadequate farming infrastructure, high input cost of farming, inappropriate marketing of organic input, inefficient agricultural policies, lack of financial support, incapability of meeting export demand, lack of quality manure, and low yield ( Figure 5 ; Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Constraints of organic farming in India in the past ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Recently, the Government of India has implemented a number of programs and schemes for boosting organic farming in the country. Among these the most important include (1) The Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, (2) Organic Value Chain Development in North Eastern Region Scheme, (3) Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, (4) The mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (a. National Horticulture Mission, b. Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan states, c. National Bamboo Mission, d. National Horticulture Board, e. Coconut Development Board, d. Central Institute for Horticulture, Nagaland), (5) National Programme for Organic Production, (6) National Project on Organic Farming, and (7) National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture ( Yadav, 2017 ).

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a method of farming where the cost of growing and harvesting plants is zero as it reduces costs through eliminating external inputs and using local resources to rejuvenate soils and restore ecosystem health through diverse, multi-layered cropping systems. It requires only 10% of water and 10% electricity less than chemical and organic farming. The micro-organisms of Cow dung (300–500 crores of beneficial micro-organisms per one gram cow dung) decompose the dried biomass on the soil and convert it into ready-to-use nutrients for plants. Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana since 2015–16 and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana are the schemes taken by the Government of India under the ZBNF policy ( Sobhana et al. , 2019 ). According to Kumar (2020) , in the union budget 2020–21, Rs 687.5 crore has been allocated for the organic and natural farming sector which was Rs 461.36 crore in the previous year.

Indian Competence Centre for Organic Agriculture cited that the global market for organically grown foods is USD 26 billion which will be increased to the amount of USD 102 billion by 2020 ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The major states involved in organic agriculture in India are Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh ( Chandrashekar, 2010 ).

India ranked 8th with respect to the land of organic agriculture and 88th in the ratio of organic crops to agricultural land as per Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority and report of Research Institute of Organic Agriculture ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ). But a significant growth in the organic sector in India has been observed ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ) in the last decades.

There have been about a threefold increase from 528 171 ha in 2007–08 to 1.2 million ha of cultivable land in 2014–15. As per the study conducted by Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry in India, the organic food turnover is increasing at about 25% annually and thereby will be expected to reach USD 1.36 billion in 2020 from USD 0.36 billion in 2014 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The consumption and popularity of organic foods are increasing day by day throughout the world. In 2008, more than two-thirds of US consumers purchased organic food, and more than one fourth purchased them weekly. The consumption of organic crops has doubled in the USA since 1997. A consumer prefers organic foods in the concept that organic foods have more nutritional values, have lesser or no additive contaminants, and sustainably grown. The families with younger consumers, in general, prefer organic fruits and vegetables than consumers of any other age group ( Thompson et al. , 1998 ; Loureino et al. , 2001 ; Magnusson et al. , 2003 ). The popularity of organic foods is due to its nutritional and health benefits and positive impact on environmental and socioeconomic status ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ) and by a survey conducted by the UN Environment Programme, organic farming methods give small yields (on average 20% lower) as compared to conventional farming ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). As the yields of organically grown foods are low, the costs of them are higher. The higher prices made a barrier for many consumers to buy organic foods ( Lairon, 2010 ). Organic farming needs far more lands to generate the same amount of organic food produce as conventional farming does, as chemical fertilizers are not used here, which conventionally produces higher yield. Organic agriculture hardly contributes to addressing the issue of global climate change. During the last decades, the consumption of organic foods has been increasing gradually, particularly in western countries ( Meiner-Ploeger, 2005 ).

Organic foods have become one of the rapidly growing food markets with revenue increasing by nearly 20% each year since 1990 ( Winter and Davis, 2006 ). The global organic food market has been reached USD 81.6 billion in 2015 from USD 17.9 billion during the year 2000 ( Figure 6 ) and most of which showed double-digit growth rates ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Worldwide growth in organic food sales ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

India is an agriculture-based country with 67% of its population and 55% of manpower depending on farming and related activities. Agriculture fulfils the basic needs of India’s fastest-growing population accounted for 30% of total income. Organic farming has been found to be an indigenous practice of India that practised in countless rural and farming communities over the millennium. The arrival of modern techniques and increased burden of population led to a propensity towards conventional farming that involves the use of synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides, application of genetic modification techniques, etc.

Even in developing countries like India, the demand for organically grown produce is more as people are more aware now about the safety and quality of food, and the organic process has a massive influence on soil health, which devoid of chemical pesticides. Organic cultivation has an immense prospect of income generation too ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ). The soil in India is bestowed with various types of naturally available organic nutrient resources that aid in organic farming ( Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Reddy, 2010 ; Deshmukh and Babar, 2015 ).

India is a country with a concrete traditional farming system, ingenious farmers, extensive drylands, and nominal use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, adequate rainfall in north-east hilly regions of the country where few negligible chemicals are employed for a long period of time, come to fruition as naturally organic lands ( Gour, 2016 ).

Indian traditional farmers possess a deep insight based on their knowledge, extensive observation, perseverance and practices for maintaining soil fertility, and pest management which are found effective in strengthening organic production and subsequent economic growth in India. The progress in organic agriculture is quite commendable. Currently, India has become the largest organic producer in the globe ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 , 2019 ) and ranked eighth having 1.78 million ha of organic agriculture land in the world in 2017 ( Sharma and Goyal, 2000 ; Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Various newer technologies have been invented in the field of organic farming such as integration of mycorrhizal fungi and nano-biostimulants (to increase the agricultural productivity in an environmentally friendly manner), mapping cultivation areas more consciously through sensor technology and spatial geodata, 3D printers (to help the country’s smallholder), production from side streams and waste along with main commodities, promotion and improvement of sustainable agriculture through innovation in drip irrigation, precision agriculture, and agro-ecological practices. Another advancement in the development of organic farming is BeeScanning App, through which beekeepers can fight the Varroa destructor parasite mite and also forms a basis for population modelling and breeding programmes ( Nova-Institut GmbH, 2018 ).

Inhana Rational Farming Technology developed on the principle ‘Element Energy Activation’ is a comprehensive organic method for ensuring ecologically and economically sustainable crop production and it is based on ancient Indian philosophy and modern scientific knowledge.

The technology works towards (1) energization of soil system: reactivation of soil-plant-microflora dynamics by restoration of the population and efficiency of the native soil microflora and (2) energization of plant system: restoration of the two defence mechanisms of the plant kingdom that are nutrient use efficiency and superior plant immunity against pest/disease infection ( Barik and Sarkar, 2017 ).

Organic farming yields more nutritious and safe food. The popularity of organic food is growing dramatically as consumer seeks the organic foods that are thought to be healthier and safer. Thus, organic food perhaps ensures food safety from farm to plate. The organic farming process is more eco-friendly than conventional farming. Organic farming keeps soil healthy and maintains environment integrity thereby, promoting the health of consumers. Moreover, the organic produce market is now the fastest growing market all over the world including India. Organic agriculture promotes the health of consumers of a nation, the ecological health of a nation, and the economic growth of a nation by income generation holistically. India, at present, is the world’s largest organic producers ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ) and with this vision, we can conclude that encouraging organic farming in India can build a nutritionally, ecologically, and economically healthy nation in near future.

This review work was funded by the University Grants Commission, Government of India.

None declared.

Adolph , B. , Butterworth , J . ( 2002 ). Soil fertility management in semi-arid India: its role in agricultural systems and the livelihoods of poor people . Natural Resources Institute , UK .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

AFSSA. ( 2003 ). Report on Evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic foods (Evaluation nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments issus de l’agriculturebiologique, in French), AFSSA, 164 . http://www.afssa.fr . Accessed 3 August 2018 .

Barik , A. , Sarkar , N . ( 2017 , November 8-11). Organic Farming in India: Present Status, Challenges and Technological Break Through . In: 3rd International Conference on Bio-resource and Stress Management, Jaipur, India.

Bhardwaj , M. , Dhiman , M . ( 2019 ). Growth and performance of organic farming in India: what could be the future prospects? Journal of Current Science , 20 : 1 – 8 .

BjØrn , G. , Fruekidle , A. M . ( 2003 ). Cepa onions ( Allium cepa L) grown conventionally . Green Viden , 153 : 1 – 6 .

Bourn , D. , Prescott , J . ( 2002 ). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods . Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition , 42 : 1 – 34 .

Brandt , D.A. , Brand , T.S. , Cruywagen , C.W . ( 2000 ). The use of crude protein content to predict concentrations of lysine and methionine in grain harvested from selected cultivars of wheat, barley and triticale grown in Western Cape region of South Africa . South African Journal of Animal Science , 30 : 22 – 259 .

