Organic farming and local products not always better for the environment - report

Norman Borlaug, the father of the 'Green Revolution' and Nobel laureate, has often said that organic farming is more an ideological statement of scientifically illiterate but wealthy consumers, than an agronomically sensible idea. In an interview with Reason Magazine he explained why:

Reason: What do you think of organic farming? A lot of people claim it's better for human health and the environment.
That's ridiculous. This shouldn't even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.
At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.
If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer. That's when this misinformation becomes destructive.

The scientist who understands the complexities of food security like no other indicates that introducing organic farming in the developing world would be disastrous for the environment, because it requires more land and extensive forms of agriculture. Instead, and in the name of sustainability, Borlaug advocates classic recipes that have proved to work, and that have brought food security to billions: fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, plant-breeding and crop improvement, biotech research, and if necessary, genetically modified crops. (By the way, Borlaug is working on genetically improving cassava, as part of an effort to produce biofuels in the South, to alleviate poverty and food insecurity - earlier post).

It seems like Borlaug has got it right, at least as far as his critique of organic farming is concerned. In a new study, Britain's environmental protection agency DEFRA (Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs) shows that organic farming is often worse for the environment than classic, intensive farming.

The report, titled "The Environmental Impact of Food Production and Consumption" [*.pdf], concludes that the environmental benefits of organic food production are not clear and that locally-sourced rather than globally-sourced products are not necessarily more energy efficient. It also shows that reduced use of fertilizers requires more, not less, land for agriculture, increasing pressure on natural forests and ecosystems.

Recently, we urged European and American consumers to think more carefully about their consumer actions, as they affect millions of poor farmers, their environment and the biofuels future. Applying the idea of 'food miles', for example, which has become quite fashionable, would in all seriousness require quite complex and refined analyses and comparisons of products, which are currently lacking. The concept has become hip as part of a 'buy local' campaign, but its gratuitous application can have perverse effects, both from an environmental and energetic point of view. It may actually be wiser to import food and biofuels from a country thousands of kilometres away.

More importantly, we think, is the lack of insights into the potentially disastrous socio-economic effects of such campaigns: poor farmers in the South who today produce for the lucrative markets of the North may be kicked back into poverty, just because individuals in the West decide "to do something" about climate change and for sustainability, while in fact they are doing the contrary. And when these farmers lose their markets, they are forced to resort back to extensive, environmentally destructive agricultural practises (earlier post).

This is why the DEFRA report is more than welcome. It may teach consumers in the West that there is no quick-fix to solve climate change, the energy crisis or poverty in the South. Concepts such as 'food miles', 'fair trade', 'carbon footprints' and 'organic' certainly have their merits, but when they are used gratuituously, as marketing labels and picked up by questionable campaigns or trend-driven individuals, they can be very damaging.

DEFRA's report, prepared by the Manchester Business School, is based on the analysis of the full environmental impacts of 150 top-selling food items. Seven food groups were considered: basic carbohydrate foods, fruit and vegetables, dairy products, meat products, fish and other basic protein foods, drinks – alcoholic and non-alcoholic, and mixed products, snacks and other items. Amongst the factors analysed were:

• the effect on water in the area (both usage and pollution)
• energy use for cultivation
• global warming potential
• impacts arising from nutrient releases
• processing, refrigeration and packaging impacts

"This is the first time such a comprehensive review of the available evidence has been carried out in the UK, and it highlights some challenging problems that DEFRA will need to consider in their development of policies for sustainable food production and consumption," says project director professor Ken Green:
biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: climate change :: efficiency :: food miles :: carbon footprints :: organic farming :: agriculture :: science :: Borlaug ::

"If you are concerned about the 'carbon footprint' of foods, there can be good case for importing some of them (eg tomatoes or lamb) even if they can be grown in the UK. The evidence available so far shows that 'local' is not always the best option for the environment.”

The main findings of the report further showed that:

-the environmental benefits of organic food production are not clear-cut
-there is no clear evidence in environmental terms to support locally-sourced rather than globally-sourced shopping. For some foods, global sourcing might be a better option for the environment;
-the impact of car-based shopping by individual consumers is greater than the impact of transport within the food production distribution system
-the impact of packaging on food is difficult to quantify because the disposal of that packaging varies within the UK (eg discard rates by consumers and recycling/ recovery policies in different local authorities)

The authors caution that the report only considers the environmental effects of food production and consumption, and not the social or economic impacts of sourcing agricultural products locally or buying organic. These, in fact, may often be even worse, considering that many products are produced by millions of small-scale farmers in the developing world. If consumers in the West suddenly decide to 'go local' - for whatever obscure reason - these farmers are kicked back into poverty because they lose their markets.

More information:
DEFRA Environmental Protection: Sustainable Consumption and Production. Research programme themes: Theme 4: Impacts of food production and consumption.

Manchester Business School: DEFRA study highlights challenges of “sustainable consumption” - Feb. 4. 2007

Foster, C. et al. (2007) The Environmental Impact of Food Production and Consumption A report to the Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs. [*.pdf, 6MB] Manchester Business School. DEFRA, London.

Reason Online: Billions Served: Norman Borlaug interviewed by Ronald Bailey - Apr. 2000.