Organic Agri Brief Debatetrack

March 22: In the United States, the benefits of increasing organic agriculture outweigh the
harms.
Organic Agriculture
March 2022 Public Forum Topic
Table of Contents
Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

harms.
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................2
Background.................................................................................................................................................5
Definition: i. no soluble mineral inputs and ii. no synthetic herbicides and pesticides..................................5
Definition: organic crops are non-GMO............................................................................................................................... 5
Trends: in 2016, organic farming comprised 1% of US farmland...........................................................................6
Trends: organic produce grew to a $9 billion industry in 2021, and tend to cost more than
conventionally-farmed foods..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Pro...................................................................................................................................................................8
Biodiversity.................................................................................................................................................... 9
Organic agriculture boosts biodiversity............................................................................................................................... 9
Organic agriculture increases both pollinators and biodiversity............................................................................10
The ecosystem as a whole improves under organic agriculture..........................................................................11
Even ¼ of fields being organic can make an important difference for diversity of plants and animals
............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Case Studies.................................................................................................................................................. 13
New models of organic farms provide solvency for growth.....................................................................................13
Climate Change............................................................................................................................................ 14
Organic farming produces far less GHG emissions................................................................................................... 14
Organic farming can reverse climate change, while growing more food..........................................................15
Economics..................................................................................................................................................... 17
Organic agricultural economic benefits are clear......................................................................................................... 17
Empirics prove–an increase in organic agriculture addresses socio-economic disparities.....................18
Organic farming hotspots empirically decrease poverty rates...............................................................................19
Farms & Farmers........................................................................................................................................ 20
Local, environmentally friendly farms increase............................................................................................................. 20
Organic products are more demanded, increasing prices and allowing farmers to sustainably
maintain their land....................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Farmers report higher satisfaction after switching to organic, when considering economic, livestock-
related, social and work satisfaction.................................................................................................................................. 22
Nutrition........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Organic food has higher nutrient & antioxidant levels, and lower pesticide residues................................23
Pesticides...................................................................................................................................................... 24
Organic farming decreases synthetic pesticide use................................................................................................... 24
Epidemiological studies prove – organic farms decreases pesticide use........................................................25
The widely-used pesticide chlorpyrifos causes neurological damage to babies, puts farm workers at
incredible risk, and threatens fish, birds and other animals....................................................................................26
Eating organic food reduces levels of chlorpyrifos and other pesticides in the body.................................27
Pollution........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Organic agriculture is an ecological virtue and stops nitrogen pollution...........................................................28
Increasing organic agricultural practices decreases groundwater contamination........................................29
Toxicity and pollution reduced under organic agriculture........................................................................................ 30
Nitrogen gas emissions decrease too............................................................................................................................... 31
Soil.................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Organic farming can increase the abundance and diversity of the soil microbiome...................................32
Soil benefits improves nutrition............................................................................................................................................. 33
The affirmative is critical for stopping erosion............................................................................................................... 35
Sustainability............................................................................................................................................... 36

harms.
Organic agriculture improves sustainability.................................................................................................................... 36
Sustainability and stable food production........................................................................................................................ 37
Increased organic agriculture can provide a more sustainable food source and help preserve wildlife
............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
India as a model for organic agriculture sustainability............................................................................................... 39
Waste Use...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Waste from fish farming can be used as fertilizer to grow crops according to organic farming
principles......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Pro Blocks..................................................................................................................................................41
AT: Big Orgo................................................................................................................................................. 42
Organic lobbying makes up only 0.3% of all agriculture lobbying........................................................................42
AT: Climate Change.................................................................................................................................... 43
A large-scale shift to organic farming might increase greenhouse gas emissions......................................43
AT: Environmental Damage.................................................................................................................... 44
Conventional farming of animal feed is a major driver of environmental damage from agriculture.....44
AT: Rotenone............................................................................................................................................... 45
Rotenone is no longer used in organic farming............................................................................................................ 45
AT: Yields Decrease................................................................................................................................... 46
Yields no different in the long-term, and organic sometimes performs better...............................................46
Hay production increased under organic farming........................................................................................................ 47
Con................................................................................................................................................................48
Big Orgo......................................................................................................................................................... 49
Organic-foods lobbying groups spend billions annually in attacking genetically modified foods..........49
The ’organic’ label mainly serves to protect the organic industry from competition and to fetch higher
prices for their products............................................................................................................................................................ 50
Cost................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Organic products require more labor and money........................................................................................................ 51
Loss in Farm Profitability......................................................................................................................................................... 52
Organics increase labor cost................................................................................................................................................. 53
Lack of GMO use increases labor and hand weeding............................................................................................... 54
Environment................................................................................................................................................ 56
Without modern farming techniques, there would be significantly more environmental damage and
much less food production...................................................................................................................................................... 56
GMOs Good................................................................................................................................................... 57
GMOs crops use less pesticides......................................................................................................................................... 57
GMOs provide new innovations that can help humanity, especially the world’s poorest people..........58
Land................................................................................................................................................................ 59
Organic agriculture uses significantly more land and water for the same food output..............................59
Land use needed for organic products would increase and thus increase emissions...............................60
More land use means less land for wildlife..................................................................................................................... 61
Loopholes...................................................................................................................................................... 62
Technical workarounds just result in bad organic farming loopholes.................................................................62
Lobbying creates a economic barrier to entry for new farms pursuing organics..........................................63
Pollution........................................................................................................................................................ 65
Pollution is generally higher with organic products..................................................................................................... 65

harms.
Greenhouse gas emissions increase................................................................................................................................ 66
Pollution worsens–that’s because of sulfur..................................................................................................................... 67
Sri Lanka....................................................................................................................................................... 68
Sri Lanka tried to go all-organic, and its food supply is now in crisis, with overall crop yields cut in
half and some crops failing entirely.................................................................................................................................... 68
Sustainability............................................................................................................................................... 70
Organic agriculture damages sustainability.................................................................................................................... 70
Environment is better with conventional agriculture as compared to organic agriculture........................71
Pesticide use worsens under the affirmative................................................................................................................. 73
Yield................................................................................................................................................................ 75
A study of five crops shows less crop yield under organic farming.....................................................................75
Organic agriculture produces low yields.......................................................................................................................... 75
In short, organic practices are to agriculture what cigarette smoking is to human health.............................76
Organic products flat out refuse GMOs which can skyrocket production........................................................76
Con Blocks..................................................................................................................................................78
AT: Animal Welfare.................................................................................................................................... 79
Organic farming isn’t better for animals............................................................................................................................ 79
Animal welfare remains the same....................................................................................................................................... 80
AT: Bees......................................................................................................................................................... 81
Bees aren’t going extinct, they’re not even native to the US, their US populations depend on large-
scale agriculture, and issues with farmed beehives don’t stem from pesticide use....................................81
AT: Biodiversity.......................................................................................................................................... 83
Organic farming can result in a slight increase in local biodiversity, but at the cost of using more land
............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 83
AT: GMOs dangerous................................................................................................................................. 84
GMOs are widely supported by scientists and have no health or environmental issues..........................84
AT: Health..................................................................................................................................................... 85
Organic foods aren’t more healthy or safe than inorganic ones...........................................................................85
Organic foods may have slightly better nutrition, but it’s not clear that these would result in
differential health effects. Effects on lowered allergies, obesity or nutrition aren’t conclusive..............86
There is no solid empirical evidence that indicates organic products are healthier....................................87
Nutrition does not improve–its just that organic food consumers buy more healthy products overall88
Human nutrition and health unaffected by organic products..................................................................................89
AT: Pesticides & Herbicides.................................................................................................................... 90
Pesticide risks can be minimized without organic crops.......................................................................................... 90
Organic chemicals aren’t less dangerous—they’re sometimes more dangerous than atrazine and
other herbicides............................................................................................................................................................................ 91
Rotenone—only recently removed from the list of approved substances for organic farms—can be
used to model Parkinsons disease in mice..................................................................................................................... 92

harms.
Background
Definition: i. no soluble mineral inputs and ii. no synthetic herbicides and pesticides
Trewavas 2001 (2001). Urban myths of organic farming. Nature, 410(6827), 409-410. doi: 10.1038/35068639,
https://www.nature.com/articles/35068639
Only two principles really distinguish organic farming from other farming methods. Soluble
mineral inputs are prohibited (Box 1) and synthetic herbicides and pesticides are rejected in favour
of natural pesticides (Box 2). But agriculture based on these principles results in a more costly product, mainly because of
lower yields and inefficient use of land.
Organic agriculture developed from the philosophical views of Rudolf Steiner and later Lady Eve Balfour, who in the 1940s
founded the Soil Association. In the United Kingdom this association licenses about 70% of organic production and sends
inspectors to check that its regulations are being followed. Although its supporters assert that organic agriculture is superior to
other farming methods, the lack of scientific studies means that this claim cannot be substantiated.
Conventional agriculture is a diverse set of technologies using the best available knowledge, whose ultimate goal is the safe,
efficient provision of foods in abundance and at lowest price. As with all technologies, problems often arise in the practices of
conventional agriculture — but rejection of a technology because of problems also means losing potential benefits.
Definition: organic crops are non-GMO

USDA 17—Miles McEvoy. Organic 101: Can GMOs Be Used in Organic
Products? https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products
[Miles McEvoy, National Organic Program Deputy Administrator at the US Department of Agriculture]
The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means
an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can’t use
any GMO ingredients. To meet the USDA organic regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren’t using
GMOs and that they are protecting their products from contact with prohibited substances, such as GMOs, from farm to
table.
Organic operations implement preventive practices based on site-specific risk factors, such as neighboring conventional farms or
shared farm equipment or processing facilities. For example, some farmers plant their seeds early or late to avoid organic and
GMO crops flowering at the same time (which can cause cross-pollination). Others harvest crops prior to flowering or sign
cooperative agreements with neighboring farms to avoid planting GMO crops next to organic ones. Farmers also designate the
edges of their land as a buffer zone where the land is managed organically, but the crops aren’t sold as organic. Any shared farm
or processing equipment must be thoroughly cleaned to prevent unintended exposure to GMOs or prohibited substances.
All of these measures are documented in the organic farmer’s organic system plan. This written plan describes the substances and
practices to be used, including physical barriers to prevent contact of organic crops with prohibited substances or the products of
“excluded methods” such as GMOs. On-site inspections and records verify that farmers are following their organic system plan.
Additionally, certifying agents conduct residue testing to determine if these preventive practices are adequate to avoid contact
with substances such as prohibited pesticides, antibiotics, and GMOs.

harms.
Trends: in 2016, organic farming comprised 1% of US farmland
Bialik & Walker 19—Organic farming is on the rise in the U.S. (2019). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/10/organic-farming-is-on-the-rise-in-the-u-s
[Kristen Bialik is a research assistant, and Kristi Walker an interactive designer at the Pew Research Institute]
There were more than 14,000 certified organic farms in the United States in 2016, according to the latest available data
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. This represents a 56% increase from
2011, the earliest comparable year. And while California remains king when it comes to the number of organic farms, several
other states saw dramatic growth in organic farming over this time, particularly in the South.
As the number of organic farms has increased, so too have sales of certified organic products: U.S. farms and ranches sold nearly
$7.6 billion in certified organic goods in 2016, more than double the $3.5 billion in sales in 2011.
Still, organic farming makes up a small share of U.S. farmland overall. There were 5 million certified organic acres of
farmland in 2016, representing less than 1% of the 911 million acres of total farmland nationwide. Some states, however,
had relatively large shares of organic farmland. Vermont’s 134,000 certified organic acres accounted for 11% of its total 1.25
million farm acres. California, Maine and New York followed in largest shares of organic acreage – in each, certified organic
acres made up 4% of total farmland.
Learn more about where organic foods are being grown in the U.S. – and which foods are farmers’ top commodities:
The rise in organic farming in the U.S. coincides with Americans’ growing appetite for organic food over the past few decades.
According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, retail sales of organic foods expanded rapidly from 1994 to 2014. And in
2015, the Organic Trade Association estimated U.S. organic retail sales at $43 billion, representing double-digit growth in most
years since 2000, when the USDA established national organic standards.
Federal spending on organic agriculture has also grown in recent years. The 2014 Farm Act, for example, helped organic
producers with the cost of organic certification (among other things). More recently, Congress passed an $867 billion farm
bill that includes funding for organic farming research.
Certified organic food, according to the Agriculture Department’s definition, must be produced without the use of
conventional pesticides, petroleum- or sewage-based fertilizers, herbicides, genetic engineering, antibiotics, growth
hormones or irradiation. Certified organic farms must also adhere to certain animal health and welfare standards, not treat land
with any prohibited substances for at least three years prior to harvest, and reach a certain threshold for gross annual organic
sales. U.S. organic farms that are not certified organic are not included in this analysis.
About four-in-ten U.S. adults (39%) say that most or some of the food they eat is organic, while 61% say not too much or
none of their food is, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. People in higher income families are especially
likely to say this (48% of those who make $100,000 a year or more) compared with those making less than $30,000 a year (33%).
Americans are closely divided over whether organic fruits and vegetables are better for one’s health than conventionally grown
foods. About half of U.S. adults (51%) say organic produce is neither better nor worse than non-organic produce, while
45% say organic is better. Younger Americans and those who report eating at least some organic food are more likely to believe
organic produce provides health benefits.

harms.
Trends: organic produce grew to a $9 billion industry in 2021, and tend to cost more than
conventionally-farmed foods
Blue Book Services 22—Organic produce: Still a growth industry – Produce Blue Book. (2022). Retrieved 3
February 2022, from https://www.producebluebook.com/2022/02/01/organic-produce-still-a-growth-industry/#
[Since 1901, Blue Book Services has been the leading provider of credit and marketing information for the fresh fruit
and vegetable industry. We serve suppliers, buyers, brokers and transporters by providing current financial data and
marketing opportunities on produce and transportation companies across the world.]
You can define success in lots of ways. In economics, one way is year-over-year growth. By that token,
things look pretty good for organic produce.
“Organic fresh produce grew sales by 5.5 percent in 2021, topping $9 billion for the first time, and
outpaced conventionally grown produce in year-over-year gains in both sales and
volume,” according to the 2021 Organic Produce Performance Report released by Organic Produce
Network BB #:338018 and Category Partners.
The leaders in dollar sales were packaged salads (at $1.55 million), berries (at $1.48 million), and apples
($664 million).
The leaders in percentage growth were berries (13.9 percent), lettuce (10.2 percent), and apples (6.3
percent).
Price premiums over conventional varied widely. At the top were packaged salads, with a $3.11 per
pound premium over conventional. The premium for berries was in the range of approximately $2-
3 per pound. At the bottom were bananas, at 15 cents per pound.
Price increases vis-à-vis conventional were comparatively small. The per-pound retail average price for
conventional increased by 8 cents a pound, while for organics it was 9 cents.
Organic volume increased by 2 percent year over year, as compared to -3.3 percent for conventional
produce. Organic bananas led in volume, with 547 million pounds, an increase of 3.4 percent over 2021.
Organic produce now accounts for 12 percent of the market share, with 88 percent going to conventional.
The organics industry is upbeat about its future.
“As of right now, we really don’t see any signs of sales comps declining any time soon,” said John
Savidian, senior director of produce and floral for Gelson’s Markets, based in Encino, CA. “I think that
the pandemic brought on some extra precautions and awareness when it comes to safety, and, in
particular, food safety. I truly do feel shoppers felt better about buying organics during the pandemic.”
Some sources highlighted the decline in percentage growth from 2020, when it was in the double
digits. Supermarket News ran the headline “Organic fresh produce sales growth tails off in 2021.”
Does this growth slowdown indicate that organic produce is slipping into the third phase of the industry
life cycle, which spans four phases: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline?
“Entrepreneurs thrive in high-growth evolving markets,” says Inc. magazine. “There is more revenue to
compete for every year, and entrepreneurial innovation can be a key driver of value creation. However,
every growth market must mature eventually, and entrepreneurs must be able to navigate the transition to
maturity.”

harms.
Pro

harms.
Biodiversity
Organic agriculture boosts biodiversity
Ritchie, 17 (Hannah Ritchie, Senior Researcher and Head of Research at Our World In Data. She focuses on the
long-term development of food supply, agriculture, energy, and environment, and their compatibility with global
development. Hannah completed her PhD in GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh., 10-19-2017, accessed on
2-4-2022, Our World in Data, "Is organic really better for the environment than conventional agriculture?",
https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for-the-environment)
If we are most concerned with areas of environmental change for which agriculture has the largest impact – namely land use, water pollution, and
greenhouse gas emissions – for which conventional agriculture tends to be advantaged, is the answer to make global farming as intensive as
possible? Not necessarily. There are several reasons why this view is too simplistic.
The impacts quantified here fail to capture another important ecological pressure: biodiversity. Conclusive comparisons of the relative impacts of
agricultural systems on biodiversity are still lacking. Biodiversity is affected by a number of agricultural impacts, including pesticide application
(which can be toxic to some species), soil erosion, and disruption from land tillage methods, and either habitat destruction or fragmentation.12
Intensive agriculture undoubtedly has severe impacts on local biodiversity.13 A recent study by
Hallmann et al. (2017) reports a greater than 75 percent decline in insect populations over the last
27 years; although unclear as to the primary cause of this decline, it’s suggested that pesticide use
may be a key contributing factor.14 Organic farming systems also impact biodiversity, but perhaps
less dramatically per unit area, due to lower fertilizer and pesticide use. However, as our land-use
metrics show: organic agriculture requires far more land than conventional agriculture. This
creates a divide in opinion of how best to preserve biodiversity: should we farm intensively over a
smaller area (with understanding that biodiversity will be severely affected over this area), or
should we farm organically, impacting biodiversity (perhaps less severely) over a much larger
area.15 There is no clear consensus on how best to approach this issue.
Another point to consider is that conventional agriculture is not necessarily better across all food types. Context, both in terms of the food commodity and the local environment, can be
important. For example, if greenhouse gas reduction is our main focus, we might be best off eating organic pulses and fruits, and conventional cereals, vegetables, and animal products, based on
the results presented above.
This leads us to three key conclusions in the organic-conventional farming debate:
From a health point-of-view, many consumers consider organic food to be safer due to lower exposure to
pesticides.16 Is organic food healthier and safer in this regard? Clark & Tilman (2017) note that their
study did not extend to potential health benefits of organic food. However, they do note that there is
evidence that organic foods typically record lower concentrations of pesticide residues.17 In a study
across three investigations in the United States – conducted by the the Pesticide Data Program of
the USDA, the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation, and private tests by the Consumers Union – organic foods were found to have around
one-third of the pesticide residues of conventionally grown produce.18

harms.
Organic agriculture increases both pollinators and biodiversity
Turnbull, 14 (Lindsey Turnbull, Dr LindsayTurnbull is Associate Professor & Tutorial Fellow, Queen’s College, and
a member of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food. Her research interests focus on how and why
plant species differ from one another and what the consequences, 2-20-2014, accessed on 2-5-2022, Oxford Martin
School, "Organic Farming Benefits Go Beyond The Food, Into The Field",
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/organic-farming-benefits-go-beyond-the-food-into-the-field/)
Organic farming is a trade off: it prohibits the use of certain chemicals and inorganic fertilisers, which
usually results in lower yields, and hence higher prices. With arguments about health benefits
inconclusive, one might ask what reasons there are to pay the organic premium.
One reason may be in organic farming’s effects, not on us, but on the environment. In our study
published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, we re-analysed data collected on biodiversity, one
potential environmental benefit of organic farming. We looked at data from 94 previous studies
dating back to 1989 covering 184 farms with different crops, in which biodiversity on conventional
and organic farms was compared. This was measured in terms of species richness (the number of
different species in a particular area or time) rather than the number of individuals.
Our meta-analysis of all the results from similar studies weighted them according to their sample
size and reliability. It revealed clearly measurable benefits: organic fields and farms typically
contain on average between 26%-42% more species than fields managed using conventional
methods. With respect to pollinators such as bees, it was up to 50% more.
However, the magnitude of the effect varies between different types of organism, and between fields
growing different crops. Incidental plants, those not being grown as crops, seem to benefit the most from
organic farming, while the largest differences in diversity between conventional and organic is seen in
areas of intensive cultivation of cereal crops such as wheat, maize and barley. So consumers who choose
to buy organic food can be sure they are paying towards a method that generates an environmental
benefit.
One of the criticisms often levelled at organic farming is that while there are benefits to
biodiversity, lower yields mean more land is required to grow the same amount of food. But it’s
precisely those reduced yields that provide the benefits to other organisms: those crop calories that
don’t end up in human mouths probably end up in the mouths of other mammals, insects and birds.

