{"id":38151,"date":"2017-03-10T12:13:03","date_gmt":"2017-03-10T20:13:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/world.edu\/?p=38151"},"modified":"2017-03-10T12:13:03","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T20:13:03","slug":"organic-farming-matters-just-not-way-think","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/organic-farming-matters-just-not-way-think\/","title":{"rendered":"Organic farming matters – just not in the way you think"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"organicvegies\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Is organic agriculture the solution to our global food system challenges? That\u2019s been the premise and promise of the organic movement<\/a> since its origins in the 1920s: farming that\u2019s healthy, ecological, and socially just.<\/p>\n

Many people \u2013 from consumers and farmers to scientists<\/a> and international organisations<\/a> \u2013 believe that organic agriculture can produce enough nutritious food to feed the world without destroying the environment, while being more resilient to climate change and improving the livelihoods of farmers.<\/p>\n

But as with many important issues of our time, there are more passionate opinions about organic agriculture than there is scientific evidence to support them. And there\u2019s nothing black or white about organic agriculture<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For a paper published today in the journal Science Advances<\/a>, we systematically and rigorously evaluated the performance of organic versus conventional agriculture on three key fronts \u2013 environmental impact, producer and consumer benefits. As much as possible, we based our review on previous quantitative synthesis of the scientific literature \u2013 so-called meta-analyses. We also examined whether those studies agree or disagree in their verdicts.<\/p>\n

We discovered that organic farming does matter \u2013 just not in the way most people think.
\n

\"<\/a>

Organic wins on some fronts and loses on others. Author provided<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n

Environmental impacts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Compared to a neighbouring conventional farm, an organic farm at first appears to be better for the environment. But that\u2019s not the whole story. Here\u2019s how it breaks down.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s good<\/strong>: Organic farms provide higher biodiversity, hosting more bees, birds and butterflies. They also have higher soil and water quality and emit fewer greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s not-so-good<\/strong>: Organic farming typically yields less product \u2013 about 19-25%<\/a> less. Once we account for that efficiency difference and examine environmental performance per amount of food produced, the organic advantage becomes less certain (few studies have examined this question). Indeed, on some variables, such as water quality and greenhouse gas emissions, organic farms may perform worse than conventional farms, because lower yields per hectare can translate into more environmentally damaging<\/a> land-clearing.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a>

Organic farms have more biodiversity than their conventional neighbours. Mike Blake\/Reuters<\/p><\/div>\n

Consumer benefits<\/strong><\/p>\n

The jury\u2019s still out on whether the comsumer is better off, too.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s good:<\/strong> For consumers in countries with weak pesticide regulations, like India<\/a>, organic food reduces pesticide exposure. Organic ingredients also most likely have slightly higher levels of some vitamins and secondary metabolites.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s not-so-good:<\/strong> Scientists can\u2019t confirm<\/a> whether these minor micronutrient differences actually matter for our health. Because the nutritional value of organic and conventional food is so small, you\u2019d do better just eating an extra apple every day, whether it\u2019s organic or not. Organic food is also more expensive than conventional food at present and therefore inaccessible to poor consumers.<\/p>\n

\"Pricy<\/a>

Pricy organic ingredients don\u2019t fall within many consumers\u2019 budgets. Phil Roeder\/flickr,<\/p><\/div>\n

Producer benefits<\/strong><\/p>\n

Organic methods bring certain benefits for farmers, some costs and many unknowns.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s good:<\/strong> Organic agriculture is typically more profitable \u2013 up to 35% more, according to a meta-analysis<\/a> of studies across North America, Europe and India \u2013 than conventional farming. Organic also provides more rural employment opportunities because organic management is more labour-intensive than conventional practices. For workers, though, the biggest advantage is that organic decreases their exposure to toxic agrochemicals<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s not-so-good:<\/strong> We still don\u2019t know whether organic farms pay higher wages or offer better working conditions than conventional farms. Organic farm workers are most likely exploited in similar ways as those tilling the fields on conventional farms<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a>

We still don\u2019t know whether organic farms offer better labour conditions. Mike Blake\/Reuters<\/p><\/div>\n

The takeaway<\/strong><\/p>\n

In short, we cannot determine yet whether organic agriculture could feed the world and reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture while providing decent jobs and giving consumers affordable, nutritious food.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a lot to ask of one industry, and there are still just too many unanswered questions. Some of these questions relate to agriculture, such as whether organic farms can eventually close the yield gap with conventional farms and whether there are enough organic fertilisers to produce all the world\u2019s food organically.<\/p>\n

But some questions are also about humanity\u2019s collective future. Can people in the rich world learn to change our diet and reduce food waste to avoid having to increase food production as the global population grows? And are enough people willing to work in agriculture to meet the needs of labour-intensive organic farms?<\/p>\n