Media misreading organic food's energy footprint
A clear-headed reading of the report reveals that most organic meat and wheat uses less energy in production and all organic products have lower or no pesticide usage.
However, most media covering this story seem to have latched on to the finding that some of the time, some environmental impacts of some organic foods, are considered higher than is the case for some conventional foods.
For example, much has been made of organic milk’s environmental contribution. However, if you read the report, it is clear that the energy used to produce 1 litre of organic milk is less than half that for conventional milk.
Where organic milk falls down relates (in an unspecified way) to the type of feed used by organic producers in the UK.
Where certification means maintaining organic standards all the way from production to consumption, some products and inputs have to be moved long distances. A more local non-organic source may be available, but then the consumer doesn’t get a certified product. This is always an issue for organics, and it obviously contributes to food miles. However, the question has to be asked — what’s the alternative?
It is likely that with the increase in organic consumption, more products, inputs and services will be available in more and more places, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of these organic foods. The alternative to supporting organics and waiting for this to happen is to support conventional, with all its myriad environmental problems.
The research behind this report is, in my opinion, limited or flawed in a number of ways.
It is limited in not considering the farm as a place where the environment actually is. It’s as if there are farms, and there’s the environment — separate entities. In this flawed construct, the larger acreages used make organic food production seem more damaging.
However, it is possible to view this construction in an entirely different way.
Organic farms have been proven in numerous reports to be higher in biodiversity levels than conventional farms. So there is more nature in, or on, organic farms. There is more biodiversity in terms of farmed products and more plants in fields, life in hedgerows, bird life and so on. In contrast, conventional farming has done enormous damage to biodiversity levels over the past 60 years.
Despite its stated focus on sustainability, this report does not consider biodiversity, animal welfare, soil condition or (in a comprehensive sense) water usage, so the report cannot be considered all-encompassing.
The UK’s Soil Association claimed that the model used for the study amplified the amount of nitrous oxide emissions, and increased the land area used by organics by half.
I think some good points are made by the report, however. Car transport to and from supermarkets has a more negative effect on the environment than much food production. Interestingly, sometimes local production, even of organic, can be more energy-intensive. Tomatoes produced in heated UK greenhouses have a greater negative impact than those produced in unheated ones in Spain.
So it all comes back to thinking about what you eat. If the product is out of season, and produced nearby, a lot of energy has probably been used to do this.
For all its flaws, it is clear from this report that the move towards agri-industrialisation in organics has had some inevitable negative impacts.
The spirit of organic production suggests more natural and less concentrated feeds for animals, better crop rotations, less liquid feeds and so on.
If you are lucky enough to know organic producers working in these more natural ways, make the most of them.
Overall, the three amigos — seasonal, local, organic — need to form a holy alliance.
If it comes down to a choice between giving up (because organic certification sometimes results in extra transport) and working toward a food system combining local, seasonal and organic, I know which one I’m choosing.
See the report online by going to www.defra.gov.uk and typing SCP007 into the search box.