harms.
The ecosystem as a whole improves under organic agriculture
Beyond Pesticides, 21 (Beyond Pesticides, 8-24-2021, accessed on 2-4-2022, Beyond Pesticides Daily News
Blog, "Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits in Organic Farming Exceed Chemical Practices - Beyond
Pesticides Daily News Blog", https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/08/socioeconomic-and-environmental-
benefits-in-organic-farming-exceed-chemical-practices/)
(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2021) Organic agriculture provides multiple ecosystem functions and
services at greater economic benefit to farmers than conventional, chemical-intensive cropping
systems, according to research recently published in the journal Science Advances. The study,
conducted by a team of scientists based in Switzerland, goes beyond farming evaluations based
solely on ecosystem services to include socioeconomic elements. “We did this because
agroecosystems also have a socioeconomic dimension for producers and policy makers,” the
authors note. While it is unsurprising based on prior research that organic practices provide
greater environmental and economic benefits, the study lays bare the true cost of policies that
myopically focus on yield while ignoring other factors.
Researchers conducted their study using data derived from a long-running Farming System and Tillage Experiment (FAST) based in Switzerland.
FAST tracked four types of cropping systems: conventional intensive tillage, conventional no tillage, organic intensive tillage, and organic
reduced tillage. Cropping systems were evaluated based on four broad categories, including provisioning (ie food production), regulating (ie
water, air, and soil management), and supporting (ie biodiversity and soil health) ecosystem services, as well as socioeconomic well-being. These
categories were subsequently broken down into nine assessments: soil health preservation, erosion control, biodiversity conservation, water and
air pollution control, food production, income, work efficiency, and financial autonomy.
Organic farming significantly increased soil health preservation and erosion control when
compared to intensively tilled conventional systems. These benefits were primarily seen in the
organic reduced tillage approach, highlighting the benefits of that practice. Researchers found that
yields dropped from conventional to organic systems, although differences were seen between
particular crops – with less pronounced disparities between legume crops compared to corn.
Organic systems also resulted in higher income, due to the higher price organic products command
in the marketplace.
In general, researchers see the greatest differences between the conventional intensive tillage and organic reduced tillage systems. Both of these
cropping systems have pronounced trade-offs. High productivity is negatively associated with supporting services like soil health and biodiversity
conservation. Supporting and regulating services, however, are strongly associated with each other. For example, good soil management interacts
with greater soil diversity to foster improved soil health.
The study provides a tool (located here: https://apps.agroscope.info/sp/fast) for researchers and policymakers to employ to review how emphasis
on different ecosystem services or economic factors effect the trade offs that result on the ground.

harms.
Even ¼ of fields being organic can make an important difference for diversity of plants
and animals
Briggs 15—Organic farming 'benefits biodiversity'. (2015). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32781136
[Helen Briggs is an Environment correspondent for the BBC]
Fields around organic farms have more types of wild plants, providing benefits for wildlife, say
scientists.
The research is likely to fuel the debate over the environmental benefits of organic farming.
Studies suggest that organic farming produces lower yields than conventional methods but harbours more
wildlife.
The new study, by researchers at the University of Swansea and institutes in France, looked at fields
sowed with winter wheat in the region of Poitou-Charente.
They found that organic farming led to higher weed diversity on surrounding conventionally
farmed fields.
"Wild plants are important for birds, bees and other farmland species," said Dr Luca Borger of the
department of biosciences at Swansea University.
"Organic farming has advantages in maintaining these, but even a mixture of organic and non-
organic farming in an area can help maintain this biodiversity.
"Even only 25% of fields being organically farmed can make a difference."
Farmland provides essential habitat for many animals but intensification of agriculture has led to a loss of
biodiversity.
However, in order to provide the extra food needed by the bigger human population of the future, without
destroying forests and wetlands, farming needs to be made more intensive.
Supporters of organic farming say the method could be a potential compromise between meeting food
security needs and providing habitat for bees, birds and other wildlife.
The researchers say land-sharing between organic farms and non-organic farms could have
benefits for both crop production and biodiversity.
This theory needs to be tested in follow-up studies, they say.
The study is published in the journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B- Biological
Sciences.

harms.
Case Studies
New models of organic farms provide solvency for growth
Ashfaque 19 (U.S.-India Agricultural Cooperation. (2022). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.csis.org/blogs/adapt-advance-refreshed-agenda-us-india-relations/us-india-agricultural-cooperation)
[Afeena Ashfaque is Associate Director, Wadhwani Chair in U.S. at the India Policy Studies]
There are many small scale innovations being developed by U.S. farmers based on
successful agroecological methods that could inform future U.S.-India joint ventures and research
collaborations. For example, A-Frame Farm, a 450-acre farm in Madison, Minnesota, has shown that
organic corn and soybeans can be produced profitably without using any pesticides by adopting
cover cropping and crop rotation techniques to build soil fertility. Swanton Berry Farm in
California uses a fruit-vegetable crop rotation strategy to successfully produce organic strawberries
without the use of pesticides. Singing Frogs Farm in California, which receives support from the
USDA Pollinator Campaign, has a program designed to assist farmers who diversify their
landscapes and restore endangered native pollinator habitats, which successfully produces fruits
and vegetables intercropped with flowering hedgerows selected to ensure year-round blooms
provide forage for honeybees and native pollinators.

harms.
Climate Change
Organic farming produces far less GHG emissions
Skinner 19 (Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Krauss, M., Krause, H., Mayer, J., van der Heijden, M., & Mäder, P.
(2019). The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports, 9(1).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38207-w)
[Colin Skinner is a researcher in the Department of Soil Sciences at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in
Switzerland]
Agricultural practices contribute considerably to emissions of greenhouse gases. So far, knowledge

on the impact of organic compared to non-organic farming on soil-derived nitrous oxide (N2O) and
methane (CH4) emissions is limited. We investigated N2O and CH4 fluxes with manual chambers during
571 days in a grass-clover– silage maize – green manure cropping sequence in the long-term field trial
“DOK” in Switzerland. We compared two organic farming systems – biodynamic (BIODYN) and
bioorganic (BIOORG) – with two non-organic systems – solely mineral fertilisation (CONMIN) and
mixed farming including farmyard manure (CONFYM) – all reflecting Swiss farming practices–together
with an unfertilised control (NOFERT). We observed a 40.2% reduction of N2O emissions per
hectare for organic compared to non-organic systems. In contrast to current knowledge, yield-scaled
cumulated N2O emissions under silage maize were similar between organic and non-organic systems.
Cumulated on area scale we recorded under silage maize a modest CH4 uptake for BIODYN and
CONMIN and high CH4 emissions for CONFYM. We found that, in addition to N input, quality
properties such as pH, soil organic carbon and microbial biomass significantly affected N2O emissions.
This study showed that organic farming systems can be a viable measure contributing to
greenhouse gas mitigation in the agricultural sector.

harms.
Organic farming can reverse climate change, while growing more food
Smallwood 15 (Reversing Climate Change: A Vision of an Organic Planet | Carnegie Council for Ethics in
International Affairs. (2015). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/archive/policy_innovations/innovations/00288)
[Mark Smallwood is executive director at Rodale Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to pioneering organic farming through
research and outreach.]
I'll get right to the point. A global shift to regenerative organic agriculture can reverse climate
change. In fact, regenerative organic agriculture is the only viable option available to us and is
readily achievable.
A bit of fourth grade science can easily illustrate how regenerative organic agriculture can achieve climate change reversal. We
are all familiar with the hydrological cycle which moves water through our environment as clouds, precipitation, ground water,
and the aquifers. Many people may be less familiar with the carbon cycle, which has some resemblance to the water cycle. A
great starting point for understanding the carbon cycle is photosynthesis.
As children, we learn that naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere is used by plants during photosynthesis, a process which
knocks the oxygen off of the CO2 molecules to provide the fresh air we breathe. But the photosynthesis story doesn't stop at fresh
air.
Green plants carry out photosynthesis precisely because they need that carbon. The plant changes the carbon from a gas into a
liquid sugar, C6H12O6. These sugars are pushed out of the plant's roots into the soil to feed the billions of microbes that live in
healthy soils surrounding the plant's roots. Because the roots exude these sugars (as well as proteins and water), they are called
"root exudates." The root exudates are a rich food source for the billions (yes, billions) of soil microorganisms. When soil
microorganisms eat the sugars, they capture the carbon. In return for the rich food source, soil microorganisms provide the plant
with the nutrients it needs to thrive. The plant and the soil feed each other in symbiosis.
Regenerative organic farming focuses on life in the soil, building the symbiotic relationship between the life of the plant and the
life in the soil. A single teaspoon of biologically healthy soil contains more microorganisms than there are humans on the earth
today. And every single one of them is carbon-based. To promote soil carbon sequestration, regenerative organic agriculture uses
four central tenets: compost, crop rotations, cover crops, and no till. Read more about the four tenets in this report.
This means that we can put the carbon back to work while making food to nourish our growing
population. Although excess carbon in the atmosphere is toxic to life, we are, after all, carbon-based
life forms, and returning stable carbon to the soil can help us grow more food faster. There is no
downside.
Here are the facts:
Based on the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission numbers for the year 2012, if all the
agricultural lands on earth were managed according to regenerative organic agriculture methods,
we would have sequestered 40 percent of those emissions through crop lands and 71 percent of
those emissions through pasture and grazing lands. It's very simple math: 40 percent + 71 percent =
111 percent.
We would have sequestered all—that's 100 percent—of our emissions for the year 2012, and the
extra 11 percent would have pushed the greenhouse effect into reverse, beginning to chip away at
the vast excesses of carbon and other GHGs in the atmosphere. Efforts to reduce emissions are
imperative, but that is not enough to ensure human survival—much less a thriving ecosystem boasting
robust biodiversity. The greenhouse effect must be reversed by sequestering the excess carbon in the
atmosphere. The only way to do that is through soil carbon sequestration.
New Approaches to Policy

The U.S. agricultural system is dominated by large monocultures and factory farms. During World War I, government subsidies
for farmers were created to ensure that our land could feed the Allies as well as the United States. In the 1970s, U.S. Department

harms.
of Agriculture (USDA) secretary Earl Butz famously repeated, "Get big or get out." He was talking to the small farmers of
America, and unfortunately, many listened to him. Smaller farms disappeared, swallowed up by larger operations that depended
on the crutch of chemicals and super-industrialized methods.
Today, organic farmers are seeing increasing support from the U.S. government in the form of the National Organic Program,
which is responsible for developing national standards for organically produced agricultural products. However, we are still light
years away from an even playing field.
The World Health Organization recently announced that glyphosate—an herbicide used to kill weeds—is "probably
carcinogenic." While glyphosate is widely used and heavily subsidized in the United States, despite its harmful effects, the
organic farmer who protects the environment is the one burdened with the extra costs and red tape of certifying that she is not
using genetically modified (GMOs). In short, while we subsidize our own destruction and the destruction of our environment
using the people's tax dollars, we present roadblocks and barriers to those who work toward planetary health, including the
reversal of climate change.
In the near term, the U.S. government should stop subsidizing chemical agriculture and invest those funds into the widespread
deployment of regenerative organic agriculture. We must also change subsidies meant for climate change solutions to include and
focus on regenerative organic agriculture. These near term adjustments would put the United States on a much better course and
in a position of leadership among the world's nations. The transition to an Organic Planet will not only grow plants and soil, it
will grow our economies by creating new jobs, requiring new tools and spurring innovation through new business models.
The United States must also prioritize encouraging the new generation of young organic farmers and remove the multitude of
barriers to entry. For starters, student loan forgiveness for organic farmers could offset some of the financial risks involved in the
commitment to a career in organic farming. Another barrier for these new farmers is the difficulty in accessing land near large
customer bases, the very same places where their contributions would contribute to the re-localization and reparation of regional
food systems.
Outside of the United States, small-holder farmers around the globe actually provide the majority of
the world's food, as illustrated by Alnoor Ladha, co-founder of anti-poverty group The Rules:
"Industrial agriculture uses 75 percent of the world's resources to yield only 25 percent of the
world's food, versus organic farming which provides 75 percent of the world's food while using only
25 percent of the world's resources."
In the longer term, our policies in the United States and globally must shift to a new paradigm
which acknowledges that the reversal of climate change is achievable. We will certainly not achieve
a reversal of climate change if we continue to leave reversal out of the global discussion. Leaders in
both government and business must set their own courses for an Organic Planet and create their own
vehicles to achieve the vision.
At the Rodale Institute, our hope is that you will walk with us toward an Organic Planet. Read our 2014
white paper "Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution" to learn
more.

harms.
Economics
Organic agricultural economic benefits are clear
Ali, 15 (SK Ali, Managing Director, AGRI MECH, 2-10-2015, accessed on 2-5-2022, LinkedIn, "8 Benefits of
Organic Farming", https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/8-benefits-organic-farming-s-k-ali)
4. Better Soil
A Cornell University study estimates that conventional farming’s dependency on chemical
fertilizers destroys topsoil, which generates a $40 billion annual loss. If organic methods were used
– instead of chemical fertilizers and ammonia – we would instead see an increase in the healthiness
of this topsoil, which in turn would produce fruit and vegetables higher in minerals and
micronutrients.
5. Job Creation
The most recent statistics from the Organic Farming Research Foundation indicate that there are
more than 10,000 certified organic producers in the United States. Compare that to the nearly 2
million conventional farms. However, the organic farms are more profitable – even though they
often require more employees. It’s not difficult to equate the economic benefit and job creation that
a shift to organic farming would create.
6. Assisting the Fight Against Climate Change
Because organic farming eschews chemical fertilizers and pesticides, it reduces nonrenewable energy use.
It takes considerable amounts of fossil fuel to create the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides used in
conventional farming. What’s more, organic farming increases the amount of carbon returned to the soil,
which in turn lessens the impact on the greenhouse effect and global warming.
7. Safer Water
The runoff of chemicals from conventional farming seeps into groundwater supplies, and groundwater
pollution has become a serious issue. Soil itself is a natural water filter. Organic farming enriches the soil,
which not only removes the risk of groundwater pollution but can also act as a way to rehabilitate soil in
areas where damage to water supplies has already occurred.
8. Preservation of the Culture of Agriculture
It is said that every culture shares one thing in common: Food. It is a universal celebration. Organic
farming celebrates healthfulness and biodiversity. It removes damaging chemical toxins from our
environment and our food. That is something to promote and foster!

harms.
Empirics prove–an increase in organic agriculture addresses socio-economic disparities
Beyond Pesticides, 21 (Beyond Pesticides, 8-24-2021, accessed on 2-4-2022, Beyond Pesticides Daily News
Blog, "Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits in Organic Farming Exceed Chemical Practices - Beyond
Pesticides Daily News Blog", https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/08/socioeconomic-and-environmental-
benefits-in-organic-farming-exceed-chemical-practices/)
Scientists note that although there is a tradeoff between productivity and environmental benefits, focus
has been traditionally placed on productivity because the hazards conventional agriculture poses to the
environment are often not considered, and generally externalized to society at large. The authors note that
policy changes can help fill this gap – explaining that direct payments to farmers can help compensate
them for reductions in yield while other ecosystem services improve.
It is evident that agriculture that is solely focused on yield is unsustainable. While negatively impacting a
range of environmental factors that can affect harvests in the long term, conventional chemical cropping
systems nonetheless do not provide a better economic outlook for farmers.
Past research shows that organic farming can help address economic insecurity, the climate crisis,
and public health disparities. In organic hotspots, considered counties with high levels of organic
agricultural activity whose neighboring counties also have high organic activity, median household
incomes are $2,000 higher than average and poverty levels are lower on average by 1.3%.
Organic agriculture can and must feed the world. But it is also critical that organic standards
maintain the beneficial practices that continue to protect ecosystems and the critical services that
provide for humanity. Act today to tell USDA to ensure that organic farming protects native
ecosystems.

harms.
Organic farming hotspots empirically decrease poverty rates
Marasteanu and Jaenicke, 18 (Julia Marasteanu and Edward C. Jaenicke, Pennsylvania State University, 2-
13-2018, accessed on 2-5-2022, Cambridge University Press, "Economic impact of organic agriculture hotspots in
the United States | Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems | Cambridge Core",
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/abs/economic-impact-of-
organic-agriculture-hotspots-in-the-united-states/4628347E00F76467103570A4BAE74920)
In this paper, we assess whether or not organic agriculture has a positive impact on local
economies. We first identify organic agriculture hotspots (clusters of counties with positively
correlated high numbers of organic operations) using spatial statistics. Then, we estimate a treatment
effects model that classifies a county's membership in an organic hotspot as an endogenous treatment
variable. By modeling what a hotspot county's economic indicators would have been had the county not
been part of a hotspot, this model captures the effect of being in a hotspot on a county's economic
indicators. We perform the same analysis for general agricultural farm hotspots to confirm that the
benefits associated with organic production hotspots are, in fact, due to the organic component. Our
results show that organic hotspot membership leads to a lower county-level poverty rate and a
higher median household income. A similar result is not found when investigating the impact of
general agriculture hotspots. On the other hand, our result is robust to alternative hotspot
definitions based on type of organic operations to alternative methods of estimating average
treatment effects on the treated. These results provide strong motivation for considering hotspots of
organic handling operations, which refers to middlemen such as processors, wholesalers and
brokers, and hotspots of organic production to be local economic development tools, and may be of
interest to policymakers whose objective is to promote rural development. Our results may
incentivize policymakers to specifically focus on organic development, rather than the more general
development of agriculture, as a means to promote economic growth in rural areas, and may
further point them in the direction of not only encouraging the presence of organic operations, but
of fostering the development of clusters or hotspots of these operations.

harms.
Farms & Farmers

Local, environmentally friendly farms increase
Yao, ND (Conghui Yao, Chemistry PhD, Nestlé Purina PetCare Company Corporate Fellow, No Date, accessed on
2-4-2022, Global at The Graduate School, Washington University in St. Louis, "Conghui Yao - Global",
https://global.wustl.edu/people/conghui-yao/)
Every time we walk into a grocery store, we notice that foods are separated into two groups – organic foods and conventional foods (non-organic foods). Organic foods are generally more
expensive. According to a report, organic fruits and vegetables are about 60% higher in price than conventional foods while organic meats can be more than 100% higher in price. Here comes the
question: Is it true that the more expensive foods are, the better their quality?
To answer this question, we first need to know what organic foods are and how they are grown differently from conventional foods. The standards for organic food vary from country to country.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic crops need to be grown without irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers and prohibited pesticides. And they
cannot be genetically modified organisms. As for organic livestock, the USDA organic seal verifies that producers met animal health and welfare standards, did not use antibiotics or growth
hormones, used 100% organic feed, and provided animals with access to the outdoors. It seems that organic foods are more natural, but this may not necessarily ensure the quality and safety of
the foods.
Based on a review of some existing literature I have not been able to find any publication that indicated organic foods were better in nutrients than conventional food. In fact, one study showed
that conventional crops contained more nitrogen than organic crops.1 Nitrogen is an important component of proteins. But that research study did not directly correlate the level of nitrogen with
protein content. However, it is not difficult to imagine that the natural environment might not be able to provide sufficient supplies for crops compared to the conventional agriculture where we
add all kinds of chemical fertilizers to balance the inorganic uptake of crops.
However, the safety of foods can be easily controlled by manipulating the amount of pesticides and
antibiotics that are added. One study showed that conventional foods usually carry more pesticide
residues and heavy metal contamination than organic foods.2 The author claimed “The evidence
does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods,
although organic produce may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and organic chicken and pork
may reduce exposure to antibiotic resistant bacteria”. However, the paper also argued that organic
foods have a higher possibility for bacterial contamination because of the use of animal manures
even though the data were not statistically significant.
Then what are the pros and cons for people to consume organic foods? Even though people may
have been misled about the nutrients that organic foods contain, it may be true that organic foods
are generally safer than conventional foods, and some people, furthermore, might consume organic
foods to express wealth and a fashionable lifestyle. As for the disadvantages, organic foods are
apparently more expensive and they might carry defects that make them less visually appealing.
Further, organic foods are usually limited by availability and variability because of the smaller
market.
Beyond benefits to the individual, growing organic foods may be beneficial to society. Since farmers
use fewer pesticides, antibiotics and chemical fertilizers, organic agriculture is more
environmentally friendly. And livestock are raised in a more animal-friendly manner. Instead of
conventional large-scale agriculture, organic markets can support the local economy by providing
more opportunities for local farmers. However, organic agriculture has drawbacks. Since organic
farming requires more manpower and financial inputs in terms of care, it is less efficient than
conventional farming.

harms.
Organic products are more demanded, increasing prices and allowing farmers to
sustainably maintain their land
Reganold, 16 (John Reganold, John Reganold is a Regents Professor of Soil Science & Agroecology at the
Washington State University., 8-14-2016, accessed on 2-5-2022, the Guardian, "Can we feed 10 billion people on
organic farming alone?", https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-
agriculture-world-hunger)
In addition, organic farming delivers equally or more nutritious foods that contain less or no
pesticide residues, and provide greater social benefits than their conventional counterparts.
With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater.
Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and severe impacts on ecosystem services – which
refer to nature’s support of wildlife habitat, crop pollination, soil health and other benefits – have
not only accompanied conventional farming systems, but have often extended well beyond the
boundaries of their fields, such as fertilizer runoff into rivers.
Overall, organic farms tend to have better soil quality and reduce soil erosion compared to their
conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture generally creates less soil and water pollution and
lower greenhouse gas emissions, and is more energy efficient. Organic agriculture is also associated
with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity.
Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable (by 22–35%) for farmers because
consumers are willing to pay more. These higher prices essentially compensate farmers for
preserving the quality of their land.
Studies that evaluate social equity and quality of life for farm communities are few. Still, organic farming
has been shown to create more jobs and reduce farm workers’ exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

harms.
Farmers report higher satisfaction after switching to organic, when considering
economic, livestock-related, social and work satisfaction
Bouttes et al. 20—Bouttes, M., Bancarel, A., Doumayzel, S., Viguié, S., Cristobal, M., & Martin, G. (2020).
Conversion to organic farming increases dairy farmers’ satisfaction independently of the strategies
implemented. Agronomy For Sustainable Development, 40(2). doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-00616-5
[Maëlys Bouttes was a PhD student at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE)]
Farmers in Europe are increasingly converting to organic farming. For farmers, the conversion is an
uncertain period that requires multiple changes to comply with organic regulations while not obtaining
the organic price for products. Previous research findings highlight the multiple risks of converting to
organic farming, but they tend to neglect farmers’ satisfaction during the conversion. Our objective
was to investigate whether and how farmers could improve their satisfaction during the conversion
to organic. We surveyed a sample of 19 dairy farms in Aveyron, France, from 2016 (their last year as
conventional) to 2018. We (i) characterised the evolution of dairy farmers’ satisfaction and the conversion
strategies implemented from the last year of conventional farming up to the end of the conversion to
organic, and (ii) identified which conversion strategies improved farmers’ satisfaction the most.
Satisfaction was assessed by farmers regarding economic, agronomic, livestock-related, and social
aspects as well as work conditions. We ran principal component analysis (PCA), hierarchical clustering
on principal components (HCPC), and partial least squares (PLS) regression to analyse the data. Our
results revealed that all farmers were satisfied after conversion to organic. All observed conversion
strategies were oriented towards pasture-based grazing systems and a reduction in land use and herd
management intensities. It was not possible to relate specific conversion strategies to specific changes in
patterns of satisfaction. This study was the first trying to relate the evolution of farmers’ satisfaction to
changes in farming practices during the conversion to organic. In showing the strong increase in
farmers’ satisfaction during the conversion to organic, our results strongly contrast with previous
studies that highlighted the multiple risks of converting to organic farming. When supporting
farmers considering a conversion, local advisers may consider farmers’ objectives and their potential
satisfaction regarding their achievements beyond the risks of not obtaining the organic price for products
immediately.