Brandt , K. , MØlgaord , J.P . ( 2001 ). Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of Science of Food Agriculture , 81 : 924 – 931 .

Butler , G. et al.  ( 2008 ). Fatty acid and fat-soluble antioxidant concentrations in milk from high- and low-input conventional and organic systems: seasonal variation . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 88 : 1431 – 1441 .

Chandrashekar , H.M . ( 2010 ). Changing Scenario of organic farming in India: an overview . International NGO Journal , 5 : 34 – 39 .

Chopra , A. , Rao , N.C. , Gupta , N. , Vashisth , S . ( 2013 ). Come sunshine or rain; organic foods always on tract: a futuristic perspective . International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology Neurological Diseases , 3 : 202 – 205 .

Dangour , A.D. , Allen , E. , Lock , K. , Uauy , R . ( 2010 ). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods-using systematic reviews to question the available evidence . Indian Journal of Medical Research , 131 : 478 – 480 .

Deshmukh , M.S. , Babar , N . ( 2015 ). Present status and prospects of organic farming in India . European Academic Research , 3 : 4271 – 4287 .

Edwards , S . ( 2007 ). The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia . In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security . 2–5 May 2007, FAO , Rome [cited on 2013 March 20], pp. 1 – 42 . http://www.ftp.fao.org/paia/organica/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf .

Fileβbach , A. , Oberholzer , H.R. , Gunst , L. , Mäder , P . ( 2007 ). Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 118 : 273 – 284 .

Fliessbach , A. , Mäder , P . ( 2000 ). Microbial biomass and size—density fractions differ between soils of organic and conventional agricultural system . Soil Biology and Biochemistry , 32 : 757 – 768 .

Food Marketing Institute (FMI) . ( 2008 ). Natural and organic foods . http://www.fmi.org/docs/media-backgrounder/natural_organicfoods.pdf?sfvrsn=2 . Accessed 10 March 2019 .

Gour , M . ( 2016 ). Organic farming in India: status, issues and prospects . SOPAAN-II , 1 : 26 – 36 .

Gutierrez , F. , Arnaud , T. , Albi , M.A . ( 1999 ). Influence of ecologic cultivation on virgin olive oil quality . Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society , 76 : 617 – 621 .

Halberg , N . ( 2008 ). Energy use and green house gas emission in organic agriculture. In: Proceedings of International Conference Organic Agriculture and Climate Change . 17–18 April 2008, ENITA of Clermont , France , pp. 1 – 6 .

Hansen , B. , Alroe , H.J. , Kristensen , E.S. ( 2001 ). Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 83 : 11 – 26 .

Hansson , I. , Hamilton , C. , Ekman , T. , Forslund , K . ( 2000 ). Carcass quality in certified organic production compared with conventional livestock production . Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health , 47 : 111 – 120 .

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) . ( 1998 ). The IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing . General Assembly , Argentina, November, IFOAM, Germany . Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (U.S.C) s. 2103.

Kumar , V. ( 2020 , February 03). Union Budget 2020– 21 : Big talk on natural farming but no support [Web log post] . https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/agriculture/union-budget-2020-21-big-talk-on-natural-farming-but-no-support-69131 . on 28.04.2020

Lairon , D. ( 2010 ). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review . Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 30 : 33 – 41 .

Levite , D. , Adrian , M. , Tamm , L. ( 2000 ). Preliminary results of resveratrol in wine of organic and conventional vineyards, In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Organic Viticulture , 25–26 August 2000, Basel, Switzerland , pp. 256 – 257 .

Lobley , M. , Reed , M. , Butler , A. , Courtney , P. , Warren , M . ( 2005 ). Impact of Organic Farming on the Rural Economy in England . Exeter: Centre for Rural Research, Laffrowda House, University of Exeter , Exeter, UK .

Loureino , L.L. , McCluskey , J.J. , Mittelhammer , R.C . ( 2001 ). Preferences for organic, eco-labeled, or regular apples . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 26 : 404 – 416 .

Lund , P . ( 1991 ). Characterization of alternatively produced milk . Milchwissenschaft—Milk Science International , 46 : 166 – 169 .

Lung , A.J. , Lin , C.M. , Kim , J.M . ( 2001 ). Destruction of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enteritidis in cow manure composting . Journal of Food Protection , 64 : 1309 – 1314 .

Magnusson , M. K. , Arvola , A. , Hursti , U. K. , Aberg , L. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2003 ). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour . Appetite , 40 : 109 – 117 .

Meiner-Ploeger , K . ( 2005 ). Organic farming food quality and human health. In: NJF Seminar , 15 June 2005, Alnarp, Sweden .

Mukherjee , A. , Kapoor , A. , Dutta , S . ( 2018 ). Organic food business in India: a survey of companies . Research in Economics and Management , 3 : 72 . doi: 10.22158/rem.v3n2P72 .

Nourthbourne , C.J. , 5th Lord. ( 2003 ). Look to the Land , 2nd Rev Spec edn. Sophia Perennis , Hillsdale, NY ; First Ed. 1940. J.M. Dent & Sons.

Nova-Institut GmbH . ( 2018 , July 2). High-tech strategies for small farmers and organic farming [press release] . http://news.bio-based.eu/high-tech-strategies-for-small-farmers-and-organic-farming/ . Accessed 28 April 2020 .

Nürnberg , K. et al.  ( 2002 ). N-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acids of longissimus muscle in beef cattle . European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology , 104 : 463 – 471 .

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–624, §§ 2101- 2123, 104 Stat. 3935 (codified at 7 U.S.C.6501–6522).

Oquist , K. A. , Strock , J. S. , Mulla , D. J . ( 2007 ). Influence of alternative and conventional farming practices on subsurface drainage and water quality . Journal of Environmental Quality , 36 : 1194 – 1204 .

Padiya , J. , Vala , N . ( 2012 ). Profiling of organic food buyers in Ahmadabad city: an empirical study . Pacific Business Review International , 5 : 19 – 26 .

Pandey , J. , Singh , A . ( 2012 ): Opportunities and constraints in organic farming: an Indian perspective . Journal of Scientific Research , 56 : 47 – 72 , ISSN: 0447-9483.

Pastushenko , V. , Matthes , H.D. , Hein , T. , Holzer , Z . ( 2000 ). Impact of cattle grazing on meat fatty acid composition in relation to human nutrition. In: Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference . pp. 293 – 296 .

Pimentel , D. , Hepperly , P. , Hanson , J. , Douds , D. , Seidel , R . ( 2005 ). Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems . Bioscience , 55 : 573 – 582 .

Reddy S.B . ( 2010 ). Organic farming: status, issues and prospects—a review . Agricultural Economics Research Review , 23 : 343 – 358 .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2000 ). Wholesomeness and Sensory Quality of Potatoes and Selected Vegetables from the organic Farms . Fundacja Rozwoj SGGW , Warszawa .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2007 ). Quality of plant products from organic agriculture . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 87 : 2757 – 2762 .

Rossi , F. , Godani , F. , Bertuzzi , T. , Trevisan , M. , Ferrari , F. , Gatti , S . ( 2008 ). Health-promoting substances and heavy metal content in tomatoes grown with different farming techniques . European Journal of Nutrition , 47 : 266 – 272 .

Sharma A. K , Goyal R. K. ( 2000 ). Addition in tradition on agroforestry in arid zone . LEISA-INDIA , 2 : 19 – 20 .

Shepherd , R. , Magnusson , M. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2005 ). Determinants of consumer behavior related to organic foods . Ambio , 34 : 352 – 359 .

Shreck , A. , Getz , C. , Feenstra , G. ( 2006 ). Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: findings from an exploratory analysis . Agriculture and Human Values , 23 : 439 – 449 .

Sobhana , E. , Chitraputhira Pillai , S. , Swaminathan , V. , Pandian , K. , Sankarapandian , S . ( 2019 ). Zero Budget Natural Farming. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17084.46727.

Soumya , K. M . ( 2015 ). Organic farming: an effective way to promote sustainable agriculture development in India . IOSR Journal Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) , 20 : 31 – 36 , e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org .

Stolze , M. , Piorr , A. , Haring , A.M. , Dabbert , S. ( 2000 ). Environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe . Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy . vol. 6 . University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany . Retrieved on 15 May 2011. http://orgprints.org/8400/1/Organic_Farming_in_Europe_Volume06_The_Environmental_Impacts_of_Organic_Farming_in_Europe.pdf .

