You’ve bought organic produce leaving you feeling pleasantly warm and fuzzy. You’re doing your part, right? Helping to save the planet, one meal at a time. I’ve occasionally bought organic, not for sustainability reasons but simply the organic produce looked better at that time. I’ll spend more for a perceived higher quality product, regardless of production method. No surprise.

A 2018 Nielsen study says consumer preference for quality trumps production method in most markets in the world. But what about that glorious sustainable organic world? Rainbows and unicorns abound on its surface.

There’s no question that agriculture has a very significant impact on the planet. In fact, Dr. William Ruddiman, a retired paleoclimatologist at the University of Virginia, argues in his book ‘Plows, Plagues and Petroleum’ that significant human influence on the earth began long ago. It started with the innovation of farming, settlement, the plow, then clearing of forests and grasslands. Practices such as inorganic fertilizer and crop protection products are relatively recent inventions on that time scale.

Agriculture by its very definition is not natural. Farming under any scenario involves disturbing an environment somewhere. Organic farming markets itself as more sustainable. And at first glance, there are some truths. Repeated studies have demonstrated improvements of local biodiversity, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and lower nutrient losses per area of production than conventional systems. It is well intentioned. Unfortunately, in organic production the elephant in the room always comes back to yield.

A 2015 meta-study by Ponisio et al. compared 1071 paired yield observations from 115 studies concluding that organically managed fields have on average 19.2 per cent less yield compared to conventionally managed fields. Furthermore, a 2018 meta-study by Knapp & van der Heijden examined yield stability from 193 studies and 2896 comparisons and found that organic agriculture has 15 per cent less yield stability over time compared to conventional. Bottom line, on average, organic produces less yield with more variability that conventional.

The Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported in 2015 that about 475 million small farms supported around two billion people worldwide. Subsistence farmers are numerous and totally dependent on the farm output for their survival. Organic by default would also be common, given the unattainable cost associated with inputs for many. However, if it were an option, very few would refuse a 19.2 per cent yield increase and more stable production if they could afford it. Their lives depend on it. You must be well fed to begin with to intentionally reduce food output by such magnitude. A consideration only for the luxurious by global standards.

Consumers in developed countries can afford to take this cut. We’ll import the difference from elsewhere as needed. That’s where the sustainable organic fallacy falls apart. A 2019 study by Smith et al. estimated the greenhouse gas impact of converting 100 per cent of food production in England and Wales to organic production. They predicted a reduction in greenhouse gas output from domestic production as expected. However, food output was decreased from lower organic yields. Greater need for imports and transportation negated any benefit from reducing domestic emissions and resulted in a higher total carbon cost of the food supply.

Biodiversity is also a commonly promoted benefit with organic production and studies have reported organic systems being more diverse. That’s great, until you consider that humanity would have to increase the land area dedicated to agriculture by 23.7 per cent to produce the same amount of food following a 19.2 percent yield decrease from global organic production. There’s only one place left on earth with the climate, soils, and water to expand agriculture on truly grand scales – the Amazon rainforest. It also happens to be the epicenter of species richness on the planet and a major carbon sink. 

Converting millions and millions of hectares of the Amazon to agriculture, organic or not, would be disastrous for global biodiversity. Much of the world’s biodiversity is concentrated in specific areas and most notably the Amazon. In a 2018 paper, Pimm et al. argues prioritizing the right parts of Earth is what matters for biodiversity. While agriculture development is already happening in the Amazon, increased demand from other countries converting to organic production would simply accelerate it.

Organic food does not make us healthier. A comprehensive 2017 review by Mie et al. concluded the established nutritional differences between organic and conventional foods are small. The authors cautioned that strong conclusions on human health cannot be drawn from current evidence and the nutritional significance of observed small differences is probably low.

Why do we have organic then? Organic agriculture makes us feel good. We can pat ourselves on the back and give a round of high-fives that we’ve made a difference. And we might have slightly – in our backyard. It’s an emotional sell. Like an inconvenient truth, it ignores the wider picture. The growing global population needs more food. Mass global conversion to organic, taking a step backwards in efficiency, simply exports that production footprint somewhere else – most likely towards the Amazon. Not the sustainability answer as advertised.

We’ve already made great strides in reducing the environmental footprint of conventional food production increasing yield per area, improving nutrient and water-use efficiency, and reducing the quantity and improving the safety of crop protection products used on crops. We need to harness all new technologies, both conventional and biological, to reduce this impact even further. Integrated systems can take advantage of both.

Ultimately, we’re already on the right path with a science-based system that evaluates and minimizes risks of new technology while leveraging its benefits. Much progress still needs to be made. But it’s our best path towards future sustainability.