harms.
Nutrition
Organic food has higher nutrient & antioxidant levels, and lower pesticide residues
Crinnion 10—WJ, C. (2010). Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of pesticides,
and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Alternative Medicine Review : A Journal Of Clinical
Therapeutic, 15(1). Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20359265
[Walter Crinnion, ND was known as one of the foremost experts in the field of environmental medicine. He started the
environmental medicine classes at Bastyr University, University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, and the
Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (SCNM).]
The multi-billion dollar organic food industry is fueled by consumer perception that organic food is
healthier (greater nutritional value and fewer toxic chemicals). Studies of the nutrient content in organic
foods vary in results due to differences in the ground cover and maturity of the organic farming operation.
Nutrient content also varies from farmer to farmer and year to year. However, reviews of multiple
studies show that organic varieties do provide significantly greater levels of vitamin C, iron,
magnesium, and phosphorus than non-organic varieties of the same foods. While being higher in
these nutrients, they are also significantly lower in nitrates and pesticide residues. In addition, with
the exception of wheat, oats, and wine, organic foods typically provide greater levels of a number of
important antioxidant phytochemicals (anthocyanins, flavonoids, and carotenoids). Although in vitro
studies of organic fruits and vegetables consistently demonstrate that organic foods have greater
antioxidant activity, are more potent suppressors of the mutagenic action of toxic compounds, and inhibit
the proliferation of certain cancer cell lines, in vivo studies of antioxidant activity in humans have failed
to demonstrate additional benefit. Clear health benefits from consuming organic dairy products have been
demonstrated in regard to allergic dermatitis.

harms.
Pesticides
Organic farming decreases synthetic pesticide use
Mie et al., 16 (Axel Mie, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Johannes Kahl, Ewa Rembiałkowska, Helle Raun Andersen,
and Stefan Gunnarsson, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset,
Stockholm, Sweden, andSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Centre for Organic Food and Farming
(EPOK), Ultuna, Sweden(Executive Summary, Introduction, Chapter 4, 6 & 7, Conclusions, Policy Options).,
Research Unit on Nutritional Epidemiology (U1153 Inserm, U1125 INRA, CNAM, UniversitéParis 13), Centre of
Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France (Chapter 2)., University of
Copenhagen, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Frederiksberg, Denmark(Chapter 3)., Warsaw University
of Life Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, December 2016,
accessed on 2-2-2022, European Parliamentary Research Service, "Human healthimplications oforganic food
andorganic agriculture",
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581922/EPRS_STU(2016)581922_EN.pdf)
5.2. Pesticide use – exposure of consumers and producers

One main advantage of organic food production is the restricted use of synthetic pesticides [111,
113, 133], which leads to low residue levels in foods and thus lower pesticide exposure for
consumers [22, 23, 134, 135]. It also reduces the occupational exposure of farm workers to
pesticides and drift exposures of rural populations. According to the latest EFSA report on pesticide
residues in food samples in the EU, pesticide residues were detected in 44.4 % of conventional food
products (2.7 % above the maximum residue level (MRL), the legal limit) and in 15.5 % of the
organic products (0.8% above MRL) indicating that pesticide exposure via organic foods is
comparatively low [134]. Although there are few comparisons of the risks from dietary pesticide exposures via conventional and
organic products, based on residues found in foods, pesticide residues in 18,747 samples of 12 foods were screened for potential exceedance of
the acute reference dose (ARfD) for high consumers of these specific foods. At least 586 of these samples were of organic origin. A total of 218
samples (=1.2 %) exceeded the ARfD for at least one dietary scenario, with the organophosphate chlorpyrifos accounting for two thirds of these
cases. None (0 %) of the organic samples exceeded the ARfD for any dietary scenario [134]. This risk assessment was based on 96 of the 202
pesticides approved in the EU that have identified acute toxicity (i.e. specified ARfD), including three of the four pesticides authorised for
organic agriculture that have identified acute toxicity (pyrethrins, deltamethrin lambda-cyhalothrin (the latter two to be used in insect traps only;
azadirachtin was not included). It should be noted that ARfD does not provide any information on the potential risks of long-term exposure.
Furthermore, MRL can be exceeded due to high residues or due to a very low MRL in cases where no use of the specific substance for the
particular crop is approved. One cumulative chronic risk assessment comparing organic and conventional products has been performed in
Sweden. Using the hazard index (HI) method [136], adults consuming 500 g of fruit, vegetables and berries per day in average proportions had a
calculated HI of 0.15 under the assumption of imported conventional products, an HI of 0.021 when assuming Swedish conventional products
and an HI of 0.0003 under the assumption of organic products [137]. This work was based on Swedish food monitoring data of 173 of the 331
pesticides approved in the EU that have identified chronic toxicity (i.e. specified ADI), including five of the nine pesticides authorised for organic
agriculture that have identified chronic toxicity (azadirachtin, pyrethrins, spinosad, deltamethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin (the latter two to be used in
insect traps only)). Copper, iron, citronella oil and clove oil were not included in the monitoring. Even though the scope of this observation is
limited, it is apparent that both pesticide exposure and the calculated health risks are far lower for organic products than for conventional
products. This indicates that current systems for the certification and control of organic products are suitable, although they still can be improved
[138].The following section reviews the evidence on human pesticide exposure in the EU and the epidemiological data on adverse health effects.
The general population’s exposure to pesticides can be measured by analysing blood and urine samples, as is routinely done in the US [139]
although not yet in Europe. As the pesticides in use today are metabolised and excreted within a few days and hundreds of single active
ingredients are used, methods that measure common metabolites for groups of pesticides with similar chemical and toxic properties are often
more useful and efficient than measurements of specific pesticide metabolites for estimating pesticide exposure at a population level.

harms.
Epidemiological studies prove – organic farms decreases pesticide use
Helle Raun 2017 Andersen, Stefan Gunnarsson, Johannes Kahl, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Ewa
Rembiałkowska, Gianluca Quaglio, and Philippe Grandjean. 2017. “Human health implications of organic food and
organic agriculture: a comprehensive review.” Harvard Library Environmental Health 16 (1): 111. doi:10.1186/s12940-
017-0315-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4.,
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/34493345/5658984.pdf?sequence=1
This review summarises existing evidence on the impact of organic food on human health. It compares
organic vs. conventional food production with respect to parameters important to human health and
discusses the potential impact of organic management practices with an emphasis on EU conditions.
Organic food consumption may reduce the risk of allergic disease and of overweight and obesity,
but the evidence is not conclusive due to likely residual confounding, as consumers of organic food
tend to have healthier lifestyles overall. However, animal experiments suggest that identically
composed feed from organic or conventional production impacts in different ways on growth and
development. In organic agriculture, the use of pesticides is restricted, while residues in
conventional fruits and vegetables constitute the main source of human pesticide exposures.
Epidemiological studies have reported adverse effects of certain pesticides on children’s cognitive
development at current levels of exposure, but these data have so far not been applied in formal risk
assessments of individual pesticides. Differences in the composition between organic and conventional
crops are limited, such as a modestly higher content of phenolic compounds in organic fruit and
vegetables, and likely also a lower content of cadmium in organic cereal crops. Organic dairy products,
and perhaps also meats, have a higher content of omega-3 fatty acids compared to conventional products.
However, these differences are likely of marginal nutritional significance. Of greater concern is the
prevalent use of antibiotics in conventional animal production as a key driver of antibiotic resistance in
society; antibiotic use is less intensive in organic production. Overall, this review emphasises several
documented and likely human health benefits associated with organic food production, and
application of such production methods is likely to be beneficial within conventional agriculture,
e.g., in integrated pest management.

harms.
The widely-used pesticide chlorpyrifos causes neurological damage to babies, puts farm
workers at incredible risk, and threatens fish, birds and other animals
Hyland et al. 19— More Than 100 Organizations Call for Expeditious Action to Ban Chlorpyrifos. (2021).
Retrieved 2 February 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/08/more-100-organizations-call-expeditious-
action-ban-chlorpyrifos
[Carly Hyland is a PhD student in Environmental Health Sciences at the Center for Environmental Research and Children's
Health (CERCH) at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health. Her research is focused on the health effects
of pesticide exposure among farmworkers and their families.]
Chlorpyrifos, which belongs to a nerve-agent class of pesticides called organophosphates (OPs), is

used on an extensive variety of crops and is acutely toxic and associated with neurodevelopmental
harms in children. Yet, in its proposed interim registration review decision, the EPA is proposing to
allow 11 food uses of chlorpyrifos to continue at the urging of industry.
Peer-reviewed studies and EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel have demonstrated that
chlorpyrifos damages children’s brains; prenatal exposure to very low levels of chlorpyrifos —
levels far lower than what EPA used to set regulatory limits — harms babies permanently. Studies
show that exposure to chlorpyrifos, and other OP pesticides during pregnancy, is associated with
lower birth weight, attention deficit disorders, autism spectrum disorder, reduced IQ, and loss of
working memory.1 It is also unsafe for workers even with the most protective equipment.
In 2014, EPA released a risk assessment finding unsafe drinking water contamination from chlorpyrifos and it proposed to ban
chlorpyrifos from food in 2015. In 2016, EPA released a revised human health risk assessment, which confirmed that exposures
to chlorpyrifos are unsafe whether in food, pesticide drift, or drinking water; toddlers were being exposed to levels 140 times
what is considered safe in food and all drinking water exposures were found to be unsafe. But in 2020, EPA released a new risk
assessment, which abandoned attempts to protect children from the low-level exposures that damage their brains.
Under the law, EPA must find reasonable certainty of no harm to children from pesticides. It cannot make this finding for any use
of chlorpyrifos on food. The only outcome that protects our children and complies with the law is to revoke all food tolerances
and end all food uses as soon as possible. The 2015 proposed tolerance revocation would have prohibited chlorpyrifos on food
six months after the rule became final. EPA should adhere to that timetable.
Ending use of chlorpyrifos on food will protect the farmworkers who grow that food. However,
chlorpyrifos is also used in other ways that expose workers to extremely dangerous amounts of the
pesticide. For example, chlorpyrifos is used in greenhouses on ornamental plants. The greenhouse
workers face unconscionable risks. And under EPA’s 2020 risk assessment and proposed decision, the
agency finds that the workers who mix and apply chlorpyrifos will face unsafe exposures from more than
100 tasks; workers who re-enter fields sprayed with chlorpyrifos will be at risk as well.
The EPA is proposing to allow these risks to continue because of the economic benefits of using
chlorpyrifos compared to other currently available chemical pesticide alternatives . In making this
proposal, EPA is ignoring non-chemical methods of pest control as well as the economic costs and
hardships caused by pesticide poisonings, learning disabilities, reduced IQ in children, and
environmental harm from chlorpyrifos use; this pesticide also contaminates surface water and
harms threatened and endangered species, including birds, Pacific salmon, Southern Resident
Killer Whales, and other mammals.

harms.
Eating organic food reduces levels of chlorpyrifos and other pesticides in the body
Hyland et al. 19—Hyland, C., Bradman, A., Gerona, R., Patton, S., Zakharevich, I., Gunier, R., & Klein, K. (2019).
Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary pesticide levels in U.S. children and adults. Environmental
Research, 171, 568-575. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.01.024
[Carly Hyland is a PhD student in Environmental Health Sciences at the Center for Environmental Research and Children's
Health (CERCH) at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health. Her research is focused on the health effects
of pesticide exposure among farmworkers and their families.]
Previous diet intervention studies indicate that an organic diet can reduce urinary pesticide metabolite
excretion; however, they have largely focused on organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Knowledge gaps exist
regarding the impact of an organic diet on exposure to other pesticides,
including pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, which are increasing in use in the United States and globally.
Objective
To investigate the impact of an organic diet intervention on levels of insecticides, herbicides,

and fungicides or their metabolites in urine collected from adults and children.
Methods
We collected urine samples from four racially and geographically diverse families in the United States
before and after an organic diet intervention (n = 16 participants and a total of 158 urine samples).
Results
We observed significant reductions in urinary levels of thirteen pesticide metabolites and parent
compounds representing OP, neonicotinoid, and pyrethroid insecticides and the herbicide 2,4-D following
the introduction of an organic diet. The greatest reductions were observed for clothianidin (− 82.7%; 95%
confidence interval [95% CI]: − 86.6%, − 77.6%; p < 0.01), malathion dicarboxylic acid (MDA), a
metabolite of malathion (− 95.0%; 95% CI: − 97.0%, − 91.8%; p < 0.01), and 3,5,6-trichlor-2-pyridinol
(TCPy), a metabolite of chlorpyrifos (− 60.7%; 95% CI: − 69.6%, − 49.2%; p < 0.01). Metabolites or
parent compounds of the fungicides boscalid, iprodione, and thiabendazole and the neonicotinoid
insecticide imidacloprid were not detected among participants in our study.
Conclusion
An organic diet was associated with significant reductions in urinary excretion of several pesticide
metabolites and parent compounds. This study adds to a growing body of literature indicating that an
organic diet may reduce exposure to a range of pesticides in children and adults. Additional research
is needed to evaluate dietary exposure to neonicotinoids, which are now the most widely used class of
insecticides in the world.

harms.
Pollution
Organic agriculture is an ecological virtue and stops nitrogen pollution
Shwartz, 6 (Mark Shwartz, 3-10-2006, accessed on 2-4-2022, News.stanford, "New study confirms the ecological
virtues of organic farming", https://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/march15/organics-030806.html)
Organic farming has long been touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional
agriculture. A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) provides
strong evidence to support that claim.
Writing in the March 6 online edition of PNAS, Stanford University graduate student Sasha B. Kramer
and her colleagues found that fertilizing apple trees with synthetic chemicals produced more adverse
environmental effects than feeding them with organic manure or alfalfa.
"The intensification of agricultural production over the past 60 years and the subsequent increase
in global nitrogen inputs have resulted in substantial nitrogen pollution and ecological damage,"
Kramer and her colleagues write. "The primary source of nitrogen pollution comes from nitrogen-
based agricultural fertilizers, whose use is forecasted to double or almost triple by 2050."
Nitrogen compounds from fertilizer can enter the atmosphere and contribute to global warming,
adds Harold A. Mooney, the Paul S. Achilles Professor of Environmental Biology at Stanford and
co-author of the study.
"Nitrogen compounds also enter our watersheds and have effects quite distant from the fields in
which they are applied, as for example in contaminating water tables and causing biological dead
zones at the mouths of major rivers," he says. "This study shows that the use of organic versus
chemical fertilizers can play a role in reducing these adverse effects."
Nitrogen treatments
The PNAS study was conducted in an established apple orchard on a 4-acre site in the Yakima Valley of central Washington, one of the premiere apple-growing regions in the United States.
Some trees used in the experiment had been raised with conventional synthetic fertilizers. Others were grown organically without pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilization. A third group
was raised by a method called integrated farming, which combines organic and conventional agricultural techniques.
"Conventional agriculture has made tremendous improvements in crop yield but at large costs to the
environment," the authors write. "In response to environmental concerns, organic agriculture has become
an increasingly popular option."
During the yearlong experiment, organically grown trees were fed either composted chicken manure or alfalfa meal, while conventionally raised plants were given calcium nitrate, a synthetic
fertilizer widely used by commercial apple growers. Trees raised using the integrated system were given a blend of equal parts chicken manure and calcium nitrate.
Each tree was fertilized twice, in October and May, and given the same amount of nitrogen at both feedings no matter what the source—alfalfa, chicken manure, calcium nitrate or the
manure/calcium nitrate blend.

harms.
Increasing organic agricultural practices decreases groundwater contamination
Groundwater contamination
One goal of the PNAS experiment was to compare how much excess nitrogen leached into the soil using the four fertilizer treatments—one
conventional, two organic (manure and alfalfa) and one integrated. When applied to the soil, nitrogen fertilizers release
or break down into nitrates—chemical compounds that plants need to build proteins. However,
excess nitrates can percolate through the soil and contaminate surface and groundwater supplies.
Besides having detrimental impacts on aquatic life, high nitrate levels in drinking water can cause serious illness in humans, particularly small
children. According to the PNAS study, nearly one in 10 domestic wells in the United States sampled between 1993 and 2000 had nitrate
concentrations that exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's drinking water standards.
To measure nitrate levels during the experiment, water was collected in resin bags buried about 40
inches below the trees and then analyzed in the laboratory. The results were dramatic. "We
measured nitrate leaching over an entire year and found that it was 4.4 to 5.6 times higher in the
conventional treatment than in the two organic treatments, with the integrated treatment in
between," says John B. Reganold, the Regents Professor of Soil Science at Washington State
University and co-author of the study.

harms.
Toxicity and pollution reduced under organic agriculture
Ali, 15 (SK Ali, Managing Director, AGRI MECH, 2-10-2015, accessed on 2-5-2022, LinkedIn, "8 Benefits of
Organic Farming", https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/8-benefits-organic-farming-s-k-ali)
What would happen if what you’re doing at home with your small organic garden could be reproduced on
a mass scale?
Here are eight benefits we might see:
1. The Promotion of Biodiversity
Organic methods such as rotating crops to build soil fertility and naturally raising animals helps to
promote biodiversity, which returns health to each species. Organic farms are havens to wildlife, so our
ecosystems are improved, as well.
2. The Reduction of Farm Pollution
No, there’s no such thing as “farm smog,” but conventional farms di create their own kind of
pollution in the form of chemical pesticide and synthetic fertilizer run-off that harms the areas
around them. With these chemicals removed from the equation, organic farming is far more
beneficial and less impactful on our environment.
3. The Reduction of Toxic Substances in the Environment
Currently, 99.5 percent of the acres in the United States devoted to farming use non-organic
methods. Approximately 382 million acres of land in the U.S. is used for crop production, and an
estimated 525 million acres is used for livestock. Add this up and you get over 900 million acres of
land subjected to chemicals for fertilizer and pesticides, as well as other substances used in livestock
farming. Any reduction of this number would have a benefit to the environment around us.
3. Better-Tasting Food
It’s not just imaginary: organic food actually can taste better than its conventionally farm-raised
counterpart. One scientific reason for this is that some organic produce has lower nitrate contents than its
non-organic version. This leads to sweeter-tasting fruits that also have been shown to contain higher
levels of antioxidants. So it’s not really all in your head. Organic farming can lead to better flavor.

harms.
Nitrogen gas emissions decrease too
The research team also compared the amount of nitrogen gas that was released into the atmosphere by the four treatments. Air samples collected in the orchard after the fall and spring
fertilizations revealed that organic and integrated soils emitted larger quantities of an environmentally benign gas called dinitrogen (N2) than soils treated with conventional synthetic fertilizer.
One explanation for this disparity is that the organic and integrated soils contained active concentrations of denitrifying bacteria—naturally occurring microbes that convert excess nitrates in the
soil into N2 gas. However, denitrifier microbial communities were much smaller and far less active and efficient in conventionally treated soils.
The research team also measured emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O)—a potent greenhouse gas that is
300 times more effective at heating the atmosphere than carbon dioxide gas, the leading cause of
global warming. The results showed that nitrous oxide emissions were similar among the four
treatments.
"We found that higher gas emissions from organic and integrated soils do not result in increased
production of harmful nitrous oxide but rather enhanced emission of non-detrimental dinitrogen,"
Reganold says. "These results demonstrate that organic and integrated fertilization practices
support more active and efficient denitrifier microbial communities, which may shift some of the
potential nitrate leaching losses in the soil into harmless dinitrogen gas losses in the atmosphere."
Sustainable agriculture
Washington state produces more than half of the nation's apples. In 2004, the state crop was worth
about $963 million, with organically grown apples representing between 5 and 10 percent of the
total value. But the results of the PNAS study may apply to other high-value crops as well,
according to the authors.
"This study is an important contribution to the debate surrounding the sustainability of organic
agriculture, one of the most contentious topics in agricultural science worldwide," Reganold says. "Our
findings not only score another beneficial point for organic agriculture but give credibility to the
middle-ground approach of integrated farming, which uses both organic and conventional nitrogen
fertilizers and other practices. It is this middle-ground approach that we may see more farmers
adopting than even the rapidly growing organic approach."
Adds Mooney, "Organic farming cannot provide for all of our food needs, but it is certainly one important
tool for use in our striving for sustainable agricultural systems. We need to explore and utilize all
possible agricultural management techniques and technologies to reduce the very large global
footprint of the needs to feed a population of over 6 billion people."
Other co-authors of the PNAS study are agroecologist Jerry D. Glover of the Land Institute in Salina, Kan., and Brendan J. M. Bohannan, associate professor of biological sciences at Stanford.
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, the Land Institute and the Teresa Heinz Environmental Science and Policy Fellowship Program.