Thompson , G.D. , Kidwell , J . ( 1998 ). Explaining the choice of organic procedure: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 80 : 277 – 287 .

Van Renterghem , B. , Huysman , F. , Rygole , R. , Verstraete , W . ( 1991 ). Detection and prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in the agricultural ecosystem . Journal of Applied Bacteriology , 71 : 211 – 217 .

Warnick , L. D. , Crofton , L. M. , Pelzer , K. D. , Hawkins , M. J . ( 2001 ). Risk factors for clinical salmonellosis in Virginia, USA cattle herd . Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 49 : 259 – 275 .

Willer , H. , Lernoud , J ., eds. ( 2017 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . FiBL & IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn.

Willer , H . Lernoud J , eds. ( 2019 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick and IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn . https://www.organicworld.net/yearbook/yearbook-2019.html .

Winter , C.K. , Davis , S.F . ( 2006 ). Organic food . Journal of Food Science , 71 : 117 – 124 .

Woëse , K. , Lange , D. , Boess , C. , Bögl , K.W . ( 1997 ). A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods—results of a review of the relevant literature . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture , 74 : 281 – 293 .

Worthington , V . ( 2001 ). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains . Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine , 7 : 161 – 173 .

Yadav , M . ( 2017 ). Towards a healthier nation: organic farming and government policies in India . International Journal of Advance Research and Development , 2 : 153 – 159 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2399-1402
• Print ISSN 2399-1399
• Copyright © 2024 Zhejiang University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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

A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health?

Vanessa vigar.

1 NatMed Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia; [email protected] (V.V.); [email protected] (C.O.); [email protected] (S.R.)

2 Integria Healthcare, Eight Mile Plains QLD 4113, Australia

3 School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia; [email protected]

4 Centre for Organics Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia

Stephen Myers

Christopher oliver.

5 Oliver Nutrition Pty Ltd, Lismore NSW 2480, Australia

Jacinta Arellano

Shelley robinson, carlo leifert, associated data.

The current review aims to systematically assess the evidence related to human health outcomes when an organic diet is consumed in comparison to its conventional counterpart. Relevant databases were searched for articles published to January 2019. Clinical trials and observational research studies were included where they provided comparative results on direct or indirect health outcomes. Thirty-five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Few clinical trials assessed direct improvements in health outcomes associated with organic food consumption; most assessed either differences in pesticide exposure or other indirect measures. Significant positive outcomes were seen in longitudinal studies where increased organic intake was associated with reduced incidence of infertility, birth defects, allergic sensitisation, otitis media, pre-eclampsia, metabolic syndrome, high BMI, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The current evidence base does not allow a definitive statement on the health benefits of organic dietary intake. However, a growing number of important findings are being reported from observational research linking demonstrable health benefits with organic food consumption. Future clinical research should focus on using long-term whole-diet substitution with certified organic interventions as this approach is more likely to determine whether or not true measurable health benefits exist.

1. Introduction

The global marketplace of organics has grown rapidly over the last few decades and consumer demand for organic products is increasing globally, with approximately 80 billion Euros ($92 billion USD) spent on organic products annually [ 1 ]. A recent report from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM Organics International, shows a 14.7% increase in organic farmland from 2014 to 2015, totalling 50.9 million hectares, with Australia having the largest amount of agricultural land at 22.7 million hectares [ 2 ]. Organic food items most often consumed in Europe are organic baby foods followed by organic eggs, fruit and vegetables, then dairy products, with organic dairy reaching market shares of around 10 percent of overall sales in some European countries [ 2 ]. In the United States, fruit and vegetables make up the largest areas of organic food sales, followed by dairy products [ 3 ]. The reasons consumers are increasingly choosing organic over conventional food products are varied, including many reasons beside personal health and wellbeing, such as environmental concerns or animal welfare impact. However, the major determinants behind consumer purchase of organic products, is the belief that organic food is healthier or has a superior nutritional profile [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].

Regular consumers of organic food are most likely to be female, health-conscious, physically active, and in the higher brackets of education and income than their non-organic consuming counterparts [ 7 , 8 ]. They are also more likely to have a higher ratio of plant to animal foods, with a strong relationship between vegetarian/vegan consumers and organic consumption [ 7 , 9 ]. This consumer group generally has an increased wholefood dietary intake, as a result of both the general ethos of organic consumers (i.e., preference over processed/ultra-processed foods), and restricted use of additives in organic processed foods. Diet composition between organic and non-organic consumers may, therefore, be quite different.

The notion that organic food may be healthier has some support. Although there appears to be little variation between organic and conventional food products in terms of macro nutritional value (protein, fat, carbohydrate and dietary fibre), other compositional differences have been demonstrated. These include higher antioxidant concentrations (particularly polyphenols) in organic crops [ 10 ]; increased levels of omega-3 fatty acids in organic dairy products [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]; and improved fatty acid profiles in organic meat products [ 14 , 15 ]. These compositional differences are comprehensively discussed in several recent reviews [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that these compositional differences may have an effect on plasma levels of certain nutrients including magnesium, fat-soluble micronutrients (α-carotene, β -carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin), and fatty acids (linoleic, palmitoleic, γ-linolenic, and docosapentaenoic acids) [ 20 ]. Any possible clinical effects of such differences need further investigation.

Likely to be of more importance than compositional differences between the two, is what organic foods do not contain. Organic foods have been shown to have lower levels of toxic metabolites, including heavy metals such as cadmium, and synthetic fertilizer and pesticide residues [ 10 , 17 ]. Consumption of organic foods may also reduce exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria [ 19 ].

The long-term safety of pesticide consumption through conventional food production has been questioned, with evidence from long-term cohort studies covering areas ranging from possible neurotoxicity to endocrine disruption [ 21 ]. A number of widely used pesticides have been banned retrospectively only when unexpected negative health impacts have been identified [ 22 , 23 ]. From a regulatory perspective, dietary intake of pesticides is not considered to pose a health risk to consumers as long as individual pesticide concentrations in foods are below the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). Surveys conducted by both the European Food Safety Authority and the United States Department of Agriculture show that the vast majority of foods contained individual pesticide levels below the MRL, at 1.7% and 0.59%, respectively, found to exceed the limits. It was also found that 30.1% and 27.5%, respectively, of food samples analysed contained multiple pesticide residues [ 24 , 25 ]. One of the main criticisms of current regulatory pesticide approval processes is that they do not require safety testing of pesticide mixtures or formulations of pesticides [ 23 , 26 , 27 ]. There is considerable controversy about health risks posed by chronic low-level dietary pesticide exposure [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], and whilst lower levels of pesticide residue excretion is consistently observed during organic diet intakes [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], there is uncertainty around how this may impact the health of the consumer.

The last systematic review into the effect of organic food consumption on health was conducted by Dangour et al. in 2010 [ 35 ], which was limited to strict inclusion criteria of organic interventions, and Smith-Spangler et al. in 2012 [ 19 ], which contained only minimal focus on the human health effects of organic food, and a broader focus on nutritional content of organically and conventionally grown food and food safety. Although there have been other more recent reviews on the effects of organic diet on broader aspects of health [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 21 ], none have been systematic. The literature has expanded since these earlier systematic reviews, with many cohort and cross-sectional studies being published which compare organic versus conventional dietary intake on a range of health outcomes. Dangour et al. (2010) included 12 reports overall, of which eight were human studies (six clinical trials, one cohort study, 1 cross-section study), and four that reported animal or in vitro research. The Smith-Spangler et al. (2012) report was more comprehensive, including 17 human studies (in addition to 223 studies of comparative nutrient/contaminant profiles).

The present systematic review was designed to assess the breadth of evidence related to human health outcomes when an organic diet is consumed in comparison to its conventional counterpart. This review reports results from 35 studies including both clinical trial and observational research and includes substantially more papers than previous systematic reviews on this topic. This review does not include a comparison of nutritional quality between production types, safety of organic food, or human studies where environmental pesticide exposure is the focus.

2.1. Literature Search

This systematic review has been conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [ 36 ].

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search from the Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TOXNET databases for articles published in January 2019. Relevant keywords included terms related to organic dietary intake in combination with words relevant to health outcomes (i.e., asthma, eczema, obesity, diabetes). Search terms were amended slightly for each database. Articles with English titles and abstracts were considered for inclusion. The search strategy was developed by two authors (SM and VV) and was performed by VV in January 2019. Additional publications were identified from the reference lists of obtained articles that were included in the review. Refer to Supplementary Figure S1 (see online Supplementary Material ).

