Is organic farming really better for health and the environment than conventional farming?

The well-known environmental benefits of organic farming are the avoidance of synthetic chemicals (and antibiotics, in the case of animals), support for biological diversity and managing land use in a way that preserves its quality - three of the main problems of conventional agriculture. On the other hand, the disadvantages are also great - animal excrement as a substitute for fertilizer causes infections, and the area required for organic crops is much larger than that required for normal crops, and therefore the environmental footprint of organic agriculture is high

Ran Ben Michael, Angle - Science and Environment News Agency

The "organic" label is becoming more and more common: in food chains, in market stalls, in the ingredients of cosmetics and cleaning products and even on fashion items. "Organic" is supposed to symbolize health and environmental responsibility, but does the increased price that is usually attached to such produce really guarantee this?

Organic agriculture developed against the background of resistance to the industrial revolution of agriculture at the beginning of the 20th century. It was mainly based on stopping the use of synthetic chemicals and replacing them with fertilizer, pesticides and soil improvement of biological origin and avoiding genetically modified varieties.

Despite a consistent increase in the scope of organic agriculture - in the world and in Israel - it occupies only about 1.4 percent of the world's agricultural land, and only in 14 countries does the percentage of organic land exceed 10 percent (with the majority of the organic land, 69 percent, being devoted to pasture - that is, to raising animals for food). The global market value of organic produce in 2017 was about 90 billion euros (about NIS 340 billion) and is on the rise. About 3 million agricultural producers in the world are engaged in organic agriculture and the main increase in their number is in developing countries that export to the United States and the European Union, where the main increase in the consumption of organic products was recorded.

Not necessarily healthier

The well-known environmental benefits of organic farming are the avoidance of synthetic chemicals (and antibiotics, in the case of animals), support for biological diversity and managing land use in a way that preserves its quality - three of the main problems of conventional agriculture.

The perception that organic agriculture has smaller environmental impacts than conventional agriculture has led many countries to encourage its implementation. Thus, for example, agriculture in the state of Sikkim in the north-east of India became, with the encouragement of the government, 100 percent organic in 2016, but it is still too early to point to the results: on the one hand there have been successes such as an increase in biodiversity variables, but on the other hand consumers still avoid paying the high price More of the organic agricultural produce.

Not using synthetic chemicals for fertilization and pest control is considered a health advantage, however, according to the United Nations Health Organization, most of the synthetic chemicals that are approved for use in conventional agriculture are safe to use if used correctly and appropriate precautions are taken. On the other hand, the organic alternative of using animal excrement for soil fertilization (and especially those that have not undergone proper treatment) may cause bacterial infections, the spread of parasites and damage to water sources following the application (enrichment with nutrients), similar to excessive fertilization with synthetic chemicals. Alternatives of minerals or natural compounds, such as sulfur oxide, also have a negative effect.

Opinions regarding the health benefits of organic food are divided: alongside studies that found nutritional benefits such as a high content of antioxidants, a large-scale review study conducted in 2012 by researchers at Stanford University revealed that there is no unequivocal evidence that organic food is nutritionally superior, But there may be a reduction in exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in organic food.

Farmers are in no rush to switch to organic
Equally important variables should be added to these arguments for and against organic agriculture. First, organic farming requires the use of a larger land area to achieve a similar yield. The additional area will usually come at the expense of open areas and their biological diversity and may increase deforestation, which also occurs at a high rate in many regions of the world. Although there is a debate about the exact gap, many studies point to a low organic yield per unit of area (according to an estimate in Europe it is about 80 percent on average of the yield produced from the same area in conventional agriculture, but the variation is large between regions, crops, types of soil and different growing environments) .

In addition, to overcome noxious weeds without synthetic chemicals, organic farmers have to plow the land, which leads to depletion. The land available for agriculture is shrinking around the world, while the population is growing and many people still don't get enough healthy food.

Therefore, the ratio of crop to area is a fundamental issue of public health and food security. There are political and economic variables that affect the availability of food and food loss along the supply chain also plays a role, but it is not certain that 100 percent organic agriculture will be able to satisfy the demand since the demand for food is expected to increase by approximately 60 percent by the year 2050.

"If most of the agricultural land is not used for organic farming, this indicates the difficulty for farmers to adopt it," says Prof. Avi Parbolotsky, an agro-ecology expert and former director of the natural resources department at the Volcani Institute. "Farmers have to comply with a strict protocol and without accepting the ideology, few will do so. Secondly, the economic equation is no different in organic farming, on the contrary: because of a low harvest, as sometimes happens, the economics of organic farming is more complex and to succeed in it you need to be a committed professional."

What is considered organic?

Another issue to consider when weighing the pros and cons of organic farming is climate change. Thus, for example, a study in Sweden published at the end of 2018 and which aroused great interest, found that growing organic peas in the country emits 50 percent more greenhouse gases compared to conventional growing. A review study by Oxford University researchers from 2012 also suggested that due to the need for a larger area, the environmental footprint of organic farming is higher per unit of output. A new study published this year by researchers from faculties of agriculture in Great Britain, examined the possible consequences for greenhouse gas emissions due to a transition to 100 percent organic agriculture in England and Wales. Although the study found slight advantages for organic agriculture in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly because avoiding the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides requires lower energy inputs), the bottom line is that total greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 56-21 percent (depending on the nature of the additional area that will be added to the areas the farmers overseas). The increase in emissions will occur due to the need to satisfy the full demand for food by supplementing local production with more extensive imports, this is due to the relatively low production volumes per unit area in organic agriculture.

Another sustainability issue is the cost of organic produce. The low yield, the need for manual labor, and the payment for certification requires the growers to sell the produce at a higher market price, making organic food accessible to those with means. The more area required for this product, the more land is taken away from growing food for a large part of the population. It is possible that things will change - in the US at least the price gap between organic and conventional products is narrowing due to the increase in demand - but you can't make a mistake about the rest of the world.

A final and important point is what is considered organic and what is not. Ostensibly, the "organic" label is supposed to be supervised, but there are large gaps between different types of agricultural produce, between the supervising bodies in different places, and different standards apply to primary products and organic components in other products (for example in the field of cosmetics). In addition, the label is not an insurance certificate: the organic cow suffered in slaughter, the organic cotton t-shirt was probably dyed with a color that contaminates water sources, the organic chicken can be contaminated by chemicals that will leak from the food packaging, and organic chocolate is also harmful to the teeth.

The third way
It is clear, therefore, that the picture is not unequivocal and this may indicate that the debate should not be between two opposing approaches, but about the specific conditions suitable for organic or conventional agriculture, about the right crops and a need that each of the approaches meets. It is not a zero sum game, because the second approach can be applied in the adjacent agricultural plot.

"In Israel it is not possible to switch to full organic agriculture, or even to significantly increase its share," says Parabloski, "because the limited harvest will require imports on a scale that will affect the economy. Agro-ecology offers another way to solve environmental problems that originate from agriculture in a way that its economic impact will probably be limited."