12

From http://www.goldengatexpress.org/2013/04/07/true-organic-food-benefits-environment-sustainability/:

Another reason to choose organic products is that the environmental footprint attached to organic food is smaller than that of conventionally grown food.

Organic farming also helps provide a safer and healthier environment by not polluting groundwater, rivers, lakes and oceans with pesticides and chemical fertilizers. There is a reduction in soil erosion and soil quality is improved.

Is it true that organic food results in a smaller environmental footprint than conventionally grown food?

Community
  • 1
Renee
  • 131
  • 3
  • 3
    Welcome to Skeptics.Stackexchange. Can you edit your question to provide links to the most notable of the contradicting information you have seen. – RedGrittyBrick Sep 06 '13 at 14:35
  • It's not that big a deal, I think I can answer it anyways. And there's polling evidence to suggest people think it's better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Public_perception – Publius Sep 06 '13 at 16:35
  • Does anyone claim that buying organic benefits the environment? I thought that the claimed benefit was health related, rather than environmental. From the wikipedia link: "There is widespread public belief that organic food is safer, more nutritious, and tastes better than conventional food." –  Sep 06 '13 at 17:52
  • @Sancho: Of course, [many people make that claim](https://www.google.com/search?q=organic+better+for+the+environment&oq=organic+better+for+the+environment&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.3546j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). I thought it was common knowledge. – Flimzy Sep 06 '13 at 17:54
  • I had only heard of the claimed nutritional benefits until now. I'll add a source to the question for the environmental benefits claim. –  Sep 06 '13 at 17:57
  • 3
    @Sancho: I think you have it backwards. [Organic certification](http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop) (at least in the U.S.) is *all about* the environment--health benefits are (at least from a policy standpoint) a side-effect. `Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods that integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.` – Flimzy Sep 06 '13 at 18:02
  • 1
    @Sancho I've only heard that organic is better for the environment. I don't know about claims that it would be healthier. – gerrit Sep 06 '13 at 18:03
  • @Flimzy The certification process may be, but the popular opinion that I've encountered has focused on the nutritional aspect, as highlighted in the [wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Public_perception). –  Sep 06 '13 at 18:03
  • Regardless, I found a source claiming environmental benefits, and added it to the question, so our discussion is moot. –  Sep 06 '13 at 18:04
  • 1
    @gerrit - typically the claim is that organic food has no pesticides (or hormones in case of meat/milk) and this makes it healthier. I know plenty of people who eat organic food **exclusively** due to percieved health benefits, with no environmental reasoning. – user5341 Oct 04 '13 at 17:41
  • @DVK Well, artificial hormones are certainly unhealthy *for the cow*, so not using those (they're banned in many parts of the world, including the EU) would certainly have a health benefit. – gerrit Oct 04 '13 at 18:09

1 Answers1

5

Yield per acre

(Palmer, 2012) reviews (Seufert et al., 2012). (Seufert et al., 2012) is a meta-analysis examining 66 previous studies.

(Palmer, 2012) describes the strength of a meta-analysis:

In a meta-analysis, a researcher compiles all of the studies on a particular issue, usually discarding those that are methodologically unsound, then finds a statistical method with which to combine them. Ultimately, a meta-analysis turns a series of smaller studies into a large study, which, if done right, carries more persuasive heft and can bring real clarity to disputed scientific issues.

(Seufert et al., 2012) say:

Although several studies have suggested that organic agriculture can have a reduced environmental impact compared to conventional agriculture, the environmental performance of organic agriculture per unit output or per unit input may not always be advantageous.

and,

There are many factors to consider in balancing the benefits of organic and conventional agriculture, and there are no simple ways to determine a clear ‘winner’ for all possible farming situations.

However, with respect to the question about yield, the conclusions are clearer.

Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable).

In short, these results suggest that today’s organic systems may nearly rival conventional yields in some cases—with particular crop types, growing conditions and management practices—but often they do not.

(Palmer, 2012) rephrases:

Among wheat, corn and other cereals, organic farms were 26 percent less productive, while organic vegetable growers turned out 33 percent less food per acre than those who used pesticides, herbicides and synthetic fertilizer.

Community
  • 1
  • 3
    I disagree that *Sustainability over the long term* is subjective. One can calculate quantitatively how yield develops over time for either organil or 'classical' farming, and if one is sustainable where the other is not, then ultimately, organic yield will be more than 'classical'. – gerrit Sep 06 '13 at 18:50
  • 1
    @gerrit I said how you balance the factors is subjective. I didn't say that sustainability over the long term is subjective. –  Sep 06 '13 at 18:51
  • 3
    I mean that balancing *sustainability* and *yield* does not need to be subjective, but that one can relate the two quantitatively. And in turn, sustainability can be expressed in terms of most of the other factors (see planetary boundaries). Such calculations may be expressed as ecological footprint. This has some subjective elements, but is not purely so. You spend a lot of time in your answer on *Yield per Acre*, which can be calculated. So can the impact of the other factors... so I think the question can be answered more quantitatively, than you do. Perhaps. – gerrit Sep 06 '13 at 18:55
  • @gerrit You can answer several of the others quantitatively, yes. But not all of them, and even if you could, the importance that an individual places on each of them is subjective. What is the impact of GMOs? How important is biodiversity? Does water protection matter? How much does some unit of water pollution equal in terms of some unit of soil building? –  Sep 06 '13 at 19:00
  • @gerrit "*sustainability can be expressed in terms of most of the other factors*" — then, would it be fair to say the FAO is double-counting? –  Sep 06 '13 at 19:01
  • @gerrit I'll make this question community wiki, then, so you can quantify the other factors and provide an objective way to balance them against each other. –  Sep 06 '13 at 19:35
  • Well, the reason I wrote it as a comment rather than in another answer is because I don't have the time right now to dig through more quantitative research... – gerrit Sep 06 '13 at 20:10
  • Okay. Well, I made it community wiki anyway. You seemed very certain. –  Sep 06 '13 at 20:19
  • @gerrit I tried to address your concern, but what I quoted is still not very quantitative. A reason why it's not very quantitative may be that things like decreased wildlife, and run-off pollution, are economic [externalities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality). Regarding externalities, I read a joke once which I quote occasionally: "Every time someone gets cancer the GDP goes up. Every time a forest is cut down the GDP goes up. Help save the world: teach economists to subtract!" – ChrisW Sep 09 '13 at 14:10
  • @ChrisW Nice edit. I didn't downvote this answer though. – gerrit Sep 09 '13 at 14:33