3 ms·
100-percent organic is often bad for the environment because it takes more land to grow the same food. It often takes more energy to grow food locally (greenho
by bpodgursky 9y ago
100-percent organic is often bad for the environment because it takes more land to grow the same food.
It often takes more energy to grow food locally (greenhouses and fertilizer) than transported food.
Antibiotic-raised foods grow faster and thus have better caloric ratios, and less farmland per pound of beef.
- azinman2 9y agoSource? There are many ways in which organic and non-organic affect the environment other than land use (which is likely a marginal difference). Big agro, most associated with non-organic farming, does lots of bad things for the environment. Pesticides that are linked to decline of bee populations, pesticides that yield local imbalances in what animals/bugs are around to eat each other, synthetic fertilizers that thrash the land from being able to grow diverse crops into the future, chemical run offs into local water sources, exposure of workers to high concentrations of pesticides and their subsequent-related illnesses, GMO seeds spreading farther than the intended land mass mating with other species producing unknown effects (and lawsuits), etc.
- sapote 9y agoOrganic food raised like industrial food will often take more land. But organic food raised in polyculture can sometimes take dramatically less space. Look up Land Equivalent Ratio and intercropping.
- jjawssd 9y agoThis makes intuitive sense but I have never seen good evidence for it. I personally do not believe that: - organic food is bad for the environment - organic food is less space efficient to grow I do believe that: - organic food may have lower crop yields
- bpodgursky 9y agoUh... > - organic food is less space efficient to grow > - organic food may have lower crop yields These are the same thing. If you have to generate X calories, and you generate fewer per acre, then you need more acres of crop.