All articles that compared organic versus conventional dietary intake in relation to a direct or an indirect health outcome were included. We did not set out to limit paper inclusion by including a strict definition of organic intake, but accepted all papers that self-identified as representing comparative information on health outcomes from organic versus conventional diets. In doing so, we set out a priori to ensure we obtained a comprehensive snapshot of the available literature in this area.

2.2. Study Eligibility Criteria

2.2.1. population.

Only human feeding studies were included. Studies including infant participants measured from the second trimester of pregnancy were included where the mother gave dietary information during pregnancy.

2.2.2. Intervention

Any clinical trial where organic food items were taken to replace non-organic food items, or observational studies where there was a comparison between organic and non-organic dietary intake were included. This encompassed individual food or drink replacement, through to entire diet substitution. Observational research was accepted where dietary intake was classified according to level of organic food within individual dietary groups or whole diet.

2.2.3. Outcome

Clinical trials were included where they provided comparative results on direct or indirect health outcomes. Cohort studies were included where associations with development of disorder or disease were reported, or if they provided comparisons of biological samples across organic versus conventional dietary intake groups.

2.2.4. Study Designs

Types of studies included were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies.

2.2.5. Exclusion Criteria

Articles were excluded if they were not specifically examining the effect of organic dietary intake with conventional dietary intake, or if they did not report on human biomarkers related to health, or disease development. Articles were excluded if they were concerned with occupational exposure to agricultural chemicals or domestic use of pesticides and unrelated to dietary consumption of organic versus non-organic foods.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently reviewed full articles for inclusion based on relevance to the study question and eligibility criteria. One reviewer (VV) extracted data from included studies, which was checked by a separate reviewer (SM). The details are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 , using the following parameters: (i) author and year of publication; (ii) study population including country of origin and key demographic detail; (iii) sample size; (iv) study design and duration of intervention/exposure; (vi) exposure to organic diet and comparator; (vii) outcomes assessed; (viii) results; (ix) organic definition.

Data extraction table—Clinical trials.

Abbreviations: 2-AAS: 2-amino-adipic semialdehyde; AMPA: aminomethylphosphonic acid; BMI: body mass index; C: control group; CKD: chronic kidney disease; Cat: catalase; CS: cabernet sauvignon; DAP: dialkylphosphate; DEP: diethylphosphate; DETP: diethylthiophosphate; DEDTP: diethyldithiophosphate; DMDTP: dimethyldithiophosphate; DMP: dimethylphosphate; DMTP: dimethylthiophosphate; DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid; DXA: dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; FRAP: ferric reducing ability of plasma; GPx: glutathione peroxidase; GR: glutathione reductase; GSH: glutathione; Hcy: homocysteine; LDL: low density lipoprotein; MDA: malathion; NK: natural killer; NO: non-organic group; O: organic group; OP: organophosphate; ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SOD: superoxide dismutase; TAC: total antioxidant capacity; TAG: triacyglycerol; TBARS: thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; TCPy: 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol; TE: trolox equivalents; TEAC: trolox equivalents antioxidant capacity; Vit: vitamin; WBC: white blood cell.

Data extraction table - Observational Studies.

Abbreviations: AAR: artficially assisted reproduction; AL: anthroposophic lifestyle; ART: assisted reproductive technology; AMPA: aminomethylphosphonic acid; BMI: body mass index; CL: conventional lifestyle; DAP: dialkylphosphate; DETP: diethylthiophosphate; DMP: dimethylphosphate; DMTP: dimethylthiophosphate; FFQ: food frequency questionnaire; FV: fruits and vegetables; HR: hazard ratio; LOD: limit of detection; NO: non-organic group; O: organic group; OM: otitis media; OS: organic score; PBA: 3-phenoxybenzoic acid; PRBS: pesticide residue burden score; TFA: trans-fatty acid; TVA: trans-vaccenic acid; Vit: vitamin.

2.4. Assessment of Risk of Bias

The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess likelihood of bias in each clinical trial publication [ 67 ]. The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies was used to assess the likelihood of bias in cohort studies, and the Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE) checklist was used for the critical appraisal of cross-sectional studies [ 68 , 69 ]. All assessments were conducted by at least two authors, with differences settled by discussion. Summary tables detailing results of bias assessments are presented in Supplementary Figure S2 .

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram detailing the article selection process is shown in Figure 1 . Searches identified 4329 potentially relevant articles, of which 4234 were excluded after initial screening of title and/or abstract. The remaining 95 full-text publications were assessed, of which a further 60 publications were excluded.

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection [ 36 ].

Thirty-five papers met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Of these, 15 publications reported on 13 clinical trials—three of which were parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCT), with the remaining studies utilising a crossover design. In observational studies, 20 publications reported on 13 cohorts. The studies were all published in English. The majority of the clinical trials were conducted in Europe—Germany (2), Denmark (2), Italy (2), France (1), and Switzerland (1), with other countries including: the United States (2), Turkey (1), Brazil (1), and Australia (1). Observational research studies were on cohorts from the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, France, Denmark, Netherlands, and Sweden.

3.2. Clinical Trials (Single Food/Drink Item Substitution)

Several studies investigated the effect of replacing a single non-organic food or drink item with its organic counterpart. Three of the trials utilised an acute dose setting (red wine, apples or grape juice) in a crossover design [ 40 , 42 , 48 ], while others were based on the daily consumption of the food item (tomatoes and derived purees, carrots or apples) for a period of 2–4 weeks [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Those studies looking at nutrient levels (i.e., carotenoids, polyphenols) [ 37 , 38 , 39 ] in biological samples (blood or urine), did not find any significant differences in the levels of these markers as a result of the organic intervention.

Other single-item substitution studies measured antioxidant capacity, or DNA damage in biological samples [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 48 ]. There were no significant between-group differences in these biomarkers in any of the studies.

3.3. Clinical Trials (Whole Diet Substitution)

Eight crossover trials (reported in nine publications) investigated the effect of whole diet replacement from conventional to organic (or at least >80% in one study) for a time period ranging from 4 or 5 days in children [ 31 , 43 , 44 ] to up to 22 days in adult populations [ 34 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 49 ].

Four of these trials (two in children and two in adults) measured changes in pesticide excretion through urine [ 31 , 34 , 43 , 44 , 49 ]. All of these trials demonstrated a significant difference in the amount of pesticide metabolites excreted during the different phases of the diet interventions. The reduction was, in most cases, dramatic (up to 90% reduction during organic phase) and occurred within a short time frame of only a few days.

The remaining trials were all conducted in adult populations and measured antioxidant capacity and flavonoid excretion [ 41 ]; carotenoids [ 47 ]; or antioxidant capacity, changes to body composition, lipids and inflammatory markers [ 45 , 46 ].

Similar to the results from clinical trials replacing single food items, individual flavonoid and carotenoid excretion appeared to reflect the content of the foods consumed (i.e., a higher quercetin, carotenoid and kaempferol level was shown in organic produce in comparison to conventional produce given as part of the diets, and this was reflected in the urinary output) [ 41 , 47 ].

Two studies completed by the same research group in Italy looked at the effects of a Mediterranean diet intervention (non-organic phase followed by organic phase). An initial pilot study of 10 people [ 45 ] and a following larger cohort study of 150 people (100 healthy and 50 with chronic kidney disease (CKD)) [ 46 ] provided a two-stage intervention, with a controlled Mediterranean diet (MD) for 14 days followed by the same diet for a further 14 days using organic rather than conventional foodstuffs.

The pilot study found an increased antioxidant effect (from 2.25 to 2.75 mM trolox equivalents) after 14 days MD and after 14 days organic MD, respectively, with no baseline measure provided. The authors also showed a generally higher antioxidant level in the organic foods eaten in comparison to non-organic. In the larger study, in both healthy and CKD patients there was a highly significant effect on body weight reduction and improved body composition seen through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and bio-impedance analysis (BIA) between the two time points (end of conventional MD and end of organic MD). Inflammatory markers (hs-CRP, IL-1, IL-6, IFN-γ and homocysteine) all showed a statistically significant decrease between the same time-points for the healthy group, whilst only hs-CRP and homocysteine were significantly decreased in the CKD group.

3.4. Observational cohort studies

From a total of 20 publications including 13 cohorts, seven prospective cohorts were identified, with the majority involving mother/child pairs. These included the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study [ 55 , 56 ]; KOALA Birth Cohort [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]; ALLADIN study [ 61 ]; PELAIGE Mother–Child Cohort [ 62 ] and the EARTH study [ 52 ]. Two adult-only cohorts involved development of cancer incidence in the Million Women Study [ 65 ], and self-reported health factors in the Nutri-Net Santé Cohort Study [ 20 , 53 , 63 , 64 ]. A retrospective case-control study in a mother–child cohort was also included [ 57 ].

