We come from two steps

  • In the first article we dismantled the superstition that natural means good.
  • In the second, we saw that molecules are not good or bad because of their origin: structure, dose, exposure, and context matter.

Now comes the commercial and regulatory part: eco, bio, and organic.

Let us enter the delicate point.

Eco, Bio, and Organic do not mean exactly the same thing in every country, but in the European food context they point to a common idea:

  • Products subject to specific regulation on organic production.
  • There are rules. There is certification. There are controls.
  • There are restrictions on fertilizers, pesticides, genetically modified organisms, animal welfare, and other production practices.

That is real. And it can have value. But a production rule is not a universal guarantee of superiority.

  • It does not automatically mean “more nutritious.”
  • It does not automatically mean “safer.”
  • It does not automatically mean “better for the planet.”
  • It does not automatically mean “fairer.”

It means it has been produced under certain rules. The difference is enormous.

  • “Reality is there for you to find it. Chase it.” — Pedro Tellería.

The consumer should know this.

  • Because one thing is to pay for a production standard one values, and ...
  • another very different thing is to believe one is buying bottled health, environmental virtue, and nutritional superiority in the same bag.
  • The first is a consumer decision. The second is faith with a receipt.

Organic does not mean substance-free

One of the most widespread confusions is thinking that organic agriculture does not use chemical substances.

That is not true.

Organic agriculture may use certain permitted substances. What changes is the list of what is authorized and what is prohibited. Some products are allowed because of their origin or because they fit the standard. Others are restricted. Others are banned. Controls and limits also exist.

This breaks a very comfortable fantasy: “eco has no chemistry.”

  • Gutierrez Aragon (RAE, 01/24/16) explained it very well when speaking about cinema: the Natural is not enough to build Naturalness.
  • Something similar happens with the ecological: looking natural is not enough to be better. Naturalness can also be built, certified, packaged, and sold.

If a farm uses copper compounds, sulfur, or other permitted substances, it is still using chemistry.

  • If it applies treatments, it is still intervening.
  • If it fertilizes, it is still modifying the system.
  • If it irrigates, selects seeds, fights pests, protects crops, or transports products thousands of miles, it is not living in a preindustrial paradise.
  • It produces food.

And producing food always means transforming nature.

Agriculture is not virgin nature. It is domesticated nature.

A crop field is not a forest.

  • An organic monoculture is still a monoculture.
  • A “bio lettuce” does not appear spontaneously in the mountains to feed sensitive urbanites.
  • Someone prepared the soil, chose a variety, managed pests, used water, consumed energy, harvested, packaged, and transported it.

The label can say many things. But it cannot erase the material reality of producing food.

It does not guarantee more nutrition

The nutrition question seems simple: are organic foods more nutritious?

The honest answer is uncomfortable for marketing:

  • Not in a general and guaranteed way.

There are scientific reviews that find differences in some compounds.

  • In certain studies, higher levels of polyphenols or antioxidants appear in some organic crops.
  • In others, lower cadmium levels are observed in certain cases.
  • In animal products, some reviews find differences in fatty acids, for example more omega-3 in some dairy or meat under certain feeding systems.

Good. That does not authorize anyone to say: “eco nourishes better.”

  • First, because the differences do not appear equally in all foods.
  • Second, because the real nutritional importance may be small.
  • Third, because a healthy diet depends much more on the complete pattern than on the label on each tomato.
  • Fourth, because variety, freshness, ripeness, preservation, processing, and cooking method can change the nutritional experience more than the organic seal.

Eating fruit and vegetables matters. Eating legumes matters. Reducing poor ultra-processed foods matters. Consuming enough protein, fiber, and micronutrients matters.

Obsessing over everything being bio while the general diet is bad matters much less. The label does not compensate for a poor dietary pattern.

And here it is worth being very clear:

  • There can be excellent organic products. There can also be mediocre organic products.
  • There can be an extraordinary conventional tomato and a tasteless bio tomato.
  • There can be organic bread full of refined flour and sugar.
  • There can be bio cookies that are still cookies.

Bio does not turn a product into a healthy one. It only makes it more sellable to a certain type of consumer.

To be continued

In article 4, it is time to put the organic label to the test in four uncomfortable areas:

  • food safety
  • real environmental impact