Organic’s Relationship with the Climate Crisis is very, very Complicated
Alika Magas | October 21, 2022
Certified Organic seems like a perfect solution to environmental health. At the center of the Organic label are ecologically responsible growing parameters. No harmful chemicals are to be found in the soil of the farm, there’s an extensive list of detrimental fertilizers which are strictly prohibited, and a farm must have proof that none of these destructive agents have been present in their farming system for the past five-years. Until that proof is given, a farm cannot be granted a USDA Organic certification.
However, recent criticism by some climate scientists has begun to raise the question: is organic actually better for the environment? At first that sounds wild; the organic movement is built around the core concept of environmental wellbeing. The mere questioning of these growing practices by none other than climate scientists sounds contradictory. But, if you take a deeper look inside and find the core issue at the center of Organic, those climate scientists may actually have a point.
The rising criticism is rooted in one main concept. Because Organic Farming prohibits the use of harmful, synthetic fertilizers, the yield of a single acre of organic crops is less than an acre of conventional farmland. In reality, organic farms require, on average, 84% more land than their inorganic counterparts.
Significant deforestation and loss of mountain gorilla habitat in Uganda as a result of population growth and increased need for agricultural land.
What’s even more is that current projections claim food demand will increase anywhere from 59% to 98% by the year 2050. This means that if the world switched to only practicing organic growing techniques, the land required to meet the new population would nearly double. And the issue of increased acreage does not bode well for greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, this part is a little complicated. Technically speaking, per unit of agricultural land, greenhouse gas emissions drop by 20% when organic growing practices are used. That’s good right? Well, consider the issue of yield. MIT research shows that yield in an organic system drops by roughly 40%—which means the need to clear land and resort to deforestation is inevitable. This is because an organic farm requires more land in order to meet the same demand as an in-organic farm. The same study concludes that, when land clearing is taken into account, matching the output of conventional farming causes a net 20% boost in greenhouse gas emissions. All these ratios raise enough qualms that agricultural economist Martin Qaim stated, “All the data I know suggests that organic farming is not the right strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.”
That stance, however, overlooks one far more negative side effect of non-organic systems: their profound effect on biodiversity and the water cycle.
There are multiple facets to the climate crisis. Not every challenge we face is directly tied to greenhouse gas emissions. Other aspects of non-organic farming, if left neglected, will complicate our living environment beyond the average global temperature surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius. In fact, scientists announced in August of 2022 that rainwater found anywhere on the globe is no longer safe to drink because of the presence of “forever chemicals” or Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances if you want to sound really fancy. And one source of these forever chemicals are non-organic agricultural fertilizers.
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS for short, are acids that do not deteriorate naturally for around 1,000 years and take roughly 8 years to leave your body once ingested. PFAS are found in all sorts of things from plastics to clothing to pesticides. Forever chemicals’ presence in common agricultural pest deterrents allows these chemicals to hitch a ride into our environment via water runoff from conventional farming systems. This runoff soaks into the soil both in and surrounding the farmland in which PFAS are used. These chemicals do not bond to the soil and instead seep all the way down into naturally occurring ground water. Once that happens, these chemicals are now permanently locked into the earth’s water cycle. The groundwater discharges into streams, those streams evaporate and take the PFAS with them, and then weather patterns distribute these chemicals all over the world.
Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Visit Media to see details.
And contaminated drinking water isn’t where detrimental pesticides draw the line. These chemicals are also known to impact the wellbeing of countless pollinators. Pesticides can be detrimental to a honeybee’s olfactory learning ability and reproduction capabilities, and, in some cases, pesticides are just flat-out lethal. If honeybees are lost, we lose the most prominent pollinator for crops such as cucumbers, almonds, carrots, melons, apricots, cherries, pears, apples, prunes, plums, cantaloupe, onions, avocados, kiwi, blueberries, cranberries, and more.
Other pollinators are affected, too: bumblebees, butterflies, moths—all of these insects suffer health complications because of pesticides. And a decline in the population of pollinators won’t just affect what’s in the produce section. Animals such as birds, bats, mammals, and countless other living organisms will lose vital food and nutrients all because of the chain reaction of pollinators’ population decline.
There’s no way to sugarcoat this. The organic conundrum is so bleak and complicated it may seem like no matter what path humanity takes, the environment is doomed. But, that stance is also inherently flawed. As you read this, climate scientists and activists are working together to research, fund, and implement new agricultural practices that not only account for the impending issue of yield and growing food demand, but also focus on carbon sequestration.
One such solution is multi-strata agroforestry—or growing multiple crops at different elevation levels over the same acre of farmland. This tactic doesn’t just stabilize the environment, but actively heals our earth at the same time. Not to mention it also poses a solution to rising food demand. The solutions don’t stop there, either. But that’s a whole new discussion for a later time.
There are also a few ways we can address the issue of yield in our current society. The USDA estimates that around 40% of our current food supply is wasted. According to Waste Management, 30% of that waste is comprised of organic foods. On top of that, such food waste can add billions of tons of green house gas emissions to the atmosphere. Why? Because for each unit of food wasted, the components—like water and fertilizer—are wasted as well. They were expended on an unused product, after all. Addressing this issue of waste is simple: the FDA suggests we work together with our federal and state governments to implement programs that reduce food waste, and if we make sure to eat the entirety of our own grocery runs, we can address the issue of food shortage without any time wasted.
You can even go one step farther in doing your part. Imperfect Foods is a subscription program that sends produce and fruits deemed “too ugly” for the grocery stores, yet those bits of produce are entirely edible. Grocery chains just don’t buy them simply due to their appearance. Imperfect Foods’ customer base has saved 172,000,000 pounds of food over the years, and the savings just keep on growing.
Another solution out there are various meatless products. For example, the company Meati Foods specializes in meat alternatives that are made with mushroom root. This means that they don’t have to till or utilize vast acres of farm land. Mushroom root can be found anywhere from forest floors to a farm’s soil and even in the ocean. The founders of Meati looked at mushroom root found in the wake of wildfires in order to formulate the recipe for their product, thus finding use for land that appears unusable without resorting to deforestation.
Farmers must protective clothing while spraying hazardous pesticides on crops.
So, the long answer to this tangled knot of science is yes, our current organic growing practices are flawed and need to be improved if we are to face the coming challenges of the climate crisis. But it would be detrimental to the world at large if we resorted to conventional growing practices. If it’s an easy way out, it’s a trap.
Solving the Organic issue won’t be simple and there is a lot of work to be done, but solutions are actively being researched and implemented; there is no reason at all to take this as an excuse to give up hope. If anything, it’s the perfect motivation to dig deeper into the healing possibilities climate science and research provides. It’s reason to fund and advocate for new agricultural practices. And it’s the reassurance we need when it feels like all is lost. We’re stronger together, there’s no other way to word that. And the era of food that heals our planet is just around the corner.
"The food you eat can either be the safest and most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison." -Ann Wigmore
Thank you for reading our article! We want to reward you with a single-use discount code for 10% off your online order. Just use the code SAFERFOOD (all letters, no numbers) at checkout. Limit one per customer, excludes subscriptions.