harms.
Soil
Organic farming can increase the abundance and diversity of the soil microbiome
Liao et al 18—Liao, J., Liang, Y., & Huang, D. (2018). Organic Farming Improves Soil Microbial Abundance and
Diversity under Greenhouse Condition: A Case Study in Shanghai (Eastern China). Sustainability, 10(10), 3825. doi:
10.3390/su10103825
[a study from the Key Laboratory of Urban Agriculture (South), Ministry of Agriculture, School of Agriculture and Biology,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China]
Agricultural practices have significant impacts on soil properties and microbial communities;
however, little is known about their responses to open field and plastic tunnels under organic and
conventional farming. We therefore investigated the responses of soil chemical variables and
microbial communities to different agricultural management and cultivation types, including
organic management in open field (OF), organic management in plastic tunnels (OP), conventional
management in open field (CF) and conventional management in plastic tunnels (CP), by using a
pyrosequencing approach of 16S rRNA gene amplicon. Both factors had significant influences on the soil
properties and microbial communities. Organic farming increased the nutrient-related soil variables
compared to conventional farming regardless of cultivation type, especially for the available N and P,
which were increased by 137% and 711%, respectively, in OP compared to CP. Additionally, OP had the
highest microbial abundance and diversity among treatments, whereas no difference was found between
OF, CF and CP. Furthermore, OP possessed diverse differential bacteria which were mainly related to the
organic material turnover (e.g., Roseiflexus, Planctomyces and Butyrivibrio) and plant growth promotion
(e.g., Nostoc, Glycomyces and Bacillus). Redundancy analysis (RDA) showed that pH, electrical
conductivity (EC), nutrient levels (e.g., available N and available P) and total Zn content were
significantly correlated to the structure of the microbial community. Overall, our results showed that
the long-term organic farming with high fertilizer input increased soil nutrient levels and microbial
abundance and diversity under plastic-tunnel condition compared to other cultivation systems.

harms.
Soil benefits improves nutrition
Sorensen, 14 (Eric Sorensen, 7-11-2014, accessed on 2-5-2022, WSU Insider, "Major study documents benefits
of organic farming - WSU Insider", https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2014/07/11/major-study-documents-benefits-
of-organic-farming/)
PULLMAN, Wash. – The largest study of its kind has found that organic foods and crops have a suite of
advantages over their conventional counterparts, including more antioxidants and fewer, less frequent
pesticide residues.
The study looked at an unprecedented 343 peer-reviewed publications comparing the nutritional
quality and safety of organic and conventional plant-based foods, including fruits, vegetables and
grains. The study team applied sophisticated meta-analysis techniques to quantify differences
between organic and non-organic foods.
“Science marches on,” said Charles Benbrook, a Washington State University researcher and the lone
American co-author of the paper published in the British Journal of Nutrition. “Our team learned valuable
lessons from earlier reviews on this topic, and we benefited from the team’s remarkable breadth of
scientific skills and experience.”
Most of the publications covered in the study looked at crops grown in the same area on similar soils.
This approach reduces other possible sources of variation in nutritional and safety parameters.
The research team found the quality and reliability of comparison studies has greatly improved in
recent years, leading to the discovery of significant nutritional and food safety differences not
detected in earlier studies. For example, the new study incorporates the results of a research project
led by WSU’s John Reganold that compared the nutritional and sensory quality of organic and
conventional strawberries grown in California.
Responding to the new paper’s results, Reganold said, “This is an impressive study, and its major
nutritional findings are similar to those reported in our 2010 strawberry paper.”
The British Journal of Nutrition study was led by scientists at Newcastle University in the United
Kingdom, with Benbrook helping design the study, write the paper and review the scientific literature,
particularly on studies in North and South America.
In general, the team found that organic crops have several nutritional benefits that stem from the
way the crops are produced. A plant on a conventionally managed field will typically have access to
high levels of synthetic nitrogen and will marshal the extra resources into producing sugars and
starches. As a result, the harvested portion of the plant will often contain lower concentrations of
other nutrients, including health-promoting antioxidants.
Without the synthetic chemical pesticides applied on conventional crops, organic plants tend to
produce more phenols and polyphenols to defend against pest attacks and related injuries. In
people, phenols and polyphenols can help prevent diseases triggered or promoted by oxidative
damage, like coronary heart disease, stroke and certain cancers.
Overall, organic crops had 18 to 69 percent higher concentrations of antioxidant compounds. The
team concludes that consumers who switch to organic fruit, vegetables and cereals would get 20 to
40 percent more antioxidants. That’s the equivalent of about two extra portions of fruit and
vegetables a day, with no increase in caloric intake.
The researchers also found pesticide residues were three to four times more likely in conventional
foods than organic ones, as organic farmers are not allowed to apply toxic, synthetic pesticides.
While crops harvested from organically managed fields sometimes contain pesticide residues, the

harms.
levels are usually 10-fold to 100-fold lower in organic food, compared to the corresponding,
conventionally grown food.
“This study is telling a powerful story of how organic plant-based foods are nutritionally superior and
deliver bona fide health benefits,” said Benbrook.
In a surprising finding, the team concluded that conventional crops had roughly twice as much cadmium,
a toxic heavy metal contaminant, as organic crops. The leading explanation is that certain fertilizers
approved for use only on conventional farms somehow make cadmium more available to plant roots. A
doubling of cadmium from food could push some individuals over safe daily intake levels.
More than half the studies in the Newcastle analysis were not available to the research team that carried
out a 2009 study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency. Another review published by a
Stanford University team in 2011 failed to identify any significant clinical health benefits from
consumption of organic food, but incorporated fewer than half the number of comparisons for most
health-promoting nutrients.
“We benefited from a much larger and higher quality set of studies than our colleagues who carried out
earlier reviews,” said Carlo Leifert, a Newcastle University professor and the project leader.
The Newcastle study cost about $429,000 and was funded by the European Framework Programme 6,
which is a research program of the European Union, and the Sheepdrove Trust, a private charity that
supports research on sustainability, diversity and organic farming.

harms.
The affirmative is critical for stopping erosion
Mullen, 21 (Lauren Mullen, 3-17-2021, accessed on 2-5-2022, Environmental Center at University of Colorado
Boulder, "The Positive Impact of Organic Foods", https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/03/17/positive-impact-
organic-foods)
Organic farming tends to be better for the environment

Reduces pollution, conserves water, reduces soil erosion, increases soil fertility and health, and uses less
energy
Healthy soil is key to growing healthy food!
Treating soil with harmful pesticides and fertilizers makes the soil dependent on these unnatural
chemicals
Natural cultivation practices are far better than chemical soil management
Organic farming greatly lessens erosion
A recent study showed that an organic farm had, on average, eight more inches of topsoil than a
chemically treated farm
Buying organic food fights the effects of climate change
Soil has the ability to sequester carbon (for more about this topic check out my last article Carbon
Sequestration through Soil Health | Environmental Center )
Rodale’s research shows that: “If only 10,000 medium-sized farms in the U.S. converted to organic
production, they would store so much carbon in the soil that it would be equivalent to taking
1,174,400 cars off the road, or reducing car miles driven by 14.62 billion miles.”
Organic farming supports water conservation and water health
American Rivers notes that water runoff from non-organic farms contains harmful pesticides, toxic
fertilizers, and animal waste that is a major water pollution threat

harms.
Sustainability
Organic agriculture improves sustainability
Zimmerman, 20 (Naomi Zimmerman, Assistant Professor at The University of British Columbia, 2-5-2020,
accessed on 2-4-2022, State of the Planet at Columbia University Climate School, "So, Is Organic Food Actually
More Sustainable?", https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/02/05/organic-sustainable-food/)
At Columbia, a culture of heightened environmental consciousness has led to the proliferation of sustainable food options: Meatless Mondays at the dining halls, weekly farmers markets, and
active student groups. I myself am heavily involved in this culture of “sustainable” eating, keeping to a plant-based diet and seeking out organic, non-GMO, rainforest-friendly products at the
grocery store. Growing up in a liberal, eco-conscious community in Northern California, I was told time and time again that organic food was the most environmentally friendly option. Yet even
with this upbringing, I never learned about our food production systems.
Naomi Zimmerman is an Environmental Science and Economics student at Barnard. She is interested in all things related to sustainability and climate justice, including climate refugees and
sustainable food systems. She runs a blog about how college students can live more sustainably, and is involved with the Sustainable Initiatives Consulting Board and the Energy and
Environment working group of the Roosevelt Institute.
Recently, in my sustainable development class, we learned about conventional versus organic food
systems, and the fact that organic food was not always the most sustainable option blew my mind. Despite
my efforts to adopt a sustainable diet, I came to realize that I, and many of my peers, do not know much
about the sources of our food and their implications for the planet. Rather, we had grown to accept broad
generalizations about what a sustainable diet looks like — plant based, organic, and non-GMO.
Using renewable energy and reducing waste are featured prominently in the media, dominating the
popular environmental discourse and leaving food systems sorely overlooked. But in my sustainable
development class, I was shocked to learn that food systems are the largest contributor to
environmental degradation. The production, transportation, and consumption of food on a planet
containing over 7 billion people is incredibly carbon intensive. Agriculture contributes to a third of
the global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to land conversion. Additionally, global food output
is expected to double by 2050.
With such high stakes, we need to look beyond the labels and choose systems of food production that are the most sustainable. For me, this journey starts with the questions: What is organic
food? How is it produced? And is it really more sustainable than conventional agriculture?
Organic food is grown without synthetic inputs such as chemical pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. Organic farms instead use natural approaches and fertilizers, such as crop rotation and manure,
to control pests, diseases and weeds. This minimizes the exposure of farm workers, consumers, and the environment more broadly to harmful pesticides.
When used in conventional agriculture, pesticides and fertilizers can create a host of environmental issues. Certain pesticides can poison non-target organisms such as birds, fish, and plants, and
harm organisms of special ecological importance, such as bees and algae. Pesticides also often contaminate soil as well as surface and groundwater. A United States Geological Service study
found that over 90 percent of water and fish samples from streams contained one or more pesticides. Fertilizers that run off into streams and other waterways cause eutrophication—a process in
which excess nitrogen and phosphorous buildups lead to algal blooms and excess production of carbon dioxide. The process results in acidic waterways with dead zones, or areas that are so low
in oxygen that they kill marine life.
Since it does not include the use of synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, organic agriculture is very
sustainable in many aspects. Organic farms tend to have more fertile soil, use less energy, and
sequester more carbon. Research has shown that organic farms use 45 percent less energy, release
40 percent less carbon emissions, and foster 30 percent more biodiversity compared to conventional
farming.

harms.
Sustainability and stable food production
Rahmann et al., 16 (Gerold Rahmann, Reza Ardakani, and Paolo Bàrberi & Herwart Boehm & Stefano Canali
&Mahesh Chander & Wahyudi David & Lucas Dengel & Jan Willem Erisman &Ana C. Galvis-Martinez & Ulrich Hamm
& Johannes Kahl & Ulrich Köpke & Stefan Kühne &S. B. Lee & Anne-Kristin Løes & Jann Hendrik Moos & Daniel
Neuhof &Jaakko Tapani Nuutila & Victor Olowe & Rainer Oppermann & Ewa Rembiałkowska &Jim Riddle & Ilse A.
Rasmussen & Jessica Shade & Sang Mok Sohn & Mekuria Tadesse &Sonam Tashi & Alan Thatcher & Nazim Uddin
& Peter von Fragstein und Niemsdorff &Atle Wibe & Maria Wivstad & Wu Wenliang & Raffaele Zanoli, Department of
Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty ofAgriculture and Natural Resources, Islamic Azad University,Karaj, Iran,
Department of Agricultural- and Food Marketing, Faculty ofOrganic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel,37213
Witzenhausen, Germany, Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn,Katzenburgweg 3, 53115 Bonn,
Germany, Dec-03-2016, accessed on 2-4-2022, Orgprints, "Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research",
https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/31279/1/Rahmann%20et%20al%202017.pdf)
Organic agriculture can and should play an important role in solving future challenges in
producing food. The low level of external inputs combined with knowledge on sustainablity
minimizes environmental contamination and can help to produce more food for more people
without negatively impacting our environment. Organic agriculture must be supported with
multidisciplinary research to find both technical and socioeconomic solutions to current agricultural-
based issues. The main challenges of the future can only be overcome in a participatory approach,
following an agri-food system view with enhanced sustainability, i.e. perpetuity and health as the main
targets. To scale-up organic solutions, production qualifications need to be improved. Yields per hectare
can be increased in the majority of the global farming systems by improving management and
implementing best practices. There is a need to transform sustainable organic food production from a
system with low inputs and low outputs to one with low external inputs and medium output. Furthermore,
this must be linked to local food consumption. Organic agri-food systems must be developed to become
more resilient against extreme weather conditions and climate change. Additionally, the integration of
biodiversity as part of the food system must be improved. There is also a need to work on improved
nutrient use efficiency and methods for controlling cycles of pests and pathogens. Innovative
organic agrifood systems must determine whether and how they can achieve these objectives while
supporting clean water, air and healthy soils in addition to system resilience.

harms.
Increased organic agriculture can provide a more sustainable food source and help
preserve wildlife
Reganold, 16 (John Reganold, John Reganold is a Regents Professor of Soil Science & Agroecology at the
Washington State University., 8-14-2016, accessed on 2-5-2022, the Guardian, "Can we feed 10 billion people on
organic farming alone?", https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/aug/14/organic-farming-
agriculture-world-hunger)
Organic farming can help to both feed the world and preserve wildland. In a study published this
year, researchers modeled 500 food production scenarios to see if we can feed an estimated world
population of 9.6 billion people in 2050 without expanding the area of farmland we already use.
They found that enough food could be produced with lower-yielding organic farming, if people
become vegetarians or eat a more plant-based diet with lower meat consumption. The existing
farmland can feed that many people if they are all vegan, a 94% success rate if they are vegetarian,
39% with a completely organic diet, and 15% with the Western-style diet based on meat.
Realistically, we can’t expect everyone to forgo meat. Organic isn’t the only sustainable option to
conventional farming either. Other viable types of farming exist, such as integrated farming where
you blend organic with conventional practices or grass-fed livestock systems.

harms.
India as a model for organic agriculture sustainability
Varanasi, 19 (Anuradha Varanasi, MA in Science Journalism from Columbia University in New York City. , 10-22-
2019, accessed on 2-4-2022, State of the Planet at Columbia University Climate School, "Is Organic Food Really
Better for the Environment?", https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/10/22/organic-food-better-environment/)
McDermid is also concerned that some agribusinesses can farm uniformly without any biodiversity
and still call themselves organic. Whereas in developing or emerging economies — for example in
India — farmers tend to follow a far more traditional definition of organic farming.
“In India, organic farms grow lots of different crops at the same time. They grow plants that can
naturally keep pests away and don’t use powerful inputs like sulfur. Instead, the farmers use plants
and biodiversity to help regulate their cropping systems,” said McDermid.
Indian farmers who grow organic crops also make their fertilizers by filling a field with legumes
that they grow in rotations. Once the legumes have fully grown, the farmers manually plow them
into the ground. That results in larger quantities of nitrogen being pumped into the soil, as opposed
to only using manure or even worse, synthetic fertilizers.
McDermid said that in some areas of the developing world, organic farming can actually boost
yields over conventional farming because it doesn’t rely on so much water and chemical inputs.
These practices also build soil fertility and lead to less pollution.

harms.
Waste Use
Waste from fish farming can be used as fertilizer to grow crops according to organic
farming principles
Ahuja 20—Ahuja, I., Dauksas, E., Remme, J., Richardsen, R., & Løes, A. (2020). Fish and fish waste-based
fertilizers in organic farming – With status in Norway: A review. Waste Management, 115, 95-112. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.025
[Ishita Ahuja is a researcher at the Department of Biology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology]
This paper reviews relevant knowledge about the production and uses of fertilizers from fish and fish
waste (FW) that may be applicable for certified organic farming, with a focus on crop and
horticultural plants. Fish industries generate a substantial amount of FW. Depending on the level of
processing or type of fish, 30–70% of the original fish is [fish waste] FW. Circular economy and
organic farming concepts were used to evaluate the potential of production of fertilizers from captured
fish. Fertilizers produced from captured fish promote the recycling of nutrients from the sea and
back to terrestrial environments. Nutritional composition of FW is assessed to determine the potential
to supply plant nutrients such as nitrogen, or a combination of nitrogen and phosphorous, or to enrich a
compost. Methods used in processing of FW to produce fish- emulsion, fish hydrolysate/fish silage, fish-
compost and digestate from anaerobic digestion/co-digestion are presented. Using information about
commercially available fish-based fertilizers listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), we
present a scenario for establishing fish/FW-based fertilizers industry and research in Europe. With
Norway’s 9th position among top ten global capture producers and focus in Norway on developing
organic farming, we brief how FW is currently utilized and regulated, and discuss its availability for
possible production of FW-based organic fertilizers. The amount of FW available in Norway for
production of fertilizers may facilitate the establishment of an industrial product that can replace the
currently common use of dried poultry manure from conventional farming in organic farming.

harms.
Pro Blocks

harms.
AT: Big Orgo

Organic lobbying makes up only 0.3% of all agriculture lobbying
Kennedy 14—Kennedy, B. (2014). Competing Voices Among the Organic Agriculture Lobby. Retrieved 4
February 2022, from http://projourno.org/2014/09/competing-voices-among-the-organic-agriculture-lobby/
[After graduating from Yale University in 2008, Berry Kennedy moved to Mexico to work with the Mexican Fund for the
Conservation of Nature, Latin America’s largest national environmental fund. She returned to graduate school to get a dual
degree MBA-MS in business and environmental science from the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the
University of Michigan.]
Though lobbying by organic agriculture interests pales when compared with that of traditional
agribusiness—total organic lobbying in 2013 was around 0.3 percent of total agriculture lobbying—
it nonetheless plays an important role in shaping organic policy.
Based on figures from Opensecrets.org, a website that tracks campaign contributions and lobbying
dollars, the OTA is the predominant organic lobbying client, spending over $315,000 on lobbying efforts
in 2013. The other significant organic lobby client identified by Opensecrets.com, the National Organic
Coalition, which more often aligns with the Cornucopia Institute’s positions, spent only about a quarter of
that amount.
However, it is difficult to get a clear picture of organic lobbying activities in the U.S. since organic issues
are often bundled with more general agriculture or food lobbying. For example, WhiteWave, which
produces the Horizon Organic and Earthbound Farm organic brands, is a subsidiary of Dean Foods, which
also has conventional brands, ranging from Purity to Land O’Lakes. Dean Foods spent $750,000 on
lobbying efforts in 2013, only a portion of which was dedicated to organic issues. In cases like these, it
can be difficult to determine the influence that non-organic lobbying spending exerts on non-organic
issues.

harms.
AT: Climate Change

A large-scale shift to organic farming might increase greenhouse gas emissions
Vinopal 19—How more organic farming could worsen global warming. (2019). Retrieved 4 February 2022, from
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-more-organic-farming-could-worsen-global-warming
[Courtney Vinopal is a general assignment reporter at the PBS NewsHour.]
In the U.S., where organic food sales totaled nearly $50 billion last year and made up 5.7 percent of total
food sales, companies such as Annie’s and Organic Valley market their products as leaving a low carbon
footprint. They remind consumers that their ingredients “matter…to the planet we all share,” or that their
farming practices “remove excess carbon dioxide from the air.” The International Federation of
Agriculture Movements promises in its literature that organic farming can “help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions within the agricultural sector of the European Union and beyond.”
But a new study out this week challenges this narrative, predicting that a wholesale shift to organic
farming could increase net greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 21 percent.
“We’re not saying that organic is wrong,” said Adrian Williams, an associate professor of environmental
systems at Cranfield University in the U.K., but that consumers and environmental organizations
would be wise to consider what these farming practices would look like on a much larger scale
before making assumptions about the environmental impacts. Williams worked on the
study published in Nature Communications on Tuesday.
While it’s unlikely that any country will pursue a complete, 100 percent transition to organic farming
anytime soon, the study falls in line with others that raise questions about the degree to which these
practices can mitigate the effects of climate change — and how market forces limit their ability to do
so.

harms.
AT: Environmental Damage

Conventional farming of animal feed is a major driver of environmental damage from
agriculture
Emery 18—Emery, I. (2018). Without animals, US farmers would reduce feed crop production. Proceedings Of
The National Academy Of Sciences, 115(8), E1703-E1703. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1720760115
[Issac Emery, PhD (ecological sciences & engineering, Purdue), works with organizations to identify the costs and benefits of
fuels, foods, and industrial systems using life cycle assessment and other systems-level tools.]
In “Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture,” White and Hall
(1) imagine a future without animal agriculture but fail to address perhaps the single most influential
aspect of livestock on US agriculture: land use for feed crops. The authors unrealistically assume that
without livestock, Americans would continue to grow animal feed and incorporate it into human diets.
Feed crops are unpalatable for humans without processing, increasing our consumption of processed
foods containing corn and soybean oils and high-fructose corn syrup in White and Hall’s scenario (figure
3 in ref. 1). Feed crops take up roughly 75% of US cropland, and when fed to livestock represent an
inefficient source of edible calories (2). Without livestock, those 240 million acres could be used to
grow vegetables, biofuel crops, food for export, and provide critical habitat for native wildlife. White and
Hall’s (1) assumption that biophysical, rather than economic, factors limit the production of specialty
crops in the US Midwest is not supported by historical data or current practices by small vegetable
producers nationwide (3, 4). Additionally, high fertilizer loads and other farming practices used to
maximize grain yields are the primary drivers of biodiversity loss in American streams and recurring dead
zones in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere (5, 6). By eliminating the need for animal feed, farmers could
transition to a wider variety of grasses, grains, pulses, vegetables, and fruits that would be healthier for
humans and the environment.