Several of the identified studies provided cross-section data only. These include comparisons of organic and conventional diets on sperm quality/content [ 50 , 51 ]; breast milk composition [ 66 ]; and urinary pesticide excretion [ 32 , 33 ].

For ease of reporting, all of the observational studies have been separated into subject areas. Firstly, looking at potential influence on foetal development (effect on sperm, fertility, and birth defects, pre-eclampsia); breast milk studies; development of allergies in children; urinary pesticide excretion; cancer development incidence; and changes in nutritional biomarkers in adults.

3.4.1. Sperm and Fertility

Two investigations examined the association between sperm health in Danish organic farmers. The first compares the organic farmers to non-organic farmers and shows a significantly lower proportion of morphologically normal spermatozoa in the non-organic group, but no significant difference in relation to 14 other semen parameters [ 51 ]. The other compares the organic farmers to a control group of airline pilots, finding a higher sperm concentration among organic farmers (increased by 43.1%, 95% CI 3.2 to 98.8%), with no differences seen in seminal volume, total sperm count, and sperm morphology [ 50 ].

The Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study examined associations between high or low dietary pesticide exposure in a group of women using assisted reproduction technology (ART) at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center [ 52 ]. They compared pregnancy/birth outcomes from 325 women (contributing 541 ART cycles) against a dietary pesticide score. They found high-pesticide residue fruit and vegetable (FV) intake was inversely associated with probability of clinical pregnancy and live birth per initiated cycle. Compared with women in the lowest quartile of high-pesticide residue FV intake (<1 serving/day), women in the highest quartile (≥2.3 servings/day) had 18% (95%CI 5%–30%) lower probability of clinical pregnancy and 26% (95%CI 13%–37%) lower probability of live birth. High-pesticide residue FV intake was positively associated with probability of total pregnancy loss.

3.4.2. Mother–Child cohorts

The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) investigated associations between an organic diet and conventional diet during pregnancy and the development of pregnancy complications, including pre-eclampsia [ 56 ] and incidence of the rare reproductive abnormalities in infant boys—hypospadias or cryptorchidism [ 55 ]. Women who reported to have eaten organic vegetables ‘often’ or ‘mostly’ ( n = 2493, 8.8% of study-sample) were found to have a lower risk of pre-eclampsia than those who reported ‘never/rarely’ or ‘sometimes’ (OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.61, 0.96). A lower prevalence of hypospadias with any organic consumption, in particular organic vegetables, was found, with no difference for cryptorchidism. This prospective study included 35,107 mothers of male infants in Norway, with organic food in six food groups assessed by food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) [ 55 ]. Whole diet composition was considered using slightly different methods in each of these analyses; therefore, residual confounding may exist between the results reported. In a smaller case-control study, retrospective data were collected from mothers of 306 infant males who were operated on for hypospadias matched to 306 mothers of healthy infant males in Denmark. No difference was found for total organic consumption, but increased odds for hypospadias were found specifically when non-organic milk/dairy consumption was combined with frequent consumption of high-fat dairy products (adjusted OR = 2.18, 95%CI 1.09, 4.36) [ 57 ].

The PELAIGE study in France ( n = 1505) was a prospective cohort study that examined the incidence of otitis media during early childhood, finding frequent intake of organic diet during pregnancy was associated with decreased risk of having at least one episode of otitis media (OR = 0.69, 95%CI 0.47, 1.00) [ 62 ]. A sub-group analysis measuring pesticide residues in urine, found the presence of dealkylated triazine metabolites was positively associated with recurrent otitis media (OR = 2.12, 95%CI 1.01, 4.47).

The influence of organic food consumption as part of an anthroposophical lifestyle in pregnancy and early childhood has been discussed following two major studies—the KOALA birth cohort in the Netherlands [ 60 , 70 , 71 ], and the ALADDIN birth cohort in Sweden [ 61 ]. In the KOALA cohort ( n = 2764), consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk (OR = 0.64, 95%CI 0.44, 0.93), but there was no association for other food types or overall organic content of diet with the development of eczema, wheeze or atopic sensitisation. No statistically significant associations were observed between organic food consumption and recurrent wheeze (OR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.26, 0.99) during the first 2 years of life [ 60 ]. In the ALADDIN study ( n = 330), a markedly decreased risk of sensitisation during the first 2 years of life was seen in children of anthroposophic families compared with children of non-anthroposophic families with adjusted OR of 0.25 (95%CI 0.10, 0.64, p = 0.004) [ 61 ].

It is important to note that organic food consumption is only one of several food-specific differences that are a key part of the anthroposophic lifestyle (see discussion).

3.4.3. Early Childhood

Minimal changes were seen in breastmilk composition in the KOALA birth cohort study, with increased rumenic acid and a trend for increased trans-vaccenic acid in quartiles of highest organic consumption [ 58 ]. No difference was seen in trans fatty acid content within the same cohort [ 60 ]. An American study examining milk and urine samples of lactating women for glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) did not find any evidence of these chemicals in the breast milk of conventional or organic food consumers [ 66 ].

Similar to the findings in urinary output of pesticides found in clinical trial research, cross-sectional analysis of organophosphorus metabolites in children ( n = 39) show that those consuming organic foods have considerably lower levels of dimethyl metabolites in their urine than those consuming conventional diets (0.03 and 0.17 μmol/L, p < 0.001), respectively [ 33 ].

3.4.4. Adult Research

The Nutri-Net Santé Cohort has analysed data from 62,224 participants enrolled in France, through an internet-based survey, with information on frequency of organic food consumption and repeated anthropometric data. The data was predominantly self-reported. An increase in the organic score was associated with a lower risk of being overweight (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.68, 0.86, p < 0.0001). The association remained strong and highly significant, with a reduction in the risk of obesity of 37% after a 3.1-year follow-up [ 63 ]. A cross-section of the cohort ( n = 8174) examined for metabolic syndrome also detailed positive impact of an organic diet with an adjusted prevalence ratio of 0.69 (95%CI 0.61, 0.78) when comparing the third tertile of organic food in the diet with the first one ( p < 0.0001) [ 64 ]. Additionally, a nested case-control study ( n = 300) evaluated pesticide metabolites excreted in the urine within the group, finding significantly lower levels of pesticide metabolites among organic consumers versus conventional consumers, with median concentration levels of investigated metabolites for diethylphosphate (0.196 versus 0.297), dimethylphosphate (0.620 versus 1.382), and total dialkylphosphates (0.12 versus 0.16), p < 0.05 [ 54 ].

A separate prospective cohort study in adults that estimated organophosphate exposure from food frequency records of 4466 multi-ethnic older Americans, measured urinary pesticide excretion in a sub-group ( n = 240) and found that higher levels of estimated dietary organophosphate exposure were associated with higher dialkylphosphate concentrations excreted in the urine ( p < 0.05) [ 32 ].

The Million Women Study in the United Kingdom examined any association with cancer incidence and organic diet over a 9-year follow-up period in 1.3 million women. They found no association for reduced cancer incidence in the group, with the exception of a possibly lower incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma [ 65 ].

The Nutri-Net Santé group also investigated associations with cancer incidence in a cohort of 68,946 participants [ 53 ]. The group, followed for a mean of 4.6 years, report that after adjustment for confounders, high organic food scores were linearly and negatively associated with the overall risk of cancer (HR for Q4 vs Q1, 0.75; 95%CI, 0.63–0.88; p for trend = 0.001; absolute risk reduction, 0.6%; HR for a 5-point increase, 0.92; 95%CI 0.88–0.96). Amongst specific cancers, they found a decreased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma ( p = 0.049) and postmenopausal breast cancer, with no association for other types of cancer. The information on non-Hodgkin lymphoma is similar to that found in the Million Women study; however, the information related to breast cancer was in direct contrast.

A nested matched case-control study of 300 participants (150 low and 150 high organic food consumers) within the Nutri-Net Santé had serum samples analysed for differences in nutritional biomarkers [ 20 ]. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups for α-tocopherol and retinol, cadmium, copper, ferritin or transferrin. Organic consumers exhibited higher plasma concentrations of α-carotene, β -carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin, whereas no differences were found for other carotenoids ( β -cryptoxanthin and lycopene). Organic consumers had higher levels of magnesium and a lower plasma concentration of iron. Within the fatty acid analysis, organic consumers had lower palmitoleic acid, γ-linolenic acid, and docosapentaenoic acid and higher linoleic acid concentrations. The results of these participants, matched for dietary patterns and other health factors, indicates a possible mild modulation of nutritional levels between organic and non-organic consumers.

