Why Eating Non-Organic Food is Actually as Bad as You Think

This week, I was trying to conceptualize what aspect of longevity to begin with in the first post. Of course, there’s the four primary sectors of lifestyle that contribute greatly to longevity… diet, sedentary/lifestyle habits, social connectedness, and most importantly, sleep quality. While the last three sectors are highly emphasized, the former is not in the capacity that it should be. We’ve all seen discourse and discussion pertaining to diet over the last several decades, whether it was fad diets dominating the 90s and 2000s with little to no science backing it, an emphasis on ‘healthier’ diet approaches (such as the food groups and recommended servings within each), and lately, a holistic approach that takes into account both circadian rhythm and differing hormones between biological sexes when devising a diet. We oftentimes reflect on the previous decades as having an unhealthy relationship with food. Heroin chic was in, with little to no body fat percentage being promoted in women’s bodies - something that is absolutely detrimental to women’s hormonal and overall health. One thing though, that the 1990s got right, was the influx of - you guessed it - Organic food. But, the rise of organic food follows a much earlier origin story. Synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides became increasingly popular in the beginning of the 20th century, and a concern on decline in soil health, food quality, and ecosystem vitality arose. A British scientist, Sir Albert Howard, was an early voice in the 1920s-1930s that discovered through his work in India that a healthy population was accredited to the ingestion of healthy crops, and consequently, healthy soil. His findings became foundational to organic farming. The term “Organic Farming” later arose in the 1940s, promoting compost in place of synthetic fertilizers, natural pest control, and working with nature in farming rather than against. This philosophy was promoted by J. I. Rodale, the founder of what was later called the Rodale Institute. In the following decades, World War II ensued, which entailed a degree of chemical warfare - such as nitrogen compounds - which were later repurposed as farm fertilizers and pesticides. The agriculture sector was tainted, soon becoming chemically dependent, industrial, and focused on yield over ecology. The organic movement, through this stark prominence of monocultures and heavy chemical use, was solidified as an alternative through its sustained advocacy for biodiversity, soil life, and ecological balance. The organic movement remained niche from the 1960s until the 1980s, until the environmental movement worked in tandem with its progression. Literature, such as Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, exposed the ecological dangers of pesticides (a key factor in my writing today) like DDT. Public concern about chemicals in food grew and organic farming aligned with back-to-the-land movements, environmental activism, and natural health communities. For decades, organic had no official legal meaning, solely being based on trust between farmers and consumers - that is, until 2000. The U.S. created national organic standards under the USDA, establishing certification rules, inspection systems, and the USDA Organic seal. The concept of “Organic” moved from a counterculture idea/rebellion into a mainstream retail category; the modern-day relationship we now share with consuming and purchasing organic foods. Modern day affirmation of the prevalence of organic food encompasses the rising health and transparency mindset, where consumers increasingly connect diet, personal health, and environmental impact. Organic fits perfectly with the rise of these clean labels and demand for ingredient transparency. Furthermore, there are a multitude of perceived benefits. “Organic” means fewer synthetic pesticides, non-GMO, no antibiotics or artificial colours, and better soil and environmental practices. While all of these are sensibly positive aspects of organic food, I often fail to see the parameter I emphasized earlier being discussed. Do you remember it? … … … Pesticides. But why are pesticides so awful? They protect the loss of crops, prevents the latency of growing organic (land takes 3 years to become that which can grow organic crops, costing farmers the price of organic farming without the revenue of organic sales), and lessens overall costs. And here, as a science geek is where I'd like to incorporate an analogy posed by the Law of Conservation of Energy: “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another.” In other words, these added benefits come at a cost - and one that we, as the consumers of non-organic food, are heavily paying. There are an abundance of cellular stress pathways that the body incurs, which ultimately lead to aging. And - to our dismay, but not to our surprise - pesticides trigger almost all of them. Chlorpyrifos, Wikimedia Commons. (2007) Chlorpyrifos, or CPF, is an organophosphate pesticide still used in many parts of the world. Organophosphates are well-known for inhibiting acetylcholinesterase — the enzyme that clears acetylcholine in synapses. When AChE is inhibited, the nervous system becomes overstimulated, leading to neurotoxicity. But what’s especially important is that it triggers a whole range of cellular stress responses: oxidative stress, redox imbalance, inflammatory stress, mitochondrial apoptosis, and DNA damage. Oxidative stress Chlorpyrifos increases reactive oxygen and nitrogen species This overwhelms antioxidant enzymes like SOD, CAT, and GPx Emphasizing oxidative stress as a byproduct of organophosphate pesticides, CPF elevates reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, partly through xanthine oxidase activity, beginning with superoxide. Superoxide can convert into hydroxyl radicals, and it can also react with nitric oxide to form peroxynitrite. This overwhelms the brain’s natural antioxidant defences, which incliude enzymes like SOD, CAT, GPx and GST. Peroxynitrite is one of the major reactive nitrogen species and contributes to three major forms of damage shown above: lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, and DNA oxidation, which the paper measured as an increase in 3-OHdG. Under normal conditions, antioxidant systems like SOD, catalase, GPx, GSH, and GST help neutralize these reactive species. But CPF decreases all of these antioxidant defenses, so the radicals accumulate and the oxidative damage becomes more intense. Lipid Peroxidation A key downstream consequence of excessive ROS is lipid peroxidation, or LPO. The article shows that CPF significantly increases LPO levels. Lipid peroxidation occurs when free radicals attack polyunsaturated fatty acids in cell membranes. This leads to toxic byproducts, membrane instability, and impaired neuronal signalling. Firsy, in the initiation step, CPF increases xanthine oxidase and overall ROS and RONS. These radicals attack unsaturated membrane lipids and create lipid radicals, which then generate lipid hydroperoxides. Finally, the termination step is impaired, because CPF lowers key antioxidant defenses — SOD catalase GPx, GSH, and GST. With fewer antioxidants to stop the chain reaction, lipid peroxidation keeps going, contributing to oxidative damage in neuronal membranes. Because neurons rely heavily on membrane integrity for synaptic communication, increased LPO is a major contributor to CPF-induced neurotoxicity. Overall, CPF creates a strong oxidative imbalance — high ROS and low antioxidant defenses — which sets the stage for redox dysregulation, inflammation, apoptosis, and DNA damage observed later in the study. Other pathways to note: Redox regulatory pathway Thioredoxin (Trx) and thioredoxin reductase (TrxR) maintain protein thiol balance CPF disrupts this system Inflammatory stress: CPF increases nitric oxide and myeloperoxidase It decreases IL-10, a key anti-inflammatory cytokine Apoptosis CPF activates mitochondrial caspase-9 → caspase-3. This…