harms.
AT: Rotenone
Rotenone is no longer used in organic farming
AG Daily 19— (2019). The list of organic pesticides approved by the USDA | AGDAILY. Retrieved 4 February
2022, from https://www.agdaily.com/technology/the-list-of-pesticides-approved-for-organic-production
[Ishita Ahuja is a researcher at the Department of Biology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology]
The decisions about which substances are allowed under the USDA’s National Organic Program are
made by a board that includes organic growers, handlers, retailers, environmentalists, scientists, USDA-
accredited certifying agents, and consumer advocates. Contrary to popular belief, pesticides approved for
use on organic farms do include some synthetic substances, though the vast majority are natural toxins.
That said, it should be clear that not all natural toxins are permitted — for example, strychnine and
arsenic are natural but not allowed to be used in organic farming and gardening.
One of the most controversial natural pesticides, the insecticide Rotenone, was removed from the
Federal Register listing allowable organic pesticides in January 2019. Rotenone, which is derived
from the roots of plants from the Leguminosae family, is highly toxic, and concern had long been
growing about the damage it was doing to the environment.
Of course, genetic engineering is not allowed in organic production. To meet the USDA organic
regulations, farmers and processors must show they aren’t using GMOs (in this case, meaning high-tech
modern plant breeding techniques) and that they are protecting their products from contact with
substances associated with GMOs from farm to table.
Just because a pesticide product is natural doesn’t mean it is less toxic than it’s synthetic counterpart. The
dose, frequency of application, and mode of action all contribute to toxicity, and the severity is
determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Below are many of the substances, both synthetic and non-synthetics, used in organic farming and
gardening (this list includes the rule update that was finalized in January 2019). These substances can be
sold under a variety of brand names, which are further detailed in the OMRI Generic Materials List.

harms.
AT: Yields Decrease

Yields no different in the long-term, and organic sometimes performs better
Held, 20 (Lisa Elaine Held, Lisa Elaine Held is a reporter, writer and editor with a primary focus on the food
system., 2-18-2020, accessed on 2-4-2022, FoodPrint, "The Real Climate Impact of Organic Farming",
https://foodprint.org/blog/the-real-climate-impact-of-organic-farming/)
At the Rodale Institute, however, studies have shown different results. Started in 1981, the Farming
Systems Trial (FST) is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of conventional and organic
grain farming in North America. Studies using the data have been published in several major
journals including Nature.
Based on the results of that research, Dr. Rui said that yields for organic crops are lower in the first
few years of transition as soil biology is restored, but that those decreases don’t continue over the
long-term. “Over the 40 years, on average, there’s no statistical difference in yield between
conventional and organic,” he said. “Also, in climate change scenarios, like years of drought,
organic keeps performing better than conventional. We have found 30% higher yields in organic
than conventional in years of drought.”
That difference is attributable to healthy soil that allows water to penetrate and then retains
moisture for longer; Rodale’s studies have also shown organic farming builds organic matter in soil
over time.
Searchinger agreed that water penetration and retention in soil really matters when considering
climate impact, but that there are many farming practices that can improve soil health that are not
necessarily only used by organic farmers. Cover crops and no-till farming, for example, have both
been shown to improve soil health and therefore moisture retention (and potentially carbon
sequestration) over time. “You can get good soil without going organic,” he said. His other criticism
is that because Rodale’s fields are part of a research institute, their results might be better than
what tends to happen when less careful farmers apply the same techniques in their own fields. “You
need a lot more careful management in order to farm without pesticides, and farmers don’t get it
right often,” he said.
Still, Dr. Rui said he sees that argument as evidence that more resources need to be dedicated to helping farmers master the transition to organic farming. Plus, he says the question about yield
doesn’t take into account the fact that over the long term, intensive monoculture farming with pesticides can destroy soil organic matter.
“If you think about the premise of the [previously discussed] study, they claim that the conventional
system of farming can keep producing high amounts of food…but if you keep degrading the soil
quality, then there’s no ground to keep providing high productivity. You’re losing your topsoil.” he
said. “If you don’t maintain it or improve it, then you are not going to be able to farm in the same
way in the next 50 years.”
Urvashi Rangan, a sustainable food systems expert and the chief science advisor for FoodPrint, agrees.
“The notion that we may not be able to grow food on soil in the future…it’s real,” she said.

harms.
Hay production increased under organic farming
Kniss et al., 16 (Andrew R. Kniss, Steven D. Savage, and Randa Jabbour, University of Wyoming, Department of
Plant Sciences, 8-23-2016, accessed on 2-5-2022, CropLife Foundation, "Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths
and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States",
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161673)
Although our data agree with previous work showing lower yields in organic production systems in
general, our data suggest that commercial hay crops produced significantly greater yield when
produced in an organically managed system. This is contrary to Seufert et al. [8] and Ponisio et al. [7]
who did not find evidence for greater yield under organic management. Seufert suggested that the organic
yield gap was less for legume and perennial crops compared to non-legume and annual crops,
respectively. In contrast, Ponisio et al. concluded there were not major differences between annual vs
perennial crops, nor with legume vs non-legume crops with respect to the organic yield gap. Our analysis
agrees more closely with Seufert et al., showing that annuals and non-legumes fared worse under organic
management compared to perennials and legumes, since hay crops tend to be primarily perennial and also
include legumes (Fig 1).

harms.
Con

harms.
Big Orgo
Organic-foods lobbying groups spend billions annually in attacking genetically modified
foods
Miller 18—The Organic Food Hoax. (2018). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.hoover.org/research/organic-food-hoax
[Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, was the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution.
His research focused on public policy toward science and technology, encompassing a number of areas, including
pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering in agriculture, models for regulatory reform, and the emergence of new viral
diseases.]
We’re seeing evidence of that in the current effort to discredit and diminish genetically engineered
foods and to attack their defenders in the scientific community. The chief perpetrators of this black
marketing campaign are lobbyists for the organic agriculture and “natural products” industries
and their enablers.
Those industries have deep pockets. In 2016, Jay Byrne, president and CEO of the marketing agency v-
Fluence Interactive, examined the IRS filings, annual reports, and other financial sources of companies,
trade organizations, and NGOs involved in the effort to discredit modern agriculture. Based on that
information, he estimated that in 2011 the groups tracked by his company spent $2.5 billion
campaigning against genetic engineering in North America alone. Globally, advocacy groups
targeting agriculture probably spent over $10 billion – attacking other sectors as well, including vaccines,
pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals.
These expenditures go to a variety of activities, including lobbying, the commissioning and writing
of op-eds, and other active efforts to disparage and disadvantage their competition and science
communicators in academic institutions. For example, one of the most aggressive campaigns by the
anti-genetic engineering groups has been the promotion of government-imposed mandatory
labeling of foods that contain ingredients from genetically engineered plants. That raises the costs of
those foods because of the need for sequestration through the food-production chain from farm to fork
and increased liability when errors in labeling occur.
The statements of activists reveal their true reason for pushing labeling. Andrew Kimbrell, the
director of the Center for Food Safety, a pro-organic group, said, “We are going to force them to
label this food. If we have it labeled, then we can organize people not to buy it.” Ronnie Cummins,
Director of the Organic Consumers Association, spelled out the industry’s agenda: “The burning
question for us all then becomes how—and how quickly—can we move healthy, organic products
from a 4.2% market niche, to the dominant force in American food and farming? The first step is to
change our labeling laws.”
Another example of the falsity of their lobbying occurred in California in the lead up to a referendum
about requiring the labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
Via articles, videos, blogs and campaign literature, the pro-labeling campaigners depicted the initiative as
the brainchild of small-town grandmother Pamm Larry who “woke up one morning” during the summer
of 2011 with the idea for the ballot initiative and transformed it into reality ten months later through the
hard work of a “decentralized movement of citizens.” Larry later admitted to the Huffington Post that
professional lobbyists such as the Organic Consumers Association had been “there from the beginning” to
help her wage a campaign against genetically engineered foods.

harms.
The ’organic’ label mainly serves to protect the organic industry from competition and to
fetch higher prices for their products
Fristoe 18—Health, Sustainability, and the Political Economy of Food Labeling. Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/health-sustainability-political-economy-food-labeling
The USDA has never claimed that organic foods are safer, healthier, or superior to conventional
foods in any way. Yet Americans spent $43 billion on organic products in 2016, and the category has
averaged 15 percent growth since 2000 (OTA 2017; FiBL and IFOAM n.d.). How can this be? A
representative from the United Kingdom’s largest agribusiness consulting firm may have answered that
question at the 1999 Organic Food Conference. She said, “If the threats posed by cheaper, conventionally
produced products are removed, then the potential to develop organic foods will be limited” (Schroeder et
al. 2016). In the years since, the organic industry has erected barriers to entry, stacked its own oversight
board, and funded advocacy of dubious science and self-serving legislation. This section examines how
and why organic labeling policy is influenced by special interests.
What does the industry have to gain from these activities? The answer should not surprise you:
profits. A review of the worldwide organic market in 2014 estimated that organic farmers had 21
percent higher gross returns, 24 percent higher benefit–cost ratios, and 35 percent higher net
present values (Crowder and Reganold 2014). Organic farming is also subsidized to the tune of $160
million, as of the 2014 Farm Bill (USDA 2014). Given the higher net present value, conventional
farmers should be rushing into the organic market and driving down the relative price of organic
produce. However, significant barriers to entry prevent this from occurring. The most important
barriers are the costs of compliance and access to organic markets (Damewood 2015;Strochlic and
Sierra 2007). Market access is a barrier because the organic market is only 4 percent of the domestic
food market and concentrated. There is a risk that organic producers won’t be able to find purchasers
(Strochlic and Sierra 2007). Compliance costs include the certification fee, record-keeping costs,
liability, and the three-year transition period during which produce cannot be labeled “organic.”
Although record-keeping and inspections costs can amount to thousands of dollars per year, the price
premium outweighs these costs. However, violating the regulations may lead to a $100,000 penalty and
imprisonment for up to five years, consequences that are far more devastating for small, unincorporated
producers (Cohrssen and Miller 2016). The transition period imposes a large barrier because farms must
absorb lower yields per acre without the offsetting price premium. Like the rest of the law, there is no
scientific basis for the three-year transition because common pesticides degrade in weeks or months and
need to be sprayed directly onto plants to function. During this period, gross incomes, benefit–cost ratios,
and net present values are 10, 7, and 23 percent lower, respectively (Crowder and Reganold 2014).
Disease carries an increased risk, because farmers may have to choose between using a pesticide and
starting over or losing the entire crop. This requirement is so onerous that some large buyers of organic
produce are beginning to offer long-term supply contracts and purchase at a premium during the transition
period in order to increase supply (Strom 2015). Whole Foods Inc., the largest buyer of organic produce,
tried to create a rating system independent of the organic label that would reduce compliance and liability
costs while retaining many of the standards. One supplier complained, “becoming organic is a big
investment of time and money and this ratings system kind of devalues all that” (Strom 2015). As George
Stigler wrote in 1971, incumbents in regulated industries come to demand regulations. From their point of
view, reform would be unfair to those that first ponied up for access to rents.

harms.
Cost
Organic products require more labor and money
Paarlberg, 21 (Robert Paarlberg, Robert L. Paarlberg is a professor at Wellesley College and Associate at the
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. He is the author of several books and numerous
articles. Wikipedia, 2-2-2021, accessed on 2-4-2022, Harvard Gazette, "Author Robert Paarlberg argues against
buying organic", https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/02/author-robert-paarlberg-argues-against-buying-
organic/)
At a recent dinner party, the hostess served me a tasty salad with carrots, raisins, nuts, and baby greens. “It’s all organic,” she said, expecting my
approval. To be polite, I smiled and said nothing, but a voice inside wanted to respond, “You paid too much.”
Nearly half of all Americans claim to prefer organic food, and the label has spread far beyond food. You
can now buy organic lipstick, organic underwear, and even organic water. The 2019 Super Bowl featured
ads for organic beer, and health-conscious smokers are able to purchase organic cigarettes. Most farmers,
however, have little interest in switching to the more costly and less convenient production methods
required for organic certification, so this constrains the supply, which makes organic food needlessly
expensive. America’s farmers so far have certified less than 1 percent of their cropland for organic
production, and fewer than 2 percent of commodities grown in 2017 were organic. Processed and
packaged foods can now be organic as well, but fewer than 6 percent of total retail food purchases
are organic products. Two decades after federal organic certification began in America, the brand
remains a single-digit phenomenon.
Farmers tend to hold back because producing food organically requires more human labor to
handle the composted animal manure used for fertilizer, as well as more labor to control weeds
without chemicals (sometimes putting down nonbiodegradable plastic mulch instead). It also
requires more land for every bushel of production, further driving up costs. Trying to grow all of
our food organically today would require farming a much wider area, damaging wildlife habitat.
Rachel Carson, the founder of our modern environmental movement, never endorsed organic
farming. Her 1962 book “Silent Spring” condemned synthetic insecticides like DDT, but Carson
saw no reason to ban manufactured fertilizers, a requirement under the organic standard.
The rules for organic farming do deliver some clear benefit in the livestock sector. Producers of organic meat, milk, and eggs are required to
provide their animals with more space to move around, an important plus for animal welfare. Also, animal products cannot be labeled organic if
the animals were fed or treated with antibiotics, which is good for slowing the emergence of resistant bacterial strains dangerous to human health.
Yet even for livestock the organic rule malfunctions, since the animals can only be given feeds grown organically, and organic corn and soy have
lower yields per acre, so more land must be planted and plowed.

harms.
Loss in Farm Profitability
Röös et al., 18 (Elin Röös, Axel Mie, Maria Wivstad, and Eva Salomon & Birgitta Johansson & Stefan Gunnarsson & Anna
Wallenbeck & Ruben Hoffmann & Ulf Nilsson & Cecilia Sundberg & Christine A. Watson, Department of Energy and
Technology, Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, Department of Clinical Science and Education,
Södersjukhuset,Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, EPOK–Centre for Organic Food and Farming, Swedish University
ofAgricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 02-05-2018, accessed on 2-4-2022, Link.springer, "Risks and opportunities of
increasing yields in organic farming. A review", https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-018-0489-3.pdf)
The profitability in organic production varies considerably between products, regions and farms.
However, many studies have concluded that organic farms are frequently more profitable than
conventional farms due to higher price premiums, government support and/or lower costs (Nemes
2009). In a recent meta-analysis, Crowder and Reganold (2015) found that without price premiums
organic farming would be significantly less profitable than conventional agriculture due to 10– 18%
lower yields, showing the importance of price premiums for profitability in organic farming. For the
farmer, the economic effect of increased yields in organic agriculture will depend on how the
revenues of the farming business are affected, including how consumers respond to such changes and
the costs associated with achieving increased yields. The profitability of organic farming hence
strongly depends on consumers being willing to pay a price premium. Crowder and Reganold (2015)
found that a premium of 5–7% is required in order for the profits in organic farming to equal to those
in conventional farming, while the actual premium is around 30%. Reasons for buying organic food include health
and nutritional concerns, perceived superior taste, environmental and animal welfare concerns and distrust in conventional food production
(Hoffmann and Wivstad 2015). Although higher yields per se do not necessarily affect demand, a change towards more intense practices in
organic farming, making it more similar to conventional farming in some respects e.g. by increased use of fertilisers and concentrate feeds, may
Furthermore, increased
negatively affect the premium some consumers are willing to pay for organic food (Adams and Salois 2010).
yields would presumably lead to a larger supply of organic products, which if not matched with a
corresponding increase in consumer demand would result in a reduction in prices. In countries where
organic production receives government support, another potential risk to farm revenues of
increasing yields is that it may be used as an argument for removing subsidies. Improving productivity
generally requires investment in additional capital (e.g. machinery or additional land) and/or labour
(e.g. increased mechanical weeding) which may increase the financial risk of the farmer. Hence,
increased yields may not be preferred by all farmers, although some studies have found organic
farmers to be less risk-averse than conventional farmers (Gardebroek 2006) and intensification may
reduce the yield variation. Variations in yield, and hence in economic returns, between organic farms have been partly explained by
differences in management and marketing skills. Experience and knowledge influence farmer behaviour. For example, a flexible approach to
crop rotations on organic farms in Sweden has been found to be positively correlated to the experience of the farmer (Chongtham et al. 2016).
Knowledge transfer between farmers is important in improving management skills and the ability of farmers to apply best available
managemen3t practices. Yield increases which depend on investments in costly specialist machinery (e.g. for mechanical weed control) may
create incentives for more extensive cooperation in sharing machines. Adoption of new technologies is becoming easier and less costly as the
technology becomes more widespread. Thus,
more widespread uptake of good organic practices will promote
yield increases (Läpple and van Rensburg 2011). This stresses the importance of effective
communication channels for knowledge sharing and transfer in improving yields and productivity in
organic farming.

harms.
Organics increase labor cost
Hou et al., 22 (Yongrui Hou, Tianyuan Luo, and Jing Hao, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 01-04-
2022, accessed on 2-4-2022, MDPI, "Analysis of Determinants Affecting Organic Production: StateEvidence from the
United States", https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/1/503/pdf)
Another critical factor that is found to play an important role in organic farming is the total
number of farm workers. As the organic farming sector continues to expand, it will increase the
need for more workers. However, the supply of farm workers is expected to further decrease [77] as
more stringent immigration policies are adopted. Those immigration policies may severely
undermine the labor pool of organic agriculture in the U.S. and notably increase the labor cost for
organic farming, which in turn would increase the prices of organic commodities, decrease the
profit margins of organic farms, and diminish the competitiveness of the U.S. organic agricultural
industry. Organic farming policymakers need to cooperate with policymakers in immigration and
other sectors to ensure the labor sustainability of the organic sector.
This study examines data on the growth of organic farming at the state level that includes all U.S. states
and spans almost two decades. The results of this study can be insightful for the state sector, the farm
sector, and organic farmers that would like to have a more comprehensive and clearer vision of the factors
that might affect organic production in the country. First, the state sector should deal with the relationship
between agricultural development and immigrants. For example, giving appropriate benefits to the
immigrant population might increase the labor force and consumers needed for the development of
organic farming. Second, USDA should increase financial support for organic farming, especially in
Southwestern U.S. where organic farming is relatively backward. Third, the organic farmers themselves
need to make full use of government funds and establish an appropriate wage incentive system to improve
the enthusiasm of the farm workers in the case of labor shortage. Moreover, this study also provides
important implications for other countries that seek to promote domestic organic production. Finally, this
study offers insights for more research of this genre as the organic product market continues to grow and
expand.

harms.
Lack of GMO use increases labor and hand weeding
Miller, 17 (Henry Miller, Henry Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific
Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s
Office of Biotechnology., 5-31-2017, accessed on 2-4-2022, Genetic Literacy Project, "Sustainability myth: Stanford
misleads students about organic farming's reduced environmental impact",
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/05/31/sustainability-myth-stanford-misleads-students-organic-farmings-
reduced-environmental-impact/)
The issue of water conservation, in particular, illustrates an irony in the Stanford ROLLSS program.
Consider this from a recent Stanford publication: “Two freshmen particularly active this year [in the
ROLLSS program], Raja Ramesh and Kyle Enriquez, have taken it upon themselves to run initiatives
encouraging students to conserve water by washing fuller loads of laundry and by taking shorter
showers.” Why don’t they, in addition, adopt modern, water-conserving, non-organic farming practices?
Organic production disfavors the best approach to enhancing soil quality — the minimization of soil
disturbance (e.g., no plowing or tilling), combined with the use of cover crops. Such farming systems
offer multiple environmental advantages, particularly with respect to limited erosion, the runoff of
fertilizers and pesticides, and the release of CO2 from tilling. Organic growers do frequently plant
cover crops, but in the absence of effective herbicides, they often rely on tillage (or even labor-
intensive hand-weeding) for weed control.
Many who are seduced by the romance of organic farming (read: college students) ignore its human
consequences. American farmer Blake Hurst offers this reminder: “Weeds continue to grow, even
in polycultures with holistic farming methods, and, without pesticides, hand weeding is the only
way to protect a crop.” The back-breaking drudgery of hand weeding often falls to women and
children.
One prevalent “green myth” about organic agriculture is that it does not employ pesticides.
Organic farming does, in fact, use insecticides and fungicides to prevent predation of its crops.
More than 20 chemicals (mostly containing copper and sulfur) are commonly used in the growing
and processing of organic crops and are acceptable under USDA’s arbitrary organic rules.
Perhaps the most illogical and least sustainable aspect of organic farming in the long term will turn out to be the systematic and absolute exclusion of “genetically engineered” plants – but only
those that were modified with the most precise and predictable modern molecular techniques. Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables, and grains in our
diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another – often as a result of seeds having been irradiated or via wide crosses, which move genes from one species or genus to another in
ways that do not occur in nature.
The exclusion of certain organisms from organic agriculture simply because they were crafted with
superior molecular techniques makes no sense. In recent decades, we have seen advances in
agriculture, such as plants that are drought- or flood-resistant, that make farming more
environmentally friendly and sustainable than ever before. But they have resulted from science-
based research and technological ingenuity on the part of farmers, plant breeders, and agribusiness
companies, not from ignorant, arrogant social elites disdainful of modern insecticides, herbicides,
genetic engineering, and “industrial agriculture.”
And here’s another cosmic irony: The co-discoverer in 1973 of recombinant DNA technology — the prototypic, iconic molecular technique for genetic engineering — was Stanford biochemist
Dr. Stanley N. Cohen, who is still a professor of genetics and medicine at the university. I wonder how many of the New Age sustainability advocates involved in the ROLLSS program have
even heard of him.
As genetic engineering’s successes continue to emerge, the gap between modern, high-tech
agriculture and organic methods will become a chasm. Genetically engineered, drought-resistant,
flood-resistant and “fortified” crops have begun to emerge from the development pipeline, and
genetically engineered potato varieties in the marketplace are bruise-resistant and contain 50 to 70
percent less asparagine, a chemical that is converted to acrylamide, a probable carcinogen, when
heated to high temperatures.