3.5. Bias Assessments

The results of bias assessment for cohort studies showed all studies as good or fair, with no studies returning an assessment of poor. Cross-sectional studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias, with the exception of Jensen et al. (1996), which was a short report, with high bias due to missing detail. Within the clinical trials reviewed, the risk of bias was classified as high in several areas, specifically those related to blinding and allocation concealment. Due to the nature of the intervention, in some cases, it was difficult to adequately blind participants (i.e., food packaging, replacement of ‘usual’ diet products). There were, however, several studies [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ] where blinding and randomisation is stated, but the method is not adequately reported and, therefore, they have received an unclear risk of bias in these areas. Many of the studies were not randomised, providing one diet followed by the alternate diet for all participants concurrently.

Significant bias likely to affect the outcomes of the reports was found for two studies conducted by the same research group in Italy [ 45 , 46 ]. In both cases, all participants received a controlled Mediterranean diet (MD) for 14 days followed by the same diet for a further 14 days using organic rather than conventional foodstuffs, with no washout between diet arms. This introduces a significant risk of bias for the validity of the outcomes for the organic diet intervention as it may be a cumulative effect of the MD changes, rather than a specific effect for the organic component of the diet.

Another study with high risk of bias was the study by Goen et al. [ 49 ] as it contained only two people in the treatment group, in an open-label crossover trial, with no washout between diets. Results of bias assessments are shown in Supplementary Figure S2 .

3.6. Quality of included Reviews

No formal grading system was applied to the included articles; however, elements of study quality, including high risk of bias or un-realistic results have been discussed for individual articles throughout the review. Several included articles in this present review were not accepted in the previous systematic review into this topic conducted by Dangour et al. (2010). These include pesticide excretion studies [ 33 , 72 ] and a cross-sectional study on semen analyses [ 51 ], excluded on the basis of being contaminant studies; and a second semen analysis study [ 73 ], excluded as an occupational health study. The rationale for our inclusion of these studies is that although occupational exposure may have been a factor in the Larsen study [ 73 ], the method of calculating pesticide exposure was based entirely on food intake. Pesticide excretion studies were included as this was considered potentially important for health, and these studies are also included in other reviews discussing comparison of organic and conventional food intakes on health, i.e., Smith-Spangler et al. [ 19 ].

4. Discussion

This systematic review reports on a wide range of interventional (15 publications) and observational studies (20 publications/13 cohorts), where the health effects of organic diet consumption (whole diet or partial replacement) are compared to conventional diet consumption. Substantially more papers are included compared to previous systematic reviews on this topic [ 19 , 35 ] with varying levels of bias and quality.

4.1. Clinical Trials

The included clinical trials use a diverse range of methodologies, all involving short-term food substitutions. These range from acute intake of a single dietary item (conventional or organic), to entire diet substitution over a maximum exposure time of 4 weeks, with most of the studies utilising a 2-week intervention period. The majority of the results show no, or minimal, significant differences between organic (O) and non-organic (NO) treatments in the biomarkers selected. In several of these trials, a single food or drink [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 47 , 48 ] was substituted for their organic equivalent. Those studies that also compared the composition of the two food items found there was no difference in the concentration of the nutrient of interest (i.e., lycopene) between O and NO foods [ 37 , 38 , 47 ]. It seems logical, therefore, that a change in participants’ samples would seem unlikely unless there was positive laboratory evidence to demonstrate a specific difference between the NO and O substance that could lead to a biologically plausible difference in vivo.

Similarly, in whole-diet substitution studies, those that examined antioxidant capacity or nutrients in biomarkers, generally did not show between-group differences, which again appeared to be reflective of the laboratory values of these nutrients were measured [ 41 , 47 ]. However, one study did show a significant change in antioxidant capacity [ 45 ]. This study, and a related trial [ 46 ], which was the only trial to assess a direct health outcome, both provided a NO Mediterranean diet intervention for 2 weeks prior to 2 weeks of the same O Mediterranean diet. There are several issues with the methodology of this model, these and the associated high risk of bias are discussed further in Section 3.5 . The reported weight loss and body composition changes in this study appear unrealistic for the 14-day time frame. The authors report a mean weight loss of 5.6 kg, with mean (SD) weight change from the end of NO diet to end of O diet was 85.17 (±13.97) to 79.52 (±10.41), p = 0.0365. The fat loss is reported as 7.18 kg over the two week period from 23.36 (±8.88) to 16.18 (±3.34), p = 0.0054, there was also a non-significant 1.18 kg rise in lean muscle mass, from 53.45 (±6.69) to 54.63 (±6.76) [ 46 ]. Without baseline assessments provided before any dietary intervention in this group, the effect of the organic intervention cannot be relied upon.

Whole-diet substitution trials that measured changes in pesticide excretion showed significant and substantial reductions during the O diet phase [ 31 , 34 , 43 , 44 , 49 ], and are discussed under Section 4.3 .

To date, there are no long-term clinical trials measuring direct health outcomes from organic diet intervention. The short timeframe of currently available clinical trials is a serious limitation in assessing demonstrable health benefits. Additionally, only surrogate markers of health have been applied to the majority of clinical trials, with most trials measuring antioxidant levels or pesticide metabolite excretion.

4.2. Observational Research

Observational research, which has followed cohorts for up to 10 years (Nutri-Net Santé and the Million Women study), has investigated a range of hypotheses regarding organic diet and health. Studies included in this review report positive associations between organic diet consumption and a range of areas, including fertility, birth defects, allergic sensitisation, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and metabolic syndrome.

Findings from two cross-sectional reports on semen parameters detailed mixed findings, and although the majority of tested parameters showed no significant differences, higher sperm concentration in O consumers [ 50 ] and lower normal sperm in NO consumers [ 51 ] offer preliminary data that is worthy of further exploration. In female fertility, very positive associations between low dietary pesticide exposure and successful pregnancy and birth outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproduction have been reported in one study [ 52 ]. Given the declining fertility rates and poorer semen quality being reported worldwide [ 74 ], higher odds of achieving clinical pregnancy and live birth with an organic diet is a significant and important finding. A reduction in risk of birth defects (hypospadias) [ 55 , 57 ], but not cryptorchidism [ 55 ], and reduced risk of pre-eclampsia [ 56 ] add further evidence for organic diet use through pregnancy.

In children, increased risk of recurrent otitis media has been positively associated with pesticide intake [ 62 ], and decreased allergic sensitisation was shown in families following an anthroposophical lifestyle, in comparison to a conventional cohort in the Assessment of Lifestyle and Allergic Disease During Infancy (ALLADIN) study [ 61 ]. Consumption of organic dairy products was associated with lower eczema risk as the only significant positive outcome in a similar study (KOALA) [ 60 , 70 , 71 ]. There are other studies that have supported lower rates of allergic sensitisation from an anthroposophical lifestyle; however, the contribution of organic foods in these studies was not sufficient for them to be included in this review [ 75 , 76 , 77 ]. Specific confounding factors related to anthroposophic studies are discussed in Section 4.4 .

The largest studies reporting on adult populations include the Nutri-Net Santé Cohort Study (France), and the Million Women Study (UK). Both of these studies have investigated associations with cancer risk [ 64 , 65 ], with both finding reduced risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma with increased organic consumption. Other findings between the two studies were similar, with a very small risk reduction (0.6%) for all cancers in France, but no risk reduction in the UK. Postmenopausal breast cancer rates were decreased in high-O consumers [ 64 ], but overall breast cancer risk slightly increased in the alternate study [ 65 ]. Different adjustment variables between the studies may have been partly responsible for the different outcomes reported, i.e., the Million Women Study adjusted for hormone replacement in breast cancer, which the Nutri-Net Santé study did not report.

Other findings from the Nutri-Net Santé study show reductions in overweight and risk of obesity, as well as reduced incidence of metabolic syndrome demonstrated in favor of organic food intake [ 63 , 64 ]. Whilst this was self-reported data, there is evidence from other association studies that supports dysregulation of several key facets involved in metabolic syndrome in association with serum pesticides [ 78 , 79 ].

As with any observational studies, there is difficulty in determining the causality of the associations that have been observed. It is possible that the benefits of organic diets are associated only with long-term consumption, or result from lifestyle factors or dietary patterns, which is much harder to model in prospective clinical trials.

