Is organic really
the future?

Organic farming is constantly facing harsh criticism. We debunk the most common myths—whether organic farming really can’t feed the world, or is even less sustainable than conventional farming on a global scale…

1. Organic farming cannot feed the world's population

Various studies conclude that organic farming yields too little per hectare and therefore would not be able to feed the world’s population. (Eva-Marie Meemken, Matin Qaim 2018)

The fact is that food is currently being produced for 9 billion people, even though there are only 7.9 billion of us. Due to unfair distribution, there are 828 million undernourished people and 2.2 billion overweight people. In addition, globally we waste one in every three food items, and we consume far more meat than health organizations recommend—three times too much in the EU. Worldwide, one-third of the land area is used for livestock farming and feeding. This makes them by far the largest land users. If fewer animal products were consumed, less agricultural land would be needed.

Organic farming could therefore feed 9 billion people if meat consumption and food waste were reduced (Nature Communications 2017). Given the animal suffering caused by factory farming and the reprehensible waste of food, this is also the ethically correct path to take.

2. Yields for organic farming are much lower

Yes, on average, yields in organic farming are currently lower than in conventional farming. A long-term experiment in Basel puts the difference at 10 to 20 percent. The reason for this gap is that, for a century, significant funds have been invested in the development of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers, as well as crop varieties adapted to them. The search for suitable crop varieties that yield well in organic farming, however, has only just begun. Currently, organic farming still relies on conventional seeds.

In addition, the advantages of conventional agriculture are rapidly disappearing:

1. Plants and pests are frequently developing resistance, and the agrochemical industry can no longer keep up with the development of new active ingredients. It is pushing for faster approval processes, which are already too lax. While active ingredients are tested extensively, they are never applied to fields in their pure form but are always used in combination with carrier chemicals and various additives. The final product—the pesticide—has therefore not been thoroughly tested. Furthermore, farmers rarely use just one pesticide on their fields. The interactions and risks are difficult to assess, but they are clearly evident in species loss, disasters like DDT, or the horrific consequences of neonicotinoids.
2. Furthermore, soils in many places are in a critical condition: heavy machinery, excessive harvesting, insufficient erosion control, and excessive use of agrochemicals are rapidly depleting the fertile humus layer. As a result, the livelihoods of 3.2 billion people are at risk. Global crop yields are projected to decline by an average of 10 percent over the next 30 years, with some areas seeing greater declines and others less (reports from IPBES).

3. Organic farming is harmful to the climate

Conventional agriculture is often described as more climate-friendly because it yields a higher output per hectare, which means less farmland is needed and unused land could be reforested. From this perspective, conventional agriculture is therefore more climate-friendly.

Sure, here comes the catch.

Agriculture is a complex system that has evolved over thousands of years; reducing it to a single metric (yield) makes no sense. 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 lower), environmental toxicity (up to 81 percent lower), and climate protection. Only the yield is lower. (Science Advances 2021)

In June 2018, Pavan Sukhdevalso warnedin *Nature* against reducing agriculture solely to yield. Maximizing yield in animals demonstrates just as clearly that this can never be sustainable, because animals and plants are living beings. Organisms eventually reach their limits. A high-yield dairy cow already lives only 4–5 years, even though cattle have a life expectancy of about 15–25 years. If yields are increased further, life expectancy will decline. Quite apart from the associated cruel breeding practices, the resources required to raise a heifer to sexual maturity are also overlooked. This resource expenditure and the associated_CO2 emissions are not factored into the snapshot of yield calculations.

In addition, organic farming is more climate-resilient and significantly more efficient in terms of water availability and use. As a result, organic farming demonstrates greater yield stability during periods of drought.

Where should the organic sector be heading?

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

Agricultural practices should also be further developed. Ideas and concepts such as no-till farming, agroforestry systems—where rows of trees are combined with crops—or milpa, a system already practiced by the Maya in which corn, beans, and squash are planted together, deserve more attention. Both historical systems and new approaches must be explored. For one thing is certain: industrial agriculture is not an option for the future, as it is responsible in many places for serious environmental problems such as land degradation, loss of biodiversity, water pollution, and climate change. It cannot continue to feed us all if it destroys its own foundation on this scale.

So let’s ignore sensationalist headlines in the future that try to convince us that organic farming isn’t sustainable, and let’s stop wasting our valuable time on them. Let’s channel our energy into supporting a form of agriculture that treats living beings as living beings, not as numbers.