harms.
The advantage of lower levels of acrylamide is obvious, but the bruise resistance is important to
sustainability: According to Simplot, the developer of the genetically engineered “Innate” varieties,
“with full market penetration for its varieties sold in the U.S., Innate will reduce annual potato
waste by an estimated 400 million pounds in the food service and retail industries and a significant
portion of the estimated 3 billion pounds discarded by consumers.” And a second generation of
Innate potatoes now completing regulatory review contains an additional trait: resistance to a
destructive fungus called “late blight,” which caused the Irish potato famine of the mid-19th
century and is still with us.
Potatoes that resist bruising and late blight are major advances in sustainability, because every
serving of French fries or mashed potatoes made from them requires less farmland and less water.
But none of these varieties can be used by organic farmers, including the Stanford students at
Roble Hall. The ROLLSS program claims to have “drawn support and involvement from
institutions across Stanford,” and lists them, but the entities that contain the university’s eminent
genetic engineers and plant scientists don’t seem to be participating.
One has to wonder how one of the world’s preeminent research universities, which regularly produces
breakthroughs across the entire spectrum of science, technology, and engineering, could so blindly
embrace and endorse destructive practices worthy of the 19th century.

harms.
Environment
Without modern farming techniques, there would be significantly more environmental
damage and much less food production
Logomasini 20—Luddites, not Almond Milk, Pose Biggest Risk to Honeybees - Competitive Enterprise Institute.
(2020). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from https://cei.org/blog/luddites-not-almond-milk-pose-biggest-risk-to-
honeybees/
[Angela Logomasini is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Logomasini specializes in environmental risk,
regulation and consumer freedom. Prior to joining CEI, Logomasini served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senator Sam
Brownback of Kansas and was also environmental editor for the Research Institute of America. She received her Ph.D. in
American Government from The Catholic University of America.]
The Guardian article doesn’t directly detail a “solution” other than to hint that switching to small organic
farms would be more environmentally sustainable. But such pie-in-the-sky ideas are easy to assert when
you don’t have to actually do the farming. Most farmers likely understand that, if left to her own devices,
Mother Nature serves up leaf-and-fruit-chewing insects, deadly plant viruses (often transmitted -by
insects/bugs), rot-inducing fungal diseases, and destructive bacteria (often transmitted by insects/bugs)—
all of which can quickly destroy a large percentage of crops. And without herbicides to kill weeds,
farmers will may have to till the soils more often, increasing soil erosion and water pollution that
runs off to nearby waterways.
Indeed, without modern tools that are part and parcel to high-yield agriculture, crop damage
would substantially reduce the amount of food produced per acre. The Guardian story itself
highlights an organic almond farmer who, while bragging that his 20-acre farm is chemical free, admits
that his yields are lower than other almond growers.
High-yield farming produces more food per acre by deploying technologies such as agrochemicals,
genetic modification of plants, and mechanization. Without these tools, there would not only be less
food for humans, there would be less available for wildlife—including less habitat for honeybees,
native bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.
In fact, research scholar Indur Goklany points out:
Had technology—and therefore yields—been frozen at 1961 levels, then producing as much food
as was actually produced in 1998 would have required more than a doubling of land devoted to
agriculture. Such land would have increased from 12.2 billion acres to at least 26.3 billion acres,
that is, from 38 to 82 percent of global land area. (And this optimistically assumes that
productivity in the added acreage would be as high as in the other areas). Cropland alone would
have had to more than double, from 3.7 to 7.9 billion acres. An additional area the size of South
America minus Chile would have to be plowed under.
Goklany’s calculations show that if farmers eschewed high-yield agriculture, adverse environmental
impacts would be severe. “Massive deforestation, soil erosion, greenhouse gas emissions and losses
of biodiversity would occur with the more-than-doubling of land and water diverted to agriculture,
but hunger and starvation would not decline,” explains Goklany.

harms.
GMOs Good
GMOs crops use less pesticides
Entine 15 (GMOs, Yes! | American Enterprise Institute (2015). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.aei.org/articles/gmos-yes/)
[Jon Entine is founder & executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project.]
The future of genetic engineering, what I refer to as “Biotech 2.0,” will lead to many stories similar to the
rescue of the papaya—if GMO opponents are not successful in scaring people away from this technology.
A nasty pest, the fruit and shoot borer, feasts on eggplant (brinjal), a staple in some countries like
Bangladesh. It has devastated production. Farmers are forced to spray dangerous insecticides as much as
twice a day. That is expensive and leads to collateral health problems in workers. The World Health
Organization estimates that 300,000 people die every year in Bangladesh and other less developed
countries because of the overuse of pesticides.
That is shameful when there are GMO alternatives. To confront this potentially devastating
challenge, researchers in Bangladesh partnered with Cornell University to develop Bt brinjal, South
Asia’s first GMO food crop. It is not owned or patented by major corporations. It is grown from public
sector seeds, developed for distribution to resource-poor shareholder farmers.
Bt brinjal has natural pesticides built in—the kind found in every plant—engineered into it .
Organic farmers in developed Western countries often spray an insecticide, called Bt, that is highly
specific to pests but is nontoxic to birds, fish and humans. It is less toxic than table salt. It has been used
safely in organic farming for nearly 100 years.
In the organic approach, the bacteria is grown in industrial fermentation tanks and processed to produce a
formulation of bacterial spores that is sprayed on plants. But this strategy does not work well for eggplant
farmers in Bangladesh. That is because sprays are expensive, hard to find in Bangladesh, and do not
prevent the insect from getting inside the plant.
With genetic engineering, scientists cut the gene out of the bacteria and inserted the bacterial gene
directly into the eggplant genome. It works and it is safe; just ask organic farmers.
Bt brinjal has been a huge success—much to the chagrin of the powerful anti-GMO lobby, which knows
that its adoption could open the floodgates to new nutrition and health focused public sector GMO foods.
To prevent that from happening, they have mounted a vicious public relations effort to scare farmers and
the public alike that Bt technology—yes, the one used safely by organic farmers around the world—is
somehow unsafe in Asia.

harms.
GMOs provide new innovations that can help humanity, especially the world’s poorest
people
Entine 15 (GMOs, Yes! | American Enterprise Institute (2015). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.aei.org/articles/gmos-yes/)
[Jon Entine is founder & executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project.]
In that context, many of those who maintain that GMOs are potentially harmful, while sincere for
the most part, are engaging not in science but in politics. Let me give you an example. Anti-GMO
NGOs often claim that the safety of genetically engineered foods cannot be assured because Big Ag funds
most GMO research and there have been almost no long-term safety studies.
I fear inquisitive consumers who read attacks on GMOs and believe this will be left feeling scared,
mistrustful and conflicted about our farmers and food system. Vigorous debate over the future of food is
healthy, but this obsession with GMOs has driven reasonable discourse into the ditch.
Instead of worrying about specific genes in our food, it would be far more productive to focus on how we
can help children grow up healthy. We must ask if rural communities can thrive and if farmers can make
a profit and if nutritious food will be available to the poorest of the poor. Finally, we must address these
problems of food and farming by minimizing the collateral damage caused by farming, a very unnatural
activity.
The world economy hinges on innovation. Regulation that prevents The Next Big Thing is truly a
lost opportunity—many once-touted biotech innovations have been killed in the crib by over-
regulation: Triffid flax, NewLeaf Potatoes and almost the entire field of transgenic animals—possibly
even AquaBounty’s GE salmon, which languishes in regulatory no-man’s land because of political
intervention from the White House.
No longer can we expect breakthroughs in GE biorational pesticides, microorganisms to clean up

toxic spills or transgenic animals.
Do we want to continue to thwart startups or university research projects? Or should we link science to
regulatory sanity and revise the approval process to reflect what we have learned over decades of research
and years of experience and trillions of meals?
Used appropriately, genetic engineering is a fantastic tool—to create new life-saving drugs and
encourage cutting edge ecologically based farming technique. We must increase food output to meet
a burgeoning world population that is also becoming more affluent. No tools in our toolbox should
go to waste.
What scares me most about the loud arguments on plant and animal genetics and the spread of
misinformation and the demonization and fear campaigns is that the poorest people, who need the
technology the most, might be denied access to modern scientific innovations because of the vague
fears and prejudices of those who are privileged to have enough to eat.

harms.
Land
Organic agriculture uses significantly more land and water for the same food output
Miller 18—The Organic Food Hoax. (2018). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.hoover.org/research/organic-food-hoax
[Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, was the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution.
His research focused on public policy toward science and technology, encompassing a number of areas, including
pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering in agriculture, models for regulatory reform, and the emergence of new viral
diseases.]
Funding from the organic and natural products industries enables activists to foment spurious health,
safety, and environmental fears about the agricultural products and production techniques used to grow
non-organic foods, especially those made with modern molecular genetic engineering techniques. What’s
ironic is that though the organic lobby positions its industry as a green alternative to conventional
agriculture, it’s actually more harmful to the environment.
A prevalent “green myth” about organic agriculture is that it does not employ pesticides. Organic farming
does, in fact, use insecticides and fungicides to prevent predation of its crops. More than 20 chemicals are
commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops and are acceptable under the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s arbitrary and ever-shifting organic rules. Many of those organic pesticides
are more toxic than the synthetic ones used in ordinary farming.
But the fatal flaw of organic agriculture is the low yields that cause it to be wasteful of water and
farmland. Plant pathologist Steven Savage of the CropLife Foundation analyzed the data from
the USDA’s 2014 Organic Survey, which reported various measures of productivity from most of
the certified organic farms in the nation, and compared them to those at conventional farms. His
findings were extraordinary. In 59 of the 68 crops surveyed, there was a yield gap, which means that,
controlling for other variables, organic farms were producing less than conventional farms. Many
of those shortfalls were large: for strawberries, organic farms produced 61 percent less than
conventional farms; for tangerines, 58 percent less; for cotton, 45 percent less; and for rice, 39
percent less.
As Savage observed: “To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming
of 109 million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in
the lower 48 states, or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation.”

harms.
Land use needed for organic products would increase and thus increase emissions
Held, 20 (Lisa Elaine Held, Lisa Elaine Held is a reporter, writer and editor with a primary focus on the food
system., 2-18-2020, accessed on 2-4-2022, FoodPrint, "The Real Climate Impact of Organic Farming",
https://foodprint.org/blog/the-real-climate-impact-of-organic-farming/)
Understanding that discrepancy is a matter of digging into the research, analysis, and expert opinions
available. It’s also important to ask whether examining GHG emissions isolated from and above all other
factors is a productive approach to thinking about the impact of food choices. Given the severity of the
climate crisis, is that now necessary? Or will a systematic way of thinking that takes all environmental
impacts into account better serve the planet (and its people)?
The WRI report estimates that agriculture contributes about 25 percent of annual GHG emissions
globally. A little less than half of that results from what researchers call “land-use change,” which
mainly refers to clearing vegetation that would otherwise store carbon dioxide. (A good example,
covered recently in the news, is the Amazon rainforest being burned to clear land for farming).
A little more than half of those emissions are more directly related to the practice of farming:
nitrous oxide that is released from fertilizers and methane released by livestock (both are much
more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide) and fossil fuels related to the production and
use of inputs (from tractor fuel to pesticides).
Criticisms of organic production as a climate solution center on one major factor: land use.
The recent headline-grabbing study, published in Nature Communications, was an analysis of how
transitioning agricultural production — from conventional to organic — in England and Wales
would impact GHG emissions. It found that the practice of organic farming would reduce emissions
compared to conventional farming when it came to factors like livestock and crop production.
However, the expected decrease in yields (40%) would be so significant, more land would need to be
cleared for production, so emissions would increase overall.
Searchinger said that while he is concerned about the effects of pesticides on the environment, that
analysis lined up with the body of research he’s encountered and was an example of the basis for his
thinking on the issue. “There have been a lot of different papers on this, and the general rule is that on
average, organic production has lower yields,” he said.

harms.
More land use means less land for wildlife
Logomasini 15—On Bee Enslavement and Other Nonsense - Competitive Enterprise Institute. (2015).
Retrieved 2 February 2022, from https://cei.org/blog/on-bee-enslavement-and-other-nonsense/
So now, not only are humans “killing off” bees, we are “enslaving” them! According to this article,
“industrial agriculture” is the problem and technological approaches won’t help things. However, the
authors don’t offer much of any solution other than: “Until local agriculture replaces global agriculture,
there will always be another parasite, another virus, another mysterious collapse.”
Although they don’t define “local agriculture,” their criticism on the use of pesticides and other
methods for high-yield farming suggests they would like to go organic. Unfortunately, that
approach is not only unlikely to help feed the world growing populations or create affordable food
domestically, it would also be bad news for wildlife.
As research scholar Indur Goklany and others have pointed out, producing more food per acre—
thanks to agro-technologies such as pesticides and genetic modification—means we have more land
for wildlife. For example, Goklany’s research shows that if we did not have high-yield agriculture
and we still farmed the way we did back in 1910, we’d have to plant more than three times the
amount of land that we plant now to generate the same amount of food.
In that case, there would be less space left for wildlife. A better approach involves the strategic use
of technology along with private stewardship to provide habitat for species. We can leverage the
tools we have and ensure minimal environmental impact along with taking concerted actions to
protect nature’s creatures at the same time.
But the authors of this article don’t offer any such balance and instead provide misleading information by
suggesting that farming practices in remote areas of china prove that modern farming elsewhere is bad for
the environment. Superficially they say:
In fact, there are now parts of China where bees have already gone extinct, requiring apple
orchards to employ between 20 and 25 people to pollinate a hundred trees – something wild
pollinators or a couple of hives worth of bees would normally do.
Despite impressions created in this article, hand pollination is not widespread, is often done for economic
rather than environmental reasons, and bees there are not “extinct.” Entomologist Gwen Pearson, Ph.D.,
offers a balanced article on this topic in this in Wired. She explains that honeybees are not extinct in these
areas of China (some people keep them for honey production and some are used for farming) and there
are economic reasons that the people there chose to hand pollinate.

harms.
Loopholes
Technical workarounds just result in bad organic farming loopholes
organic/)
By going industrial, organic farming has been able to enjoy two decades of rapid growth, but not rapid enough to take over much of the market.
Even with the price premiums and the permissive rules, in 2017 only 1.8 percent of farm commodities produced in the United States were
organic, and in 2018 certified organic products made up just 5.7 percent of all food sold through retail channels.
Assuming the rules do not change, a continued expansion of the organic sector will most likely come
from investments by big corporate players who stay just barely within the rules by devising
technical workarounds. They control against pests by growing indoors hydroponically; they control
weeds with gas-powered flamethrowers instead of chemicals, or with “mulch” carpets made of
black plastic. Some organic farms in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Florida are spreading plastic over
thousands of acres, even though each acre farmed this way generates more than 100 pounds of
nonbiodegradable plastic waste that must be loaded into dumpsters, then taken to a landfill.
Conventional farmers also use plastic mulch, but not as much, and the plastic they use is
biodegradable, so it does not go to a landfill. The National Organic Program does not allow organic
farmers to use most biodegradable plastic mulches because they contain petroleum-based
materials. Purity comes with a price, once again.

harms.
Lobbying creates a economic barrier to entry for new farms pursuing organics
Fristoe, 18 (Colin Fristoe, Colin Fristoe is an undergraduate student at Dartmouth College, studying Economics
and Biology. He thanks Professor John Welborn for his guidance., Win 2018, accessed on 2-4-2022, Cato Journal,
"Health, Sustainability, and the Political Economy of Food Labeling",
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/health-sustainability-political-economy-food-labeling)
The USDA has never claimed that organic foods are safer, healthier, or superior to conventional foods in any way. Yet Americans spent $43
billion on organic products in 2016, and the category has averaged 15 percent growth since 2000 (OTA 2017; FiBL and IFOAM n.d.). How can
this be? A representative from the United Kingdom’s largest agribusiness consulting firm may have answered that question at the 1999 Organic
Food Conference. She said, “If the threats posed by cheaper, conventionally produced products are removed, then the potential to develop organic
foods will be limited” (Schroeder et al. 2016). In the years since, the organic industry has erected barriers to entry,
stacked its own oversight board, and funded advocacy of dubious science and self-serving legislation.
This section examines how and why organic labeling policy is influenced by special interests.
What does the industry have to gain from these activities? The answer should not surprise you: profits. A
review of the worldwide organic market in 2014 estimated that organic farmers had 21 percent higher
gross returns, 24 percent higher benefit–cost ratios, and 35 percent higher net present values (Crowder
and Reganold 2014). Organic farming is also subsidized to the tune of $160 million, as of the 2014
Farm Bill (USDA 2014). Given the higher net present value, conventional farmers should be
rushing into the organic market and driving down the relative price of organic produce. However,
significant barriers to entry prevent this from occurring. The most important barriers are the costs
of compliance and access to organic markets (Damewood 2015;Strochlic and Sierra 2007). Market
access is a barrier because the organic market is only 4 percent of the domestic food market and
concentrated. There is a risk that organic producers won’t be able to find purchasers (Strochlic and
Sierra 2007). Compliance costs include the certification fee, record-keeping costs, liability, and the
three-year transition period during which produce cannot be labeled “organic.” Although record-
keeping and inspections costs can amount to thousands of dollars per year, the price premium
outweighs these costs. However, violating the regulations may lead to a $100,000 penalty and
imprisonment for up to five years, consequences that are far more devastating for small,
unincorporated producers (Cohrssen and Miller 2016). The transition period imposes a large
barrier because farms must absorb lower yields per acre without the offsetting price premium. Like
the rest of the law, there is no scientific basis for the three-year transition because common
pesticides degrade in weeks or months and need to be sprayed directly onto plants to function.
During this period, gross incomes, benefit–cost ratios, and net present values are 10, 7, and 23
percent lower, respectively (Crowder and Reganold 2014). Disease carries an increased risk,
because farmers may have to choose between using a pesticide and starting over or losing the entire
crop. This requirement is so onerous that some large buyers of organic produce are beginning to
offer long-term supply contracts and purchase at a premium during the transition period in order
to increase supply (Strom 2015). Whole Foods Inc., the largest buyer of organic produce, tried to
create a rating system independent of the organic label that would reduce compliance and liability
costs while retaining many of the standards. One supplier complained, “becoming organic is a big
investment of time and money and this ratings system kind of devalues all that” (Strom 2015). As
George Stigler wrote in 1971, incumbents in regulated industries come to demand regulations.
From their point of view, reform would be unfair to those that first ponied up for access to rents.
Organic producers have used regulation to insulate themselves from competition despite controlling
only 1 percent of the food market. This is because the organic food market is emblematic of what
Mancur Olson (1971) called “concentrated benefits versus diffuse costs.” I have discussed how
organic producers benefit, but there is also a subset of organic consumers who strongly believe that
they benefit from organic certification. Advertisers call these people the “LOHAS” and estimate
that they make up 18 percent of their market (Schroeder et al. 2016). LOHAS are “early adopters
and influencers” of policy. At the other end of the spectrum, the group least likely to support
organic labeling is the “unconcerneds,” who by their very nature do not exhibit strong preferences

harms.
one way or the other. Conventional producers may also have weak preferences regarding labeling.
So far, there is no literature on the effect of OFPA on conventional food prices, but the organic
market may still be too niche to affect the world market for produce. The American Farm Bureau
Federation supports or tolerates organic labeling, even as it strongly opposes GMO labeling (Duvall
2017). From its point of view, OFPA benefits 1 percent of farmers without hurting the other 99
percent. The costs instead fall on consumers.
Players in the organic market influence policymaking in several ways. One common mechanism is to
fund advocacy groups that lobby for legislation that would help the industry.Table 1 identifies prominent
donors from the organic industry that support such groups. Advocacy groups typically seek to influence
public opinion by funding and marketing research that portrays conventional agriculture as dangerous.
For example, one researcher published a study shortly after Stanford researchers Smith-Spangler et al.
(2012), claiming to have found “a 94 percent reduction in health risk from the selection of organic
brands.” As phrased, the statement is almost nonsensical and cannot possibly be accurate given the
complexity of estimating environmental risk over a lifetime. It didn’t matter that the researcher was a lead
scientist for the Organic Trade Organization and the publication was only meant to obscure the issue and
undermine the Stanford study (Benbrook 2012;Schroeder et al. 2016). Companies in the industry also join
together to file lawsuits and organize lobbying campaigns for legislation against conventional or biotech
agriculture. Anti-GMO labeling campaigns are particularly common (Schroeder et al. 2016). Studies have
shown that food labels easily influence consumers due to what is known as “framing” (Levin and Gaeth
1988). Organic labels trick consumers into believing that organic food is healthier, safer, and tastier; and
mandatory GMO labeling would enhance this perception. The industry is also engaged in direct lobbying
of policymakers, as noted by Henry Miller and Julie Kelly (2015). They found that the Environmental
Working Group, which advocates against biotechnology and receives donations from 20 organic
producers, spent $1.4 million to lobby U.S. House and Senate members in 2013 and 2014. During
the same time period, the Center for Food Safety spent $1.1 million lobbying, and since 2008 the
Organic Trade Association has also spent more than $1 million on lobbyists. The Organic
Consumers Association and Organic Trade Organization, both industry groups, have their own
political action committees (PACs) for campaigning on behalf of politicians. Individuals in the
industry also contribute money to the political process. One example is the CEO of Stonyfield
Farms, who contributed $419,000 to political campaigns between 2008 and 2014 and was a
“bundler” for President Barack Obama. Whole Foods co-CEO Walter Robb also contributed
$164,000 during the same period. This is only a sample of what Miller and Kelly (2015) call the
“money trail,” but it establishes that lobbying and influence peddling are common in the organic
food industry.