4.3. Pesticide Excretion

One of the major benefits proposed for organic food is the reduction in exposure to chemicals such as pesticides. Pesticide residues are found in differing amounts across predominantly, fruits and vegetables, but also, grain and dairy products, with much lower amounts found in animal products (except liver, which contains high levels) [ 24 ].

The major class of pesticides tested for in the organic food literature reviewed for this paper were the organophosphates, the metabolites of which can be measured in the urine as markers of recent exposure. The most commonly detected metabolites are dimethylphosphate, dimethylthiophosphate, diethylphosphate, and diethylthiophosphate. In some studies, herbicide exposure was also assessed, mainly glyphosate, often assessed through its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid. Interventions with organic diets markedly reduced the levels of these compounds, and observational studies in adults and children also show reduced urinary metabolite levels in organic versus conventional diets.

Given that several organophosphorus (OP) insecticides and glyphosate (an OP herbicide and the world’s most widely used agricultural chemical) were recently re-classified by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as being “probably carcinogenic” [ 80 ], reduced exposure may potentially benefit health. Results of recent reviews comparing pesticide residues in organic and conventional foods conclude that organic food consumption is one approach to substantially minimise exposure to pesticides [ 17 , 21 ].

The impact of switching to organic food consumption on reducing dietary pesticide exposure may be higher in consumers that follow current dietary guidelines for wholegrain and fruit/vegetable consumption. Foods may also be ‘pesticide-free’ but not ‘organic’. It is well documented that pesticide concentrations in wholegrain and wholemeal products are higher than in polished grains such as white flour products (since the outer bran layers of grains have higher pesticide loads then the endosperm) [ 81 ]. Apart from wholegrain products, fruits and vegetables are the main dietary source for pesticide exposure and recent European monitoring showed that multiple residues and concentrations above the MRL are most frequently found in fruit and vegetables [ 24 ].

4.4. Confounders of Results

Lifestyle factors amongst organic consumers are likely to have an important impact on external validity. Organic consumers tend to be more health conscious, are more likely to be vegetarian or vegan and are more likely to be physically active [ 7 , 8 ].

Epidemiological research has shown consumers of organic food generally have a diet that is higher in plant-based food, lower in animal products, with a higher intake of legumes, nuts, and wholegrains than their conventional food-consuming counterparts. These dietary patterns are likely to have significant health benefits in comparison to what is commonly recognised as the standard Western diet, a diet categorised by highly refined, low-fibre, omnivorous diets low in fruits, vegetables and other plant-based foods [ 82 ]. A wholefood diet (high in fibre and plant matter) also has demonstrable effects on a healthy diverse microbiota, which is linked to overall health [ 83 ]. The organic consumer group may, therefore, not be representative of the general population, i.e., any benefits from organic food consumption may be attributable partly to increased wholefood intake and a healthier lifestyle.

Whole diet composition and diet quality have been measured and adjusted for in different ways in observational research, with varying elements of the diet included as part of the ‘organic intake’ data collected. It is possible that the benefit observed for organic intake may be partly due to the quality and composition of the diet rather than a direct effect of organic food consumption. Additionally, validation of self-reported organic intake in observational studies is lacking.

The included cohorts from anthroposophical backgrounds (ALLADIN and KOALA birth cohorts) adds an additional layer of confounding, as the consumption of organic food forms only a small part of the dietary measures adopted in this group. Anthroposophy includes a strong focus on fermented foods, biodynamic production, use of butter and olive oil as predominant fats, and long-term breastfeeding [ 60 , 61 ]. This is combined with other factors such as reduced levels of antibiotic and medication use and a high proportion of plant foods, which together may impact on the overall health of mothers and babies, and influence the results shown.

4.5. Limitations

In the included studies, there was wide heterogeneity in the definition and application of the term ‘organic’ and the percentage of organic food replacement in the diet. This makes any interpretation on the benefits or otherwise of organic food consumption very difficult. No formal grading system was applied to the included studies. A grading criteria, such as that employed by Dangour et al. (2010), would have been helpful to categorise the research according to quality. The review was limited by the non-inclusion of foreign language databases.

5. Conclusions

A growing number of important findings are being reported from observational research linking demonstrable health benefits to levels of organic food consumption. Clinical trial research has been short-term and measured largely surrogate markers with limited positive results.

Pesticide excretion studies have consistently shown a reduction in urinary pesticide metabolites with an organic diet; however, there is insufficient evidence to show translation into clinically relevant and meaningful health outcomes. There is a need for studies to move beyond simply measuring the reduction in pesticide exposure with organic food, to investigating measurable health benefits.

The finding that organic food consumption substantially reduces urinary OP levels is important information for consumers, who would like to take a precautionary approach and minimise OP-pesticide exposure. Given the current knowledge on the toxicity of these chemicals, it seems possible that ongoing reduced exposure may translate to health benefits.

While findings from this systematic review showed significant positive outcomes from observational studies in several areas, including reduced incidence of metabolic syndrome, high BMI, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, infertility, birth defects, allergic sensitisation, otitis media and pre-eclampsia, the current evidence base does not allow a definitive statement on the long-term health benefits of organic dietary intake. Consumption of organic food is often tied to overall healthier dietary practices and lower levels of overweight and obesity, which are likely to be influential in the results of observational research.

Recommendations for Future Research

Single-food substitution studies have shown no benefits and should not be undertaken without substantive pre-clinical data. Additionally, surrogate markers, i.e., antioxidant levels and pesticide excretion, are insufficient to determine actual benefit to health and ideally should be coupled with measurements related to specific health outcomes. Unlike the current exposure studies which measure changes in days or weeks, longer-term health benefit studies are needed. Specifically, long-term whole-diet substitution studies, using certified organic interventions will provide the most reliable evidence to answer the question of whether an organic diet provides true measurable health benefits.

Additional research options may include further evaluation of biological data collected through previous large cohort studies, such as the Nutri-Net Santé study [ 84 ], and the MoBa biobank [ 85 ], to test hypotheses on organic diet and health.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/1/7/s1 , Figure S1: Medline search strategy, Figure S2: Risk of bias summary tables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M. and C.L.; methodology, S.M. and V.V.; data curation, V.V.; writing—original draft preparation, V.V.; S.M.; C.O.; J.A.; S.R.; writing—review and editing, V.V.; C.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

A grant from the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research) at Southern Cross University partially funded this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The research team are associated with a research centre in organic food, and have remained mindful to ensure this review was objective, transparent and reproducible.

ORGANIC IS REGENERATIVE

Ofrf events, organic for climate, why organic, farmer stories, organic farming research foundation works to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems. ofrf cultivates organic research, education, and federal policies that bring more farmers and acreage into organic production..

Beyond Buzzwords: Organic is Regenerative

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-27T20:51:57+00:00 March 27th, 2024 | News |

The term ‘regenerative’ has gained widespread traction, but definitions vary widely. It has caught the attention of consumers interested in the impact of their food choices, and farmers and policymakers looking for ways to adapt to or mitigate climate change. But organic is already regenerative.

Organic Researcher Spotlight: Dr. Dil Thavarajah

Brian Geier 2024-03-20T17:18:21+00:00 March 20th, 2024 | Education , News |

New cultivars of pulse crops (lentils, chickpeas, and field peas) may soon be available to organic farmers! These improved varieties are under development through a project led by Dr Dil Thavarajah at Clemson State University (CSU).

New Toolkit Highlights How Organic Practices Lead the Way in Regenerative Agriculture

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-20T17:20:09+00:00 March 12th, 2024 | News , Press Release |

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) is proud to announce the launch of an innovative messaging toolkit, “Organic is Regenerative,” designed to address the growing interest in sustainable food choices and climate-friendly agriculture.

Shaping Agriculture Policy for a Sustainable Future

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-10T17:12:04+00:00 March 10th, 2024 | Gordon's Policy Corner , News |

In this month's Policy Corner, we share all of the work we’ve been up to this year and what we’re looking forward to in the continued process of advocating for organic agriculture.

OFRF Releases New Soil Health Course in Spanish

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-20T17:22:13+00:00 March 6th, 2024 | News , Press Release |

As part of a commitment to a more inclusive agricultural community OFRF expands access to Spanish-language resources for sustainable farming with a soil health course in Spanish and a new Spanish Resources page.

Farmers Announced for OFRF’s new Farmer-Led Trials Program

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-20T17:23:24+00:00 March 4th, 2024 | News , Press Release |

OFRF is proud to announce the launch of our innovative Farmer Led Trials (FLT) Program with the selection of our first ten farmers. The FLT Program will support farmers and ranchers in conducting practical, on-farm research that address farming challenges and increase farmer-led innovations in organic farming.

to OFRF’s current partners

Frequently Asked Questions

Comprehensive information about organic farming

We're growing our community

Want to hear about the latest organic research, learn about new educational resources, and stay up on other news related to organic agriculture?

