Comparing organic farming to conventional. Is one better for the environment?

Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, estimated we could feed four billion people if we used organic farming. The earth now is home to seven billion people and will probably go to nine billion before leveling off and declining, according to the United Nations. Organic farming means 50% of our world population would die horrible deaths. Who should decide who lives?

Alternatively, we could double our farmland and cultivate over 80% of our earth’s land. Goodbye, rainforests.


Yes, there is another alternative, to lower population growth, but that is already occurring. The answer is not less food but more food and wealth to have that trend continue. (See this animated chart at gapminder.org) Population growth is plummeting. Not one country has a higher birth rate now than it had in 1960. “Most environmentalists still haven’t gotten the word,” writes Stewart Brand (of Whole Earth Catalog fame), “On every part of every continent and in every culture (even Mormon [his words]), birth rates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep dropping.”

Why is it that organic farming cannot support as many people that conventional farming can? It turns out that pesticides and fertilizers both cut down on losses to pests and boost growth of the plants. Fossil fuels allow conventional farming to use less land than organic methods. “By spending not much energy to make fertilizer and run machinery — and trivial amounts of energy to ship the stuff we grow from the places it grows best,” writes Stephen Budiansky, a former editor of the scientific journal, Nature.

Organic farming is less efficient than conventional farming; as a result, the earth suffers. Without pesticides and fertilizers boosting yields, we have to press more land into production, land that was forested before being pressed into agricultural use.

Converting land to agricultural use is the prime cause of deforestation, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) . Let me repeat that because it bears repeating.

Converting land to agricultural use is the prime cause of deforestation.


Conventional farming needs fewer acres. There is real environmental degradation in organic agriculture because it requires an average of 30% more than conventional agriculture.

“We have spared and conserved hundreds of millions of acres of land that otherwise would have had to be brought into agricultural production. That’s land that protects wildlife, that adds scenic beauty.- Stephen Budiansky


That means we spare wetlands, grasslands, forests, and rainforests from being cleared for agriculture.English: Organic farming

The earth cannot afford organic. We cannot afford organic. The ineluctable tradeoff comes down to land for agriculture versus land for wildlife. We should always pick nature and habitat over ‘natural’ food and terroir. Agriculture, whether organic or conventional fragments and diminishes habitat, displaces wildlife, and uses toxic pesticides (yes, organic farmers use “natural” pesticides).

Post to Twitter

Hello rainforest, it’s me, organic

Does being local and organic make an eco-difference?

I like local produce: local pears, local wines, and ripe local tomatoes. I like buying from the folks who produced them. Maybe it can even put me in touch with the seasons. Those are good things, but buying local food does not imbue such commerce with environmental greenness. And buying organic, may be less green.

Agriculture could be defined as domesticating the labor of plants and animals to provide food for us. Humankind has used agriculture for 10,000 years. Today’s intensive agriculture uses synthetic chemicals and sometimes genetically engineered organisms; organic farming does not. You might think of organic farming as farming the way great-great-granddad did it.

Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, and other advocates for buying local food (aka locavores) proclaim organic food production to be sustainable and better for the soil, with yields comparable to conventional farming. Forgoing industrial fertilizers and pesticides means less pollution. All of this, they say, makes organic food safer and healthier, for you and the planet.

Yet, locavore campaigns have begun taking on cult-like trappings, using food-miles as the yardstick for piety, and the organic label as the talisman of true devotion. According to locavore scripture, local food—with its fewer “food miles” for transport—takes less energy (thus less pollution) than “factory farming.”

“[W]hen we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases,” wrote Pollan. That local produce needs less fuel to get to market than something that had to be carted halfway around the world appears to be a no-brainer, but cargo trucks and railcars carry more than pickups and vans can, so their fuel cost per pound is often less. Nevertheless, farm-to-market fuel is a small piece of the farm-to-table energy pie with transportation accounting for only a 14 percent slice on average. Household storage and preparation of food uses more than twice that amount (32 percent). Thankfully, we don’t hear pleas for us to give up refrigeration and eat only raw foods to eliminate the energy costs of storage and preparation. Oh, wait. We do hear that.

Another study noted, that a dietary shift from red meat or dairy less than one day per week makes a greater difference: “Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than ‘buying local.’ Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.”

To prove that organic farming’s yields are comparable, many proponents point to the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial which compared three methods: conventional, livestock-based organic, and legume-based organic. According to Rodale, yields for corn and soybean in these trials are “the same across the three systems.” Please note, the organic plots produced the same yield because they used extra land elsewhere for feeding animals to provide manure, or for the legume-based system, took the plot out of corn or soybean production and grew nitrogen-fixing legumes instead. Obviously, organic farming needs more land to grow sustainable yields for the world. Worldwide, crops require 80 million tons of nitrogen to feed our current population. Generating that amount of nitrogen organically would require about six billion head of cattle plus the land to grow feed.

Fossil fuels allow conventional farming to use less land than organic methods. “By spending not much energy to make fertilizer and run machinery — and trivial amounts of energy to ship the stuff we grow from the places it grows best,” writes Stephen Budiansky, a former editor of the scientific journal, Nature, “we have spared and conserved hundreds of millions of acres of land that otherwise would have had to be brought into agricultural production. That’s land that protects wildlife, that adds scenic beauty.” That means we spare wetlands, grasslands, forests, and rainforests from being cleared for agriculture.

“But,” you may be saying, “isn’t organic food healthier and safer than food grown using manmade chemicals?” According to the Mayo Clinic, “No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.” The US FDA and Mayo Clinic are not alone. Here is what the UK’s Food Standards Agency says,”In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds no nutritional benefits of organic food.”

I like our local, organic food; it tastes good, and good, hard-working, conscientious folks produce it. Yet, as the Roman philosopher Cicero might have said, “Res ea non est quae prandium gratuitum aquet.” (There’s no such thing as a free lunch.) Measuring food’s “greenness” by how many miles it has traveled, or the way it was grown, considers only two morsels of the seed-to-table menu. By all means, patronize farmers’ markets for the freshness and local experience, but let us stop fretting about the food we buy at the grocery store. Odd as it may seem at first blush, since poorer nations are often also food exporters, you may actually help people in the developing world when you buy food from the grocery store. Buying at Safeway, Ray’s and Shop Smart could actually be good for people and the environment!

Post to Twitter