harms.
Pollution
Pollution is generally higher with organic products
Acidification and eutrophication potential are more mixed, but tend to be higher in organic systems; average values across all food types are
higher for organic, although there are likely to be some exceptions in particular contexts. Why are organic systems typically worse in these
measures? The supply of nutrients in conventional and organic systems are very different; nitrogen supply in conventional agriculture is supplied
with the application of synthetic fertilizers, whereas organic farms source their nitrogen from manure application. The timing of nutrient release
in these systems is different: fertilizers release nutrients in response to crop demands, meaning nitrogen is released when required by the crops,
whereas nitrogen released from manure is more dependent on environmental conditions, such as weather conditions, soil moisture and
temperature.
Nutrient-release from manure is therefore not always matched with crop requirements – excess nutrients
which are released but not taken up by crops can run off farmland into waterways such as rivers
and lakes. As a consequence, the pollution of ecosystems with nutrients from organic farms are
often higher than conventional farms, leading to higher eutrophication and acidification potential.
Across all food types, there is no clear winner when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Results vary
strongly depending on food type, although most lie close to a ratio of one (where differences in impact
between the systems are relatively small). Based on average values, we might conclude that to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, we should buy organic pulses and fruits, and conventional cereals,
vegetables, and animal products. In general, the greenhouse gas emission sources of organic and
conventional systems tend to cancel each other out. Conventional systems produce greenhouse gases
through synthetic fertilizer production and application, which is largely balanced by the higher
emissions of nitrous oxide (a strong greenhouse gas) from manure application.11
Organic agriculture proves better for some environmental impacts, and conventional agriculture
for others. These trade-offs can make it difficult to decide which we should be choosing. But should
we be considering all environmental impacts equally? Should some have higher importance than
others?
To evaluate these trade-offs we have to consider a key question: how important is agriculture’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions,
land use, acidification and eutrophication potential, and energy use? Agriculture’s role in land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use is
summarised in the three charts below:
We might therefore conclude that energy use – the only category in which organic agriculture has a clear advantage – is comparatively
substantially less important than other impacts.

harms.
Greenhouse gas emissions increase

“Sustainable” has become a buzzword applicable not only to agriculture and energy production but to sectors as far afield as the building and textile industries. Many large companies tout the
concept and boast a sustainability department, and the United Nations has hundreds of projects concerned with sustainability throughout its many agencies and programs. Some universities offer
courses or even degrees in “sustainability.” One of Stanford University’s oldest dormitories, Roble Hall, houses an initiative called the Roble Living Laboratory for Sustainability at Stanford
(ROLLSS), which includes “undergraduate seminars, a graduate-student speaker series, and activities intended to engage the dorm’s residents in curbing their natural-resource waste.”
So far, so good, but a central part of the initiative is an organic garden — which is not so good, because the students are being schooled in the myth that organic agricultural methods are
sustainable and ethical. And that sophistry is by no means limited to one dormitory; all eight of Stanford’s major dining halls maintain an organic “dedicated teaching garden.”
Advocates of organic agriculture tout it as a “sustainable” way to feed the planet’s expanding population. According to the Worldwatch Institute, “Organic farming has the potential to contribute
to sustainable food security by improving nutrition intake and sustaining livelihoods in rural areas, while simultaneously reducing vulnerability to climate change and enhancing biodiversity.”
This is wishful thinking, if not outright delusion, and unfortunately, it is being promulgated on elite university campuses, including Stanford’s.
The organic movement touts the sustainability of its methods, but the claims do not withstand scrutiny. For example, a study published in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences found that the
potential for groundwater contamination can be dramatically reduced if fertilizers are distributed through the irrigation system according to plant demand during the growing season. But organic
farming depends on compost, the release of which is not matched with plant demand.
The study found that “intensive organic agriculture relying on solid organic matter, such as
composted manure that is implemented in the soil prior to planting as the sole fertilizer, resulted in
significant down-leaching of nitrate” into groundwater. With many of the world’s most fertile
farming regions in the throes of drought and aquifer depletion — which was the subject of a 60
Minutes segment — increased nitrate in groundwater is hardly a mark of sustainability.
Moreover, although composting gets good PR as a “green” activity, on a large scale it generates a
significant amount of greenhouse gases (and is also often a source of pathogenic bacteria applied to
crops).

harms.
Pollution worsens–that’s because of sulfur

Varanasi, 19 (Anuradha Varanasi, MA in Science Journalism from Columbia University in New York City. , 10-22-
2019, accessed on 2-4-2022, State of the Planet at Columbia University Climate School, "Is Organic Food Really
Better for the Environment?", https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/10/22/organic-food-better-environment/)
While researchers and the general public remain divided on whether organic farming is more sustainable
than conventional farming, Sonali McDermid, an assistant professor at the department of environmental
studies at New York University, says that it is very hard to generalize across any farming systems or label
conventional or organic farming as “good” or “bad”. “They have very different manifestations, depending
upon where you go,” she said.
“An apt example would be the case of a farm involved in the production of organic berries in
Central Valley, California. While they are not using additional land area or chemical inputs like in
conventional farming, they are using other really strong inputs like sulfur,” explained McDermid.
“This can be harmful to farmworkers as they need to wear proper suits and protective gear even
though it is not chemically synthetic. Despite that, it is just as powerful in some cases.”

harms.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka tried to go all-organic, and its food supply is now in crisis, with overall crop
yields cut in half and some crops failing entirely
Sunde 21 – Sunde, J. (2021). Sri Lanka’s organic farming mandate leads to food shortage, economic
emergency. Retrieved 2 February 2022, from https://blog.acton.org/archives/122451-sri-lankas-organic-farming-
mandate-leads-to-food-shortage-economic-emergency.html
[Joseph Sunde is an associate editor and writer for the Acton Institute. His work has appeared in venues such as the Foundation
for Economic Education, First ThingsIntellectual Takeout, and Patheos. ]
In April, the Sri Lankan government banned the import and use of fertilizers and agrochemicals,
including insecticides and herbicides, marking a significant step in their goal to become the world’s
first country to produce 100% organic agriculture.
According to President Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the move was necessary to reverse the country’s overuse of
harmful chemicals, which he says has led to “environmental degradation, water pollution, and has caused
increased greenhouse gas emissions.”
Now, just months after the decision, the country’s food supply is already in crisis.
Rajapakse has declared an economic emergency, issuing new price controls and regulations in an attempt
to curb food hoarding and inflation. Despite government claims to the contrary, the country is
experiencing a significant food shortage. According to The Print’s Samyak Pandey, “a former army
general has been appointed as ‘commissioner general of essential services’ to raid and seize food stocks.”
It’s an unfortunate chapter in Sri Lanka’s steady decline in GDP, a trend that hasn’t been helped by
COVID-19, which continues to cripple the nation’s tourism industry. It was from this already precarious
position that the government issued its organic mandate — blocking a range of imports and further
inhibiting the ability of its citizens to create and innovate for their families and communities. Given the
disruptions, experts now expect crops to produce roughly half of the country’s typical output.
According to W.A. Wijewardena, Sri Lanka’s former central bank deputy governor, the policy is “a
dream with unimaginable social, political and economic costs.”
The South China Morning Post summarizes the situation as follows
“Tea plantation owners are predicting crops could fail as soon as October, with cinnamon,
pepper and staples such as rice also facing trouble.
“Master tea maker Herman Gunaratne, one of 46 experts picked by Rajapaksa to guide the
organic revolution, fears the worst. ‘The ban has drawn the tea industry into complete disarray,’
Gunaratne said at his plantation in Ahangama, in rolling hills 160 kilometres (100 miles) south of
Colombo. The consequences for the country are unimaginable.
“The 76-year-old, who grows one of the world’s most expensive teas, fears that Sri Lanka’s
average annual crop of 300,000 tonnes will be slashed by half unless the government changes
course.”

harms.
In a different interview, Gunaratne notes that “if we go completely organic, we will lose 50 percent of the
crop, (but) we are not going to get 50 percent higher prices.” As the country’s largest export, tea would
normally yield around $1.25 billion a year.
Even in a best-case scenario — where the most innovative methods in organic farming were used
and properly implemented — the country’s yields would still be greatly diminished. But through the
rushed, overnight roll-out, results have been worse than many imagined, exposing the state’s many blind
spots one day at a time.
According to Pandey, the majority of Sri Lanka’s farmers still lack the knowledge and organic fertilizers
they need to execute on the government’s demands:
“An island-wide survey of farmers found out that 90 per cent use chemicals for farming and 85 per cent
expected sizable reductions in their harvest if disallowed to use fertilisers. Moreover, the survey said that
only 20 per cent farmers had the knowledge to transition to completely organic production.
“It also found that 44 per cent farmers are experiencing a decline in harvests, and 85 per cent are
expecting a fall in the future. The survey also revealed that many key crops in Sri Lanka depend on heavy
use of chemical input for cultivation, with the highest dependency in paddy at 94 per cent, followed by
tea and rubber at 89 per cent each.
“With the shift from chemical to organic cultivation, Sri Lanka needs a large domestic production of
organic fertilisers and biofertilisers. However, the situation is very bleak.
“According to an estimate, the country generates about 3,500 tonnes of municipal organic waste every
day. About 2-3 million tonnes of compost can be produced from this on an annual basis. However, just
organic paddy cultivation requires nearly 4 million tonnes of compost annually at a rate of 5 tonnes per
hectare. For tea plantations, the demand for organic manure could be another 3 million tonnes.”
At this point, one might be tempted to take solace in the nobility of the original cause — long-term
environmental health and sustainability. Surely these “unimaginable costs” are all for something?
But even here, the desired results seem unlikely. As the Hoover Institution’s Henry Miller explains,
“the fatal flaw of organic agriculture is the low yields that cause it to be wasteful of water and
farmland.” According to a study by plant pathologist Steven Savage, organic farming has its own share
of environmental costs and side effects: “To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have
required farming of 109 million more acres of land — an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland
areas in the lower 48 states, or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation.”
Another study in the Annual Review of Resource Economics came to a similar conclusion:
“In terms of environmental and climate change effects, organic farming is less polluting than
conventional farming when measured per unit of land but not when measured per unit of output.
Organic farming, which currently accounts for only 1% of global agricultural land, is lower yielding on
average.
“Due to higher knowledge requirements, observed yield gaps might further increase if a larger number of
farmers would switch to organic practices. Widespread upscaling of organic agriculture would cause
additional loss of natural habitats and also entail output price increases, making food less affordable for
poor consumers in developing countries. Organic farming is not the paradigm for sustainable agriculture
and food security, but smart combinations of organic and conventional methods could contribute toward
sustainable productivity increases in global agriculture.”

harms.
Sustainability
Organic agriculture damages sustainability
Zimmerman, 20 (Naomi Zimmerman, Assistant Professor at The University of British Columbia, 2-5-2020,
accessed on 2-4-2022, State of the Planet at Columbia University Climate School, "So, Is Organic Food Actually
More Sustainable?", https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/02/05/organic-sustainable-food/)
This being said, organic farm practices are not necessarily always the most sustainable option. To
control pests and weeds without using pesticides, organic farmers often lay down sheets of black
plastic over the soil surrounding their crops. This warms the soil and accelerates the rate of plant
growth while preventing erosion. Black plastic also allows the usage of drip irrigation, which lets
water drip slowly into the roots of plants, saving water. However, the glaring issue with lining huge
swaths of land with single-use plastic is that it creates an immense amount of waste. Biodegradable
plastic, a more sustainable alternative, isn’t allowed under United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) organic rules because it contains petroleum.
The overall sustainability of organic agriculture is further complicated when land-use is taken into
consideration. Since it does not use synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, organic agriculture has a 25
percent lower crop yield compared to conventional farming. Many organic farms also rely on tilling
— stirring up soil by running blades through it — to kill weeds in place of conventional pesticides
and herbicides. The resulting loss of topsoil, the most agriculturally productive component of soil,
contributes to these lowered yields. In a world that must use finite arable land to feed an ever-
growing population, optimizing resources is crucial. A greater demand for agricultural land could
incentivize even more deforestation and land clearing, threatening biodiversity and reducing
carbon stocks.
On the flip side, just because produce isn’t labeled “organic,” it doesn’t mean it’s not sustainable. Many small or community-based farms grow
crops in a way that is just as, if not more, sustainable than “organic” food production. Obtaining the USDA’s organic certification is very
expensive and requires going through a heavily bureaucratic process. This can act as a barrier to many small farms, which may not use synthetic
pesticides or fertilizers, and may even implement other sustainable practices that go far beyond requirements set by the USDA. For instance, the
USDA organic requirements instruct farms to wrap food in plastic, which many smaller farms choose not to do. Small farms also tend to plant
more diverse crops compared to conventional industrial agriculture. Additionally, locally sourced food creates less carbon emissions due to
reduced transportation distances. Organic doesn’t necessarily equate to being local, and oftentimes the latter choice is more sustainable.
So, it turns out there isn’t a definitive answer to my question. When the costs and benefits are weighed for both organic and conventional
agriculture, experts have argued that the most sustainable diet should ideally be sourced from both organic and conventional agriculture,
depending on the type of food. Fruit and vegetables, for which nutritional value is the main priority, should be grown organically. Grains and
other staple crops, in which caloric density is the main priority, should be grown conventionally. Ultimately, sustainable food production is a
tradeoff between optimizing yield and minimizing environmental degradation.

harms.
Environment is better with conventional agriculture as compared to organic agriculture
In this post, we present the empirical evidence comparing organic to conventional agriculture in
terms of environmental impact. Despite strong public perception of organic agriculture producing
better environmental outcomes, we show that conventional agriculture often performs better on
environmental measures including land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of water
bodies. There are, however, some contexts where organic agriculture may be considered
appropriate.
When aiming to provide a comparison of the relative impacts of organic and conventional agriculture, it
can often be misleading and misrepresentative to rely on the results of a single comparative study: there
will always be single, localised examples where the environmental impacts of a conventional farm are
lower than that of a proximate organic farm, and vice versa.7 In order to provide a global and cross-
cutting overview of this comparison, Clark and Tilman (2017) published a meta-analysis of results
of published organic-conventional comparisons across 742 agricultural systems over 90 unique
foods.8
Their analysis reviewed relative impacts across the range of food types – cereals, pulses and oilcrops, fruits, vegetables, dairy and eggs, and meat
– and across a range of environmental impact categories – greenhouse gas emissions, land use, acidification potential, eutrophication potential,
and energy use. ‘Eutrophication’ refers to the over-enrichment or pollution of surface waters with nutrients such as nitrogen & phosphorous.
Although eutrophication can also occur naturally, the runoff of fertilizer and manure from agricultural land is a dominant source of nutrients.9
This disaggregation of food types and environmental impacts is important: there is no reason to suggest that the optimal agricultural system for
cereal production is the same as for fruits; and there are often trade-offs in terms of environmental impact – one system can prove better in terms
of greenhouse gas emissions but higher in land use, for example.
Food systems are made up of many phases – ranging from pre-farm activities, crop production, animal feed production, and harvesting, to
transportation, distribution, and cooking. To fully and consistently account for the various stages of production, a process called life-cycle
analysis (LCA) is used. LCAs attempt to quantify the combined impacts across several stages of production by considering all inputs and outputs
in the complete process. The key in comparing LCAs between products is ensuring that the same number of
stages of the supply chain are included in all analyses. For this meta-analysis, Clark & Tilman (2017)
compared 164 LCAs which account for inputs pre-farm and on-farm (up until the food leaves the
farm).
The aggregated results of Clark & Tilman’s study is shown in the chart below. This comparison measures
the relative impact ratio of organic to conventional agriculture, whereby a value of 1.0 means the impact
of both systems are the same; values greater than 1.0 mean the impacts of organic systems are higher
(worse) (for example, a value of 2.0 would mean organic impacts were twice as high as conventional);
and values less than 1.0 mean conventional systems are worse (a value of 0.5 means conventional impacts
are twice as high). We see these relative impacts measured by food type across our range of
environmental impacts with averages and standard error ranges shown.
We see large differences in impact patterns across environmental categories and food types. For some
impacts, one system is consistently better than the alternative; whilst for others, results are mixed
depending on crop type and the local agricultural context. The clearest results are for land and energy
use. Organic systems consistently perform worse in terms of land use, regardless of food type. As
we explore in detail in our entry on Yield and Land Use in Agriculture, the world has achieved
large gains in productivity and gains in yield over the past half-century in particular, largely as a
result of the availability and intensification of inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides. As a result,
the majority of conventional systems achieve a significantly higher yield as compared to organic
systems. Therefore, to produce the same quantity of food, organic systems require a larger land
area.

harms.
This produces the inverse result for energy use. The industrial production of chemical inputs such as
fertilizers and pesticides is an energy-intensive process. The absence of synthetic chemical inputs in
organic systems therefore means that their energy use is predominantly lower than in intensive
conventional agriculture. The exception to this result is vegetables, for which energy use in organic
systems tends to be higher. Some of this additional energy use is explained by the use of alternative
methods of weed and pest control in organic vegetable farming; a technique widely applied as an
alternative to synthetic pesticide application is the use of ‘propane-fueled flame weeding’.10 The
process of propane production and machinery used in its application can add energy costs –
especially for vegetable crops.

harms.
Pesticide use worsens under the affirmative
Wilcox, 11 (Christie Wilcox, 7-18-2011, accessed on 2-4-2022, Scientific American Blog Network, "Mythbusting
101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture",
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-
sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)
[Christie Wilcox is a postdoctoral researcher in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Hawaii, where she studies
venom. She is also a science blogger and communicator. Follow Christie Wilcox on Twitter Credit: Nick Higgins]
People believe a lot of things that we have little to no evidence for, like that vikings wore horned helmets or that you can see the Great Wall of
China from space. One of the things I like to do on my blogs is bust commonly held myths that I think matter. For example, I get really annoyed
when I hear someone say sharks don't get cancer (I'll save that rant for another day). From now onward, posts that attack conventionally believed
untruths will fall under a series I'm going to call "Mythbusting 101."
Ten years ago, Certified Organic didn't exist in the United States. Yet in 2010, a mere eight years
after USDA's regulations officially went into effect, organic foods and beverages made $26.7 billion.
In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped to about $52 billion worldwide despite
the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional
methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for what they believe are
the best foods available. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the
planet from the evils of conventional agriculture - a complete win-win. And who wouldn't buy organic,
when it just sounds so good?
Here's the thing: there are a lot of myths out there about organic foods, and a lot of propaganda
supporting methods that are rarely understood. It's like your mother used to say: just because everyone is jumping off a
bridge doesn't mean you should do it, too. Now, before I get yelled at too much, let me state unequivocally that I'm not saying organic farming is
bad - far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic
farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are
much better for the soil and environment. My goal in this post isn't to bash organic farms, instead, it's to bust the worst of the myths that surround
them so that everyone can judge organic farming based on facts. In particular, there are four myths thrown around like they're real that just drive
me crazy.
Myth #1: Organic Farms Don't Use Pesticides

When the Soil Association, a major organic accreditation body in the UK, asked consumers why
they buy organic food, 95% of them said their top reason was to avoid pesticides. They, like many
people, believe that organic farming involves little to no pesticide use. I hate to burst the bubble,
but that's simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides
and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?
So was I, when I first learned this from a guy I was dating. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio. He was grumbling about how everyone praised
the local organic farms for being so environmentally-conscientious, even though they sprayed their crops with pesticides all the time while his
family farm got no credit for being pesticide-free (they're not organic because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year). I didn't believe
him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the
growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And,
shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the
government. Why the government isn't keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a
damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by
conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of
effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two
organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 1. In
contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount
of the organic alternatives.
The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally.
They're organic by certification, but you'd never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and
organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

harms.
What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides
used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at
all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are
generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for
example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As
more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either. Many natural
pesticides have been found to be potential - or serious - health risks.2
Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for
decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of
subtropical plants, it was considered "safe" as well as "organic". However, research has shown that
rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of
all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms
in rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone's use as a pesticide
has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, it's
still poured into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove
unwanted fish species.

harms.
Yield
A study of five crops shows less crop yield under organic farming
Kniss et al., 16 (Andrew R. Kniss, Steven D. Savage, and Randa Jabbour, University of Wyoming, Department of
Plant Sciences, 8-23-2016, accessed on 2-5-2022, CropLife Foundation, "Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths
and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States",
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161673)
Organic crop yield for all five crops in Fig 3 were significantly less than conventional crop yield in
our analysis based on USDA estimates, which is similar to results presented by Seufert et al. [8],
and with the exception of tomato, also similar to Ponisio’s [7] meta-analysis. For maize, soybean,
and tomato, our analysis of UDSA data shows an organic yield gap that is substantially greater than
previous estimates; that is, commercial organic yields for these crops are further behind
conventional yields than previous analyses suggest. There are, our analysis indicates, still
improvements to be made in commercial organic production of maize, tomato, and soybean for these
crops to meet the results obtained mostly under experimental conditions. For wheat and barley, USDA
yield estimates from 2014 suggest yield ratios similar to the estimates from Seufert et al. [8] and Ponisio
[7].
Organic agriculture produces low yields