Sign-up for our monthly newsletter! 

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Vision for an Organic Food and Farming Research Agenda to 2025

Related Papers

Urs Niggli , Otto Schmid

Otto Schmid

Amrita Pradhan

Otto Schmid , Susanne Padel , Eduardo Cuoco , Ika Darnhofer , Chris Koopmans

Harro Van Lente

Cristina Micheloni

Over the last 40 years, evidence has built up about the food system’s reliance on the natural world. That relationship has been generally exploitative. The food system literally mines the environment, and also snatches defeat out of the jaws of victory by overproducing and maldistributing food. In Europe, food is relatively heavily legislated, and consciousness about the issues has increased, as have appeals to behaviour change. Yet now we know that policy and practice have not responded either fast or deeply enough. Part of the reason for this failure to integrate policy with evidence has been that planning has become an enemy rather than friend. Planning is perceived as state interference, not a lever for the public good. In this lecture I will argue that a new framework of thinking about food is needed, requiring simultaneous action on four levels of existence: the material world of physical things and natural infrastructure; the bio-physiological world of bodies, plants, animals...

Eduardo Cuoco

TP Organics is the European Technology Platform for organic food and farming, and for low-input agriculture. Established in 2008, it brings together small and medium-sized enterprises, larger companies, farmers, researchers, consumers and civil society organisations involved in the organic value chain from production, input and supply, to food processing, marketing and consumption. It identifies research and innovation needs and communicates them to policy-makers. The aim is to leverage the organic sector’s contribution to sustainable farming and food production. Since 2013, TP Organics is officially recognised by the European Commission as one of 40 European Technology Platforms (ETPs). TP Organics published its first Strategic Research Agenda in 2009. This proved very successful, as about a third of the research questions identified gained funding through the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7) of the EU, or through transnational research programmes (ERA-Net...

Organic agriculture world-wide offers the promise of a future to produce and distribute food and other farm products in a healthy, ecologically sound, truly sustainable and fair way. The full benefits of organic agriculture are just now being realized—from ecosystem services to the provision of healthier food - yet, to reach its full potential organic farming needs to address many challenges. While organic agriculture has grown in strength and is in the most favorable position it has ever been in with respect to market conditions, government policies and international institutional support, it still does not have adequate resources to continue its expansion. The Technology Innovation Platform of IFOAM (TIPI) has developed a vision and an agenda to advance organic agriculture through research, development, innovation and technology transfer. TIPI’s vision recognizes that current technologies based on heavy use of external inputs that are toxic and pollute the environment come with a ...

Culitvate the future …

This final report provides a synthesis of the results of the EU-funded ORGAP project, with the title “European Action Plan of Organic Food and Farming-Development of criteria and procedures for the evaluation of the EU Action Plan for Organic Agriculture”. This project ...

RELATED PAPERS

Bahçelievler siyavuşpaşa ikinci el eşya alanlar 0537 427 48 48

İbrahim Dalçık

Mutizwa Mukute

Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy for the Coral Triangle Support Partnership

John Tanzer

Claudio Socci

Prosiding Seminar Teknologi Perencanaan, Perancangan, Lingkungan dan Infrastruktur

arlini radityaningrum

Anna Occhipinti

Alzheimer's &amp; Dementia

Kirby Gottschalk

BMC Family Practice

International Journal of Biometeorology

Takaaki Matsumoto

Biophysical Journal

Joshua Phillips

Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

RAJEEV SHRIVASTAVA

SYAHIDAWATI SHAHWAN

Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology

Mustafa Karakaya

Carbohydrate Polymers

Iqra Shahzadi

Applied Surface Science

Jyotsna Dutta Majumdar

Respiratory Medicine

Tropical Animal Health and Production

Ademola Oyagbemi

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING REVIEW

Seiichi Kagaya

AGUIDA SOUZA

Plant Disease

Curtis Swift

Estudios de Psicología

Tomás García

Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

International Journal of Business Communication

Simona Žižek

Arthur Kennedy

Journal of Chemistry

Gladys Banda

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

share this!

March 21, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

reputable news agency

New research shows unintended harms of organic farming

Organic farming is often touted as a more sustainable solution for food production, leveraging natural forms of pest control to promote eco-friendly cultivation.

But a new study published in Science on Thursday finds that expanding organic cropland can lead to increased pesticide use in surrounding non-organic fields, offsetting some environmental benefits.

These harmful "spillover effects" can be mitigated if organic farms are clustered together and geographically separated from conventional farms , the researchers found.

"Despite policy pushes to increase the amount of organic agriculture, there remain key knowledge gaps regarding how organic agriculture impacts the environment," said lead author Ashley Larsen, of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Although organic agricultural practices generally improve environmental conditions such as soil and water quality , the trade-offs aren't very well understood.

For example, organic fields could harbor more beneficial species that prey on insects, such birds, spiders and predatory beetles and fewer pests. Or, the lack of chemical pesticides and genetically modified seeds could mean they harbor more pests.

To find out, Larsen and colleagues analyzed data on some 14,000 fields in Kern County, California, across seven years.

Kern County produces high-value crops including grapes, watermelons, citrus, tomatoes, potatoes and much more, making it one of the most valuable crop producing regions in the United States.

The team paired digitized maps of fields and the crops grown on them with records of pesticide applications and whether a field had an organic certification.

"Surrounding organic agriculture leads to an increase in pesticide use on conventional fields, but also leads to a larger decrease on nearby organic fields," said Larsen, with the effect manifesting primarily in insecticides, which specifically target insects.

The level of pesticides in conventional fields decreased the further away they were from organic fields.

But the situation could be completely remedied if organic fields were grouped together, the researchers found, based on a less-detailed national level analysis they also carried out.

"Spatially clustering organic fields and spatially separating organic and conventional fields could reduce the environmental footprint of both organic and conventional cropland," the team concluded.

Writing in a related commentary, Erik Lichtenberg of the University of Maryland said that the authors had shown farmers' decisions about pesticide are influenced by the presence of nearby organic fields—but it's not fully clear why.

The value of the crops, their susceptibility to pests, and farmers' personal risk tolerances likely all play roles.

"Which mobile pests are involved, where they originate in the landscape, or how and why they move across the landscape are poorly understood," said Lichtenberg, calling for more research in this area.

Erik Lichtenberg, Collateral impacts of organic farming, Science (2024). DOI: 10.1126/science.ado4083

Journal information: Science

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Romania center explores world's most powerful laser

13 hours ago

A cosmic 'speed camera' just revealed the staggering speed of neutron star jets in a world first

Mar 30, 2024

Saturday Citations: 100-year-old milk, hot qubits and another banger from the Event Horizon Telescope project

Curiosity rover searches for new clues about Mars' ancient water

Study says since 1979 climate change has made heat waves last longer, spike hotter, hurt more people

Scientist taps into lobsters' unusual habits to conquer the more than 120-year quest to farm them

Mar 29, 2024

Blind people can hear and feel April's total solar eclipse with new technology

Mapping the best route for a spacecraft traveling beyond the sun's sphere of influence

Researchers outline new approach in search for dark matter through future DUNE research project

Researchers reveal evolutionary path of important proteins

Relevant physicsforums posts, what do large moles on the body indicate, avian flu - a new study led by a team from the university of maryland.

Mar 27, 2024

Are all biological catabolic reactions exergonic?

Mar 20, 2024

A First of Its Kind: A Calcium-based signal in the Human Brain

Mar 18, 2024

Biological culture and cultural biology

Mar 17, 2024

Potentially fatal dog parasite found in the Colorado River

Mar 15, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Ghosts of past pesticide use can haunt organic farms for decades

Mar 3, 2021

Pesticide-free as a new pathway for agriculture

Promoting biodiversity-friendly landscapes: Beyond organic farming

Aug 4, 2021

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, is showing up in pregnant women living near farm fields

Dec 6, 2023

Organic farming or flower strips: Which is better for bees?

May 23, 2022

Organic farm advantages in biodiversity and profits depend on location

Jan 27, 2020

Recommended for you

Tiny orchid flowers pollinated by tiny flies

Study highlights the potential of cyanobacteria as biofertilizers

Discovering van Gogh in the wild: Scientists unveil a new gecko species

Mar 28, 2024

Researchers discover key gene for toxic alkaloid in barley

Supergene research solves the mystery of tiny ant queens

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter