Today, as many as two thirds of food consumers in the UK may regularly buy one or more organic products. Popularity and demand of organic food has been increasing since the 1970s as people became more and more conscious of their own health and the health of their environment. One estimate prices the organic market at over $80 billion (Barton, G. The Global History of Organic Farming), a mere 3% of the global agricultural output. As the world sits in the shadow of the looming terror of climate change, the finger of blame is pointed heavily at agriculture and its large contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, where the promise of organic food rises like a just-on-time superhero. However, this superhero has many issues of its own. One issue was confirmed by a recent study condemning organic meat for its climate impact. So, what’s the truth? Is organic food the hero we need or another nail in the climate coffin? 

The article in question, headed by Maximilian Pieper, Amelie Michalke, and Tobia Gaugler, (Pieper et al., 2020) provides an extensive review into the emissions of different food groups, different agricultural systems and their respective costs. Most of the time, you’ll find that organic food is more expensive than your conventionally farmed food (or all of the time according to this study!). Should it be? Research says not at all. The authors found that conventionally farmed food is a lot cheaper than it should be in comparison to its price of emissions, representing an economic externality. 

Producers are not taking responsibility for the external costs that arise from their products – agricultural greenhouse gas emissions – and so this cost is being passed on to society. This is a negative externality (which you can read more about here). This lack of accountability enables producers to sell too much of their produce for cheaper than it should be, while society is left to deal with the costs of pollution and climate change. Of course, the majority of these climate costs are being imposed onto the Global South (regions outside Europe and North America which can be characterised by low-income, political or cultural marginalisation and/or underdevelopment) while over-consumerism continues to worsen throughout Western societies where the consequences are not yet felt. 

The externality of agricultural emissions can be resolved via the polluter-pays principle – a commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution should be held responsible for the costs. Pieper, Michalke and Gaugler reviewed farming practices in Germany to put a price-tag on our food that was reflective of its emission costs with the hopes of highlighting “the urgency for policy measures that close the gap between current market prices and the true costs of food.” (Pieper et al., 2020). For this study, the authors created a framework in which emissions for different food products across different agricultural systems could be calculated and monetised (€180 ($219) per ton of CO2 equivalents). Here, the negative externality is represented by the exclusion of Land Use Change emissions in food costs, which make up a large proportion of the total emissions of conventionally produced food in Germany, where fodder is imported from land cleared to grow crops. (Organic production in Germany requires the majority of fodder to come from the same or directly neighbouring states, and so LUC emissions are considered negligible here).

While the main focus of many covering stories was the shock that organic meat is just as bad as conventional meat, much more was revealed in this study.

1. Most food is cheaper than it should be.
2. Conventionally farmed foods are least reflective of their true cost.
3. Animal products are the worst emitters for both agricultural styles.
4. Organic farming is more sustainable for dairy and plant-based products.

Why are animal products big emitters? Animals are resource intensive and inefficient. The energy a cow may receive from its feed is directed to much more than growth: metabolism, respiration, excretion, egestion etc (the life processes). One estimation states the production of 1kg of beef may need as much as 43kg of feed (Pimentel & Burgess, 2014). Accounting for the emissions associated with the growth of that feed, the emissions from the animals themselves (think methane burps), and the upkeep of the land for these animals, the emission total is extremely high, two orders of magnitude greater than plant emissions. While organic meat is more ethical for animal welfare, simple inefficiency means there is no way to justify animal agriculture from an environmental standpoint.

“Organic farming produces 21% less emissions for dairy and 43% less emissions for plant-based products on average per kg.” – Pieper et al., 2020

A market that has absolved the negative externality represented by current food prices also highlights the monetary disadvantages of animal-based products and conventional farming systems. When climate costs are accounted for, conventional animal-based products increased in price by an average of 146%, but only 25% for conventional plant-based foods, and consistently smaller price increases for organic foods (Figure 4). Thus, the price discrepancy between organic and conventional products is greatly reduced (Figure 3), making organic foods much more desirable and accessible.

This study is another added to the growing pile of evidence that agriculture needs to become more sustainable if we hope to limit global warming to a 1.5’C increase, as stated by the Paris Climate Agreement. Organic farming’s benefits are founded on prioritising ecosystem health via sustainable management practices, such as avoiding conventional chemical inputs, like fertilisers and pesticides, and intensification; many benefits besides reduced emissions, for example, biodiversity and soil fertility maintenance, have been investigated thoroughly by (Pimentel & Burgess, 2014) and (Aguilera et al., 2015). 

The authors hope that by internalising agricultural externalities, sustainable consuming behaviour will be strengthened, increasing the organic platform and paving the way for sustainable agriculture. Major government intervention is required to ensure action is being taken without putting livelihoods at risk however. For example, subsidy policies and redistribution of money received from internalisation will support farmers financially and incentivise them to be more sustainable. The paper also highlights the need for social compensation to support “ economically disadvantaged citizens, who are spending a far higher proportion of their income on food than economically more privileged groups.” 

The takeaway from this article? Avoid meat and dairy, shop organically if you can, and hold producers accountable for the costs they are imposing on you, whether it be by avoiding businesses or signing petitions, but overall making your voice heard.

References and Materials