Organic farming might work well for certain local environments on a small scale, but it is hugely
wasteful of arable land and water because of its low yields. Organic farms produce far less food per
unit of land and water than conventional ones. Plant pathologist Dr. Steve Savage analyzed the data
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2014 Organic Survey, which reports various measures
of productivity from most of the certified organic farms in the nation, and compared them to those
at conventional farms, crop by crop, state by state. His findings are extraordinary. Of the 68 crops
surveyed, there was a “yield gap” — poorer performance of organic farms — in 59. And many of
those gaps, or shortfalls, were impressive: strawberries, 61 percent less than conventional; fresh
tomatoes, 61 percent less; tangerines, 58 percent less; carrots, 49 percent less; cotton, 45 percent
less; rice, 39 percent less; peanuts, 37 percent less. These findings are important. As Savage
observed:
To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of 109 million more
acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas in the lower 48
states, or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation.
The low yields of organic agriculture impose a variety of stresses on farmland and especially on water
consumption. A British meta-analysis published in the Journal of Environmental Management (2012)
addressed the question of whether organic farming reduces environmental impacts. It identified some of
the stresses that were higher in organic, as opposed to conventional, agriculture: “ammonia emissions,
nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems,” as
were “land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit.”

harms.
Lower organic crop yields are largely inevitable, given the arbitrary rejection of various advanced
methods and technologies. Organic agriculture affords limited pesticide options, difficulties in
meeting peak fertilizer demand, and a lack of access to varieties modified with the most precise and
predictable techniques of genetic engineering. If the scale of organic production were significantly
increased, the lower yields would increase the pressure for the conversion of more land to farming
and the burden on water supplies, both of which are serious environmental issues.
In short, organic practices are to agriculture what cigarette smoking is to human health.
Organic products flat out refuse GMOs which can skyrocket production
[Christie Wilcox is a postdoctoral researcher in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Hawaii, where she
studies venom. She is also a science blogger and communicator. Follow Christie Wilcox on Twitter Credit: Nick
Higgins]
Myth #3: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they're doing the world a favor by eating organic.
The simple fact is that they're not - at least the issue is not that cut and dry.
Yes, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been found to be ecologically
damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically
damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all
together. Take, for example, organic farming's adamant stance against genetically modified
organisms (GMOs).
GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve
farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use - which is exactly what organic farming
seeks to do. As we speak, there are sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that
currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the
poorest nations in the world15. Scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis,
and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we
can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic
glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in
most people. Perhaps even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines
against hepatitis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be
administered. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are
astronomical.
Yet organic proponents refuse to even give GMOs a chance, even to the point of hypocrisy. For
example, organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil
bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It's one of the most widely
used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene
encoding the Bt toxin into a plant's genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people
willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species
of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used
and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals,
like making food plants flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means

harms.
of killing weeds. If the goal is protect the environment, why not incorporate the newest technologies
which help us do so?
But the real reason organic farming isn't more green than conventional is that while it might be better for
local environments on the small scale, organic farms produce far less food per unit land than
conventional ones. Organic farms produce around 80% that what the same size conventional farm
produces16 (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!).
Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of
those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people
suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we're using
now. Unfortunately, what's far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of
new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left
for many threatened and endangered species.
Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth's ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all
the world's cities and suburbs. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet's ecosystem and its inhabitants than
agriculture. What will happen to what's left of our planet's wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 20% or more of the world's ice-free
land to accommodate for organic methods?
The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional
farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides
and fertilizers polluting the world's waterways from conventional agriculture are, it's a far better
ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether. That's not to say that there's no
hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic
methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture
becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. On the small scale, particularly in areas where food
surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial, but presuming it's the end all be all of
sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

harms.
Con Blocks

harms.
AT: Animal Welfare

Organic farming isn’t better for animals
Chait 19—Is Organic Livestock Production More Humane?. (2019). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/is-organic-livestock-production-more-humane
[Jennifer Chait is a former writer for The Balance Small Business who covered organic businesses.]
There are clear benefits to organic livestock production for humans, such as fewer chemicals, pesticides,
antibiotics, hormones, and conservation of fossil fuels and water to name a few. However, in most cases,
organic production is not much better for animal welfare than conventional production.
Keep in mind that most animal advocates don't accept that organic is humane in terms of animal
treatment. Because of this, using humane treatment of livestock as a selling point for organic meat,
dairy or eggs can seriously backfire on you, especially as consumers become savvy about food
production methods and what labels really mean.
In general, organic livestock producers should focus on other organic selling points that do not involve
animal rights, unless you're running a dairy or egg operation (not meat) and can clearly prove that your
operation goes far above and beyond NOP livestock practice standards. Lastly, if you're an aspiring
organic producer with animal welfare in mind, it's best to stick to organic crops, not livestock, at least
until the NOP improves their organic livestock standards.

harms.
Animal welfare remains the same
Fristoe, 18 (Colin Fristoe, Colin Fristoe is an undergraduate student at Dartmouth College, studying Economics
and Biology. He thanks Professor John Welborn for his guidance., Win 2018, accessed on 2-4-2022, Cato Journal,
"Health, Sustainability, and the Political Economy of Food Labeling",
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2018/health-sustainability-political-economy-food-labeling)
Environmental and animal welfare concerns were the primary impetus for the activists who sought an
organic certification program. However, organic farming produces a mixed bag of environmental
effects, largely because it shuns promising technologies. I have already discussed how organic
practices may lead to increased pesticide use and topsoil depletion when compared with
conventional best practices. Organic yields are also 34 percent lower, meaning that an organic
farmer must plant an acre and a half for every acre planted by a conventional farmer to achieve the
same yield (Seuvert, Ramankutty, and Foley 2012). One of the ecological arguments for organic farming
is that it promotes genetic diversity, but widespread adoption of organic agriculture would devastate
hundreds of millions of acres or forestland. New techniques in genetic engineering, such as the
CRISPR-Cas9 system, have even greater potential to create designer crops that will yield more food
using less land and energy. To be sure, many organic farming practices have benefits. The use of
manure, crop rotation, and cover crops leads to higher soil carbon content, which promotes
microbial diversity and drought-resistance (Gattinger et al. 2012,Trewavas 2001). Even so, organic
production is inefficient compared to an integrated approach that would combine the best practices
of both systems.
Similarly, it is not clear that organic livestock standards are effective or objectively improve the
lives of animals. Livestock and poultry are required to have access to the outdoors. This is the only
welfare requirement, and it is up to certifying agencies to interpret. To be fair, the subject is
difficult to standardize and involves a number of dilemmas. There is a tradeoff between health,
affect, and natural living (Fraser 2008). For instance, organic standards prohibit the use of
prophylactic antibiotics, but this leads to higher incidence of parasite-related diseases in organic
cattle (Lund and Algers 2003). Some animal welfare advocates approve, wanting to provide as
natural a life as possible. Others believe our duty is to spare animals from the agony of disease
(Fraser 2008). Intensive systems can provide more shelter and bedding, ration food and water more
fairly, and give animals more attention. Not all farmers treat animals well–endemic abuse is well
documented. However, organic livestock is treated just as badly as conventional livestock (PETA
2017). Organic food seems to be a luxury good that possesses no advantages over its alternative for
humans, animals, or the environment.
By now, I have identified the key organic standards and argued that they cannot be justified by
market failure. The organic label does not provide useful information or nudge consumers toward
welfare-enhancing products. Because consumers are misled into paying up to 300 percent more, it
may even be welfare-reducing. In this case, why do we have these standards and what would be a
better way to address food safety, animal welfare, and the environment? These are the subjects of
the next two sections.

harms.
AT: Bees
Bees aren’t going extinct, they’re not even native to the US, their US populations depend on
large-scale agriculture, and issues with farmed beehives don’t stem from pesticide use
Logomasini 20—Luddites, not Almond Milk, Pose Biggest Risk to Honeybees - Competitive Enterprise Institute.
(2020). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from https://cei.org/blog/luddites-not-almond-milk-pose-biggest-risk-to-
honeybees/
Similarly, biologist Steve Savage examined U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey data to

compare productivity of organic farming versus conventional, high-yield farming. He empirically
demonstrates that organic farming is less productive and would require planting much more land.
Savage notes:
To have raised all U.S. crops as organic in 2014 would have required farming of one hundred
nine million more acres of land. That is an area equivalent to all the parkland and wildland areas
in the lower 48 states or 1.8 times as much as all the urban land in the nation. As of 2014 the
reported acreage of organic cropland only represented 0.44 percent of the total, but if organic
were to expand significantly, its lower land-use-efficiency would become problematic. This
is one of several reasons to question the assertion that organic farming is better for the
environment.
Greens and many journalists completely ignore these realities when making claims that high-yield
farming, and pesticides in particular, threaten to make honeybees extinct. In reality, it’s their
policies that would threaten wildlife.
Moreover, there’s no reason to believe that honey bees are anywhere near going extinct. In fact, the
number of honeybees and hives are up all around the world in good measure because they are part
of high-yield agriculture. As the Guardian article notes, they are basically considered livestock, and they
exist in the United States because they have economic value for pollination services and honey
production.
In fact, honeybees are not even native to the United States; colonists brought them here from
Europe for honey production. Some domesticated honeybees brought to the United States have
managed to form hives in the wild, but their populations are relatively small. According to Cornell
University biologist Thomas Seeley, wild honeybees in the United States are doing reasonably well,
proving more capable in fighting off diseases than domesticated honeybees.
Still, domestic honeybees make up the bulk of honeybee hives in the nation. About 60 percent of honey in
the United States is produced by large commercial beekeeping operations—those with more than 300
colonies. These large operations also charge fees for pollination services, trucking bees for farms around
the nation, which is a key reason for keeping bees.

harms.
If we no longer needed these honeybees to pollinate almonds, or whatever else, beekeepers would
have far less incentive to keep hives. And since 85 percent of commercial honeybees eventually
serve almond groves, beekeepers might have to cut their number of hives substantially—reducing
honeybee populations—if we all stopped eating almonds.
So anyone interested in maintaining the population of domestic honeybees should be happy to eat
almonds and drink almond milk, and they most certainly should support high-yield agriculture. In
fact, because of their economic value in honey and pollination services, the number of honeybee hives in
the world have hit record highs. As journalist Jon Entine points out, since 1961, their numbers have
increased 45 percent.
That said, these domestic honeybees face some serious challenges—largely related to disease
transmission—which is something beekeepers, as well as a legion of academic researchers, are working
to address. Just as cattlemen must take care of their cows, beekeepers, too, have to manage health and
nutrition of their hives. While diseases are the main problem, researchers have noted that additional
stressors may make it harder for bees to fight diseases. Stressors they have identified include dietary
deficiencies, stresses associated with transporting hives from one farm to another, and traces of
pesticides.
Although greens and journalists often list pesticides at the top of their lists of potential stresses they
are, overall, a minor issue compared to other things, and their impacts can be managed. Moreover,
researchers have not been able to establish any association between pesticide use and the loss of
honeybee hives.
Ironically, domestic honeybees’ main exposure to pesticides are products that beekeepers use inside the
hive in an attempt to control tiny pests known as Varroa destructor mites—a major cause of hive loss.
Unfortunately, there is a limited number of pesticides available to treat hives and kill the mites, as the
mites are growing resistant. In fact, a quote in another Guardian article on the topic hits on this point:
“We are increasingly concerned about varroa mites and the viruses they spread,” said Dennis
vanEngelsdorp, an entomologist at the University of Maryland and president of the Bee Informed
Partnership.
VanEngelsdorp said that the products used by beekeepers to remove the mites seemed to be becoming
less effective.
“The products” vanEngelsdorp refers to here are pesticide products. Resistance can become a severe
problem when there are few new products on the market. Unfortunately, federal regulations are so
stringent that it’s not profitable enough to produce “minor use” pesticides—products that would serve
relatively small markets.
However, other efforts are underway to help domestic honeybees, including efforts to breed mite-resistant
honeybees. The Genetic Literacy Project recently published an interesting article on this topic that’s
worth checking out.
Commercial beekeepers certainly do have their challenges, but that shouldn’t be confused with how
bees are doing in the wild, nor should it be an excuse to demonize useful agro-technologies and
make claims about pesticides that are out of line with reality. At the end of the day, not only do
world populations depend on high-yield agriculture, so do the bees, butterflies, and other wildlife.
These technologies mean we can make more food for humans on a modest amount of farmland,
while leaving a good deal of habitat available to wildlife.

harms.

harms.
AT: Biodiversity
Organic farming can result in a slight increase in local biodiversity, but at the cost of
using more land
Tscharntke et al. 21—Tscharntke, T., Grass, I., Wanger, T., Westphal, C., & Batáry, P.(2021). Beyond organic
farming – harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends In Ecology & Evolution, 36(10), 919-930. doi:
10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010
[ Teja Tscharntke is a Professor of Agroecology at the University of Göttingen, studied sociology and biology in Marburg and
Gießen, did his doctorate in Hamburg and habilitated in Karlsruhe.]
Biodiversity continues to decline rapidly, despite decades of repeated national and international policy
efforts. Agricultural intensification is a major driver of biodiversity losses, while conversion to organic
farming has been suggested as a key technique to halt or reverse this trend.
In contrast to this widespread view, certified organic agriculture raises local richness of widespread
species by just a third when compared to conventional farming. This is achieved through waiving
synthetic agrochemicals, but leads to considerable yield losses, requiring the conversion of more
land to agriculture to obtain similar yields.
Diversifying cropland and reducing field size on a landscape level can multiply biodiversity in both
organic and conventional agriculture without reducing cropland productivity.
Complementing such increases in cropland heterogeneity with at least 20% seminatural habitat per
landscape should be a key recommendation in current biodiversity frameworks.
We challenge the widespread appraisal that organic farming is the fundamental alternative to
conventional farming for harnessing biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Certification of organic
production is largely restricted to banning synthetic agrochemicals, resulting in limited benefits for
biodiversity but high yield losses despite ongoing intensification and specialisation. In contrast,
successful agricultural measures to enhance biodiversity include diversifying cropland and reducing field
size, which can multiply biodiversity while sustaining high yields in both conventional and organic
systems. Achieving a landscape-level mosaic of natural habitat patches and fine-grained cropland
diversification in both conventional and organic agriculture is key for promoting large-scale biodiversity.
This needs to be urgently acknowledged by policy makers for an agricultural paradigm shift.

harms.
AT: GMOs dangerous

GMOs are widely supported by scientists and have no health or environmental issues
Hurst 14— Scientists Sit Out Genetic Engineering Debate (2014). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.aei.org/articles/scientists-sit-out-genetic-engineering-debate/
[Blake Hurst is an essayist and famer in Northwestern Missouri]
The debate over GMOs is often compared to the controversy over global warming, but I don’t think the
analogy holds. Although most climate scientists agree that man has caused global warming, there are
academics who specialize in climate science who disagree, at least in part, with their peers. It’s
instructive that the opposition to genetic engineering is led by non-scientists. Television
personalities, bloggers, philosophers, and journalists all oppose the technology, but the opposition
to genetic engineering among the professional community, at least opposition on safety grounds, is
essentially nonexistent. That unanimity, while reassuring, has led to a paradox: Scientist are reluctant to
engage, because they don’t want to argue with people whom they don’t respect. Like my Missouri
friends, they won’t waste their valuable research time engaging with those they consider not worthy of
their intellect and their time.
Here’s what Jon Entine, visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has to say about the
scientific consensus on GMOs:
More than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies — including the National
Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
American Medical Association and every major science oversight group in Europe and
across the developed and developing world — have by now issued summary statements that
foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe as conventional or organic varieties
— and often times are safer because they undergo extensive evaluations for approval.
According to Entine, the last year has seen a realization among many in the media that the case against
GMOs is without merit. The European Union is moving toward allowing more of the technology, and
even India will soon allow GMO trials. The New Yorker recently ran an article that was critical of anti-
GMO crusader Vandana Shiva, and even Mother Jones’s series of articles dealing with the safety of GMO
foods did not find much to worry about. Entine references a recent article in an Italian science journal,
compiling some 1,783 studies done in the last decade about biotechnology. Researchers found “little
to no evidence” that GM crops have a negative environmental impact on their surroundings.
There are studies with different conclusions. Perhaps the most famous is the Seralini study, which
purported to show that Roundup, the herbicide used with genetically modified crops, causes tumors in
rats. First published in 2012, it was withdrawn later by the journal where it appeared, after near
unanimous opprobrium from the scientific community. It recently re-appeared in an “open access”
journal, but the authors had done nothing to correct the errors in the original study.

harms.
AT: Health
Organic foods aren’t more healthy or safe than inorganic ones
GLP, 21 (Are organic foods healthier than conventional foods?. (2022). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/are-organic-foods-healthier-than-conventional-foods/)
[The Genetic Literacy Project is a nonpartisan outreach and educational nonprofit charity committed to aiding the public, media
and policymakers by promoting science literacy and improving the lives of our global community. The GLP supports
transparent, ethical, science-based regulations of biotechnology and related sciences that are revolutionizing medicine,
increasing sustainable farming and food practices in the face of increasing climate disruption, and limiting dangers posed by
disease-carrying plant and insect pests.]
The growth in popularity of organic foods has been driven, to a large extent, by claims that they are
healthier or more nutritious than those grown by conventional farming methods. Organic boosters argue
that the synthetic pesticides and herbicides used by conventional farmers degrade the quality of the soil
and result in more pesticide residue at potentially dangerous levels in our food. This is misleading as all
pesticides in use today are tightly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and pose no
threat to human health when used as directed. It should be noted that organic farmers also use
pesticides, and often the same chemicals applied by conventional farmers.
Responding to widespread misconceptions, in April 2021, the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural
Organization, stated, “Organic food is often seen by consumers as healthy, tasty and environmentally
friendly, but the organic food certification is not necessarily a synonym for safe food.”
Most independent studies indicate that there are no significant health or nutritional differences

between food grown conventionally versus organically. There are limited examples of organic crops
or conventional crops with greater levels of a particular nutrient, but at levels that are not
materially significant. When the relative costs are taken into account, the cost per unit of nutrient,
conventional crops come out far ahead. Most nutritionists argue that it is more important for people to
increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables regardless of how they are grown.

harms.
Organic foods may have slightly better nutrition, but it’s not clear that these would result
in differential health effects. Effects on lowered allergies, obesity or nutrition aren’t
conclusive.
Mie 17 (Mie et al. [7 other authors] (2017). Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a
comprehensive review [metareview]. Environmental Health, 16(1). doi: 10.1186/s12940-017-0315-4)
[Axel Mie earned his PhD in analytical chemistry from Lund University in Sweden. His main research interests are the effects of
agriculture production methods and production systems on human health, including risk factors for the development of allergies
in children.]
This review summarises existing evidence on the impact of organic food on human health. It compares
organic vs. conventional food production with respect to parameters important to human health and
discusses the potential impact of organic management practices with an emphasis on EU conditions.
Organic food consumption may reduce the risk of allergic disease and of overweight and obesity,
but the evidence is not conclusive due to likely residual confounding, as consumers of organic food
tend to have healthier lifestyles overall. However, animal experiments suggest that identically
composed feed from organic or conventional production impacts in different ways on growth and
development. In organic agriculture, the use of pesticides is restricted, while residues in conventional
fruits and vegetables constitute the main source of human pesticide exposures. Epidemiological studies
have reported adverse effects of certain pesticides on children's cognitive development at current levels of
exposure, but these data have so far not been applied in formal risk assessments of individual pesticides.
Differences in the composition between organic and conventional crops are limited, such as a
modestly higher content of phenolic compounds in organic fruit and vegetables, and likely also a
lower content of cadmium in organic cereal crops. Organic dairy products, and perhaps also meats,
have a higher content of omega-3 fatty acids compared to conventional products. However, these
differences are likely of marginal nutritional significance. Of greater concern is the prevalent use of
antibiotics in conventional animal production as a key driver of antibiotic resistance in society; antibiotic
use is less intensive in organic production. Overall, this review emphasises several documented and likely
human health benefits associated with organic food production, and application of such production
methods is likely to be beneficial within conventional agriculture, e.g., in integrated pest management.

harms.
There is no solid empirical evidence that indicates organic products are healthier
[Christie Wilcox is a postdoctoral researcher in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Hawaii, where she studies
venom. She is also a science blogger and communicator. Follow Christie Wilcox on Twitter Credit: Nick Higgins]
Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms,
organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that
organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones - and scientists have been comparing
the two for over 50 years.
Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on
organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 11.
These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in
organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any
differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, ?-carotene, and calcium.
There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones
had higher phosphorus and acidity - none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis
of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in
nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly
trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to
be fair, barely).
“This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by
technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is
commonly referred to as the 'organic' market," said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the
European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings.12
Joseph D. Rosen, emeritus professor of food toxicology at Rutgers, puts it even more strongly. "Any consumers who buy organic food because
they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money," he writes in a comprehensive review of
organic nutritional claims13.
Strong organic proponents also argue that organic food tastes better. In the same poll where 95% of UK
organic consumers said they buy organic to avoid pesticides, over two-thirds of respondents said organic
produce and meats taste better than non-organic ones. But when researchers had people put their
