Is organic really
the future?

Organic farming has repeatedly come in for harsh criticism. We dispel the most common myths about whether organic really can't feed the world, or is even less sustainable than conventional agriculture from a global perspective...

1. organic cannot feed the world's population

Various studies have come to the conclusion that organic farming produces too low a yield per hectare and could therefore not feed the world's population.(Eva-Marie Meemken, Matin Qaim 2018)

The fact is that food is currently being produced for 9 billion people, although there are only 7.9 billion. Due to unfair distribution, there are 828 million undernourished and 2 .2 billion overweight people. In addition, we are destroying one in three foodstuffs globally and consuming far more meat than is recommended by health organizations - three times too much in the EU. One third of the world's land is used for livestock farming and feeding. They are therefore by far the largest users of land. If fewer animal products were eaten, less agricultural land would be needed.

Organic can therefore feed 9 billion people if meat consumption and food waste are reduced(Nature Communications 2017). In view of the suffering of animals in factory farming and the reprehensible waste of food, this is also the ethically correct path to take.

2. the yields with organic are much smaller

Yes, on average, yields in organic farming are currently lower than in the conventional sector. A long-term experiment in Basel puts it at 10 to 20 percent less. The reason for the gap is that for a century a lot of money has been invested in the invention of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers and crops adapted to them. However, the search for suitable crops that produce good yields in organic farming has only just begun. He is currently still using conventional seeds.

In addition, the advantage of conventional agriculture is melting away:

1. Plants and pests are developing resistance in many cases and the agrochemical industry can no longer keep up with the development of new active ingredients. It is insisting on faster approval, but this is already too lax. Although active ingredients are tested extensively, they are never applied to the field in this form, but always in combination with carrier chemicals and various additives. The finished product/pesticide has therefore not been extensively tested. In addition, farmers rarely use just one pesticide on their land. The interactions and risks are difficult to assess, but can be clearly observed in the loss of species, disasters such as DDT or the appalling consequences of neonicotinoids.
2. In addition, soils are in a critical state in many places: too heavy machinery, too many harvests, too little protection against erosion, too much use of agrochemicals are rapidly reducing the fertile humus layer. As a result, 3.2 billion people's livelihoods are at risk. The global harvest volume will decrease by an average of 10 percent over the next 30 years, more in some places, less in others(IPBES reports).

3. organic is harmful to the climate

Conventional agriculture is often described as more climate-friendly because it achieves a higher yield per hectare, which means that less agricultural land is required and unused land could be reforested. From this perspective, conventional agriculture is therefore more climate-friendly.

Sure, now comes the but.

Agriculture is a complex system that has evolved over thousands of years; reducing it to a single value (yield) is nonsensical. Organic farming is significantly better than conventional farming in terms of biodiversity (e.g. three times as many plant species, up to 150 percent more earthworms), erosion (up to 93 percent less), toxicity to the environment (up to 81 percent less) and climate protection. Only the yield is lower.(Science Advances 2021)

In June 2018, Pavan Sukhdevalso warnedin Nature against reducing agriculture to yield alone. Yield maximization in animals also clearly shows that this can never be sustainable, because animals and plants are living beings. Organisms reach their limits at some point. A high-performance dairy cow already only lives for 4-5 years, although cattle have a life expectancy of around 15-25 years. If yields are increased further, life expectancy will fall. Quite apart from the associated torturous breeding, the resources required to rear a calf to sexual maturity are also forgotten. This expenditure of resources and the associated_CO2 emissions are not included in the snapshot of the yield calculations.

In addition, organic farming is more resilient to climate change and is significantly better in terms of water availability and use. Organic farming therefore shows greater yield stability in dry conditions.

Where does organic have to go?

The future of agriculture will be a balancing act between increasing yields, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preserving natural diversity, healthy nutrition, respecting livestock and adapting to climate change. It is important to invest in systems that rely on the preservation of natural cycles and are not dependent on finite resources.

Agricultural practices should also be developed further. Ideas and concepts such as no plowing, agroforestry systems, where rows of trees are combined with arable crops, or milpa, which was already practiced by the Mayas, where corn, beans and pumpkins are planted together, deserve more attention. Both past systems and new approaches need to be researched. For it is certain that industrial agriculture is not an option for the future, as it is responsible for serious environmental problems in many places, such as land degradation, biodiversity loss, water pollution and climate change. It cannot continue to feed us all if it destroys its own foundations to such an extent.

So let's ignore sensationalist headlines that try to make us believe that organic is not sustainable and stop giving them our valuable time. Let's put our energy into supporting an agriculture that sees living beings as living beings and not as numbers.

Author: Dr. Isabell Riedl

Dr. Isabell Riedl has been with LAMPERT since 2012 and is head of the sustainability and communications department. She studied ecology with a focus on nature and landscape conservation and tropical ecology at the University of Vienna. She wrote her dissertation on the importance of tree rows in agricultural areas for forest birds in Costa Rica. Throughout her life, she has been particularly committed to ecological sustainability. She is part of the editorial team of the online magazine "Nachhaltigkeit. Rethink."