by Thomas Lepeltier, Atlantico, 9 September 2026
Organic farming is defined by a refusal: that of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and of GMOs. Yet this criterion of origin says nothing about the effects of a product, and organic farming’s record on both the environment and health is more nuanced than its image.
In brief
- In a few decades, organic farming has become the symbol of responsible consumption and the horizon of every agricultural policy, from supermarket shelves to school canteens.
- The author challenges the assumption on which it is founded: that a practice is preferable as soon as it uses what is natural rather than what is synthetic. For pesticides as for GMOs, organic farming judges a product’s origin, not its properties.
- He argues for an agriculture that compares the available products without prejudice and retains those that best protect crops, health and the environment.
The article’s three arguments
Origin says nothing about toxicity
Vitamin C is the same molecule whether it is extracted from an orange or made in a laboratory. Ricin, botulinum toxin and aflatoxin are natural. A substance’s long history of use does not guarantee its safety, and the ‘cocktail effect’ does not depend on the origin of the molecules.
A targeted mutation is no more suspect than a random one
Organic farming allows varieties obtained by irradiation or chemical agents, but prohibits transgenesis and new techniques that modify a specific gene, even though the result is indistinguishable. Fear of multinationals targets economic organisation, not the technique.
Promises that are hard to verify
Lower yields require more land, to the detriment of natural habitats. Organic farming uses natural pesticides such as copper sulphate, which the Anses is restricting from 2027. And its health benefits are confounded with a healthier lifestyle.
‘A substance is neither good nor bad because it is natural or synthetic.’Thomas Lepeltier, Atlantico, 9 September 2026
Why this debate interests us
Food is one of APALA’s areas of work. This article follows on from the one on the ban on copper and raises a question of method that is useful for the whole food transition: judging a practice by its measured effects rather than by the label it carries. It also reminds us that the footprint of a form of agriculture is measured by the land it takes up, not only by the inputs it uses.
Questions for debate
- Should an agricultural label rest on means (what is prohibited) or on measured results?
- Can lower yields cancel out the environmental benefits of an organically farmed plot?
- Should new genetic modification techniques be permitted in organic farming?
To go further on apala.fr
Summary written by Claude (model Opus 5.5), an artificial intelligence, for APALA, based on the article published in Atlantico on 9 September 2026. The views expressed are those of the author. An error? Write to us.
0 comments