Is organic better?

Many consumers who are conscious of their environmental impact choose organic products, particularly food, but is this really better for the environment?

There is no doubt that there are some benefits from organic agriculture compared with the equivalent conventionally-grown food due to less use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides or genetically modified organisms. However, results from more detailed assessments of environmental impacts do not always favour organic foods.

When the full life cycle or ‘farm-to-fork’ impacts are considered there are two key areas that generally stand out: yield for agriculture[1] and feedstock for livestock.

• Yield is the productivity per area of farmland. Organic agriculture has been criticised for its lower productivity that varies widely but is, on average, 25% lower than conventional farming methods. Lower yields are due to less use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides and lead to larger requirements for agricultural land and associated land clearing.

• Organic livestock often live longer, eat more and are given lower yield organic feed. For example, organic chicken require longer to reach weight for processing than their non-organic counterparts. This means that these chickens can have up to a 50% higher carbon footprint. However, when fed only organic crops it results in about half of the toxic emissions, mainly from not using fertilisers and pesticides in feedstock production compared with conventionally grown birds.

A common conclusion is that organic produce is directly better for communities and the environment, but when considering the broader indirect effects on resources and greenhouse gas emissions you get the opposite effect.

This example illustrates the need to trade off between environmental aspects of a product, i.e. animal wellbeing vs carbon emissions, or toxic pollution (from pesticides) vs extensive land use. There are no clear-cut answers to this dilemma.

Click here to dowload the full article in pdf format.