What does the organic label guarantee?

It guarantees a production method governed by European Regulation 2018/848: synthetic pesticides and mineral nitrogen fertilisers limited or banned, GMOs prohibited, a restricted list of additives, animal welfare rules, and checks on operators at least once a year by a certification body. It guarantees nothing about sugar, salt or fat content.

Are there fewer pesticides in organic food?

Yes, in terms of how often detectable residues are found: the meta-analyses by Barański (2014) and Smith-Spangler (2012) show this. However, EFSA considers the risk from residues to be low in European food in general, and residues can also be present on organic products. Fewer residues does not, on its own, prove a health benefit.

Is organic better for health?

This has not been proven. The NutriNet-Santé cohort links high organic consumption with fewer cancers, but organic consumers also have a different lifestyle, and an association is not a cause. Reviews on nutrients give mixed results, and nothing proves that organic improves the nutritional quality of processed foods.

Can an organic product be nutritionally poor?

Yes. An organic biscuit, drink or ready meal can be very sugary, fatty, salty or ultra-processed. The label concerns the production method, not the nutritional profile. The Nutri-Score and the NOVA group therefore remain useful for comparing two products, organic or not.

Is organic really better? What the studies say

What the organic label guarantees

In Europe, organic is governed byRegulation (EU) 2018/848. According to the European Commission, its rules limit the use of artificial fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides: any substance used against plant pests or diseases must be approved beforehand, and mineral nitrogen fertilisers are banned.GMOsare prohibited.

For livestock, the rules require respect for animal welfare, access to open air or pasture where possible, and a ban on growth promoters. Hormones are permitted only for individual veterinary treatment.

The label also relies on a control system. Each Member State may delegate controls to certification bodies, which issue a certificate after verification. The Commission states that all operators are checkedat least once a year.

Be aware of what this does not say: the specifications describeproduction methods. They set no requirement on the sugar, salt or fat content of the finished product. Our guideThe labels, what they are really worthcompares what the main logos promise.

Additives: a restricted list, not an absence

An organic processed food must be made mainly from agricultural ingredients, and, according to the European Commission, the use of additives and processing aids is limited to arestricted listof approved substances. Organic therefore does not mean "zero additives": some remain permitted, but in far smaller numbers than in conventional products.

The details of this list appear in the annexes of the regulation. The principle to remember: whatever is not on it is not permitted in organic.

Pesticides: fewer residues, but low exposure in both cases

On residues, the data converge. The meta-analysis byBarański et al. (2014), based on 343 publications, concludes that organic crops show on average alower frequency of pesticide residues: about four times less often than non-organic crops, according to the study summary. That bySmith-Spangler et al. (2012), in the Annals of Internal Medicine, also finds that organic products are less likely to contain detectable residues, with a risk difference of 30%. However, the difference in exceedance of authorised limits is described there as small.

This needs to be put into context. In its report published in May 2025 (samples from 2023),EFSAreports that 70% of random samples contained no quantifiable residue, that 2% exceeded a maximum limit (3.7% in targeted national controls), and that the risk to consumers remainslow.

Fewer residues does not therefore, on its own, mean a proven health benefit for the consumer. The label reduces the presence of residues, but does not eliminate them.

Nutrients: some differences, few proven consequences

Barański et al. report higher concentrations ofantioxidantsin organic crops: for example +19% for phenolic acids, +50% for flavonols, +51% for anthocyanins, with wide confidence intervals. Conventional crops contain on average morecadmium, a toxic metal. The authors link these differences to practices, such as the absence of mineral nitrogen fertilisers.

The review by Smith-Spangler et al. was more cautious: it concluded that the literaturedoes not demonstrate a clear nutritional superiorityof organic food, phosphorus content being the only notable difference, without clinical significance according to the authors. These two works do not use exactly the same criteria, so their conclusions differ depending on the question asked.

Above all, none of these studies shows that a difference in composition translates into better health. For processed foods, no nutritional advantage of organic has been demonstrated to date by this work.

Observational studies: caution

In the FrenchNutriNet-Santécohort, Baudry et al. (JAMA Internal Medicine, 2018) followed 68,946 adults. Those who consumed the most organic food had an overall cancer risk 25% lower than the least consuming group (risk ratio 0.75), an absolute reduction of 0.6%. The authors specify that the underlying factors must be identified if these results are confirmed.

This association is not proof of cause. Organic consumers generally have adifferent lifestyle: a diet richer in plants, more physical activity, less tobacco. The authors adjust their analyses, but consumption is self-reported through questionnaires, volunteers are probably more attentive to their health than the general population, and an unmeasured factor may remain. A correction was also published after the study came out.

Environment: more biodiversity, less yield

On the nature side, the meta-analysis byTuck et al. (2014)of 94 studies concludes that organic farming increases species richness by about30%on average. The effect varies according to species group, crop and landscape, and the studies are mostly conducted in developed countries.

The other side is yields. According toSeufert et al. (2012), in Nature, organic yields are lower than conventional ones, with a gap ranging from 5% to 34% depending on the context: about 13% less with the best practices, 5% for certain legumes and perennial crops, and 34% when systems are most comparable. For the same output, more land is therefore needed, which tempers the overall picture. The environmental footprint of a specific product depends on many other criteria, which the Green-Score attempts to summarise.

Prices and traps on the shelf

Organic products generally cost more, which can be explained in part by lower yields. The gap varies between products and retailers.

Above all, the logo says nothing about nutritional profile. An organic product can be:

Sweet or salty: an organic biscuit, drink or breakfast cereal can contain as much sugar as its conventional equivalent.
Fatty: organic status changes nothing about the saturated fat content of a recipe.
Ultra-processed: organic products can be NOVA 4, with permitted flavourings or emulsifiers. A restricted list of additives is not enough to leave this group.

To judge a product, the Nutri-Score (nutrition) and the NOVA group (processing) remain useful, organic or not. Our articleMarketing trapsshows how a green logo or a reassuring claim can divert attention from the ingredient list.

Another free lever: favour seasonal produce, which is often cheaper. SeeSeasonal fruit and vegetables, month by month.

So, is organic better?

It depends on what you measure:yesfor pesticide residues and probably local biodiversity,perhapsfor certain antioxidants,not provenfor individual health and for the nutritional quality of processed foods. A good choice is first and foremost a good product, organic or not.

In Yumiq, the organic label counts towards the Yumiq-Score through a bonus for verifiable quality labels, alongside the Nutri-Score, the NOVA group and the Green-Score. It does not replace these indicators.

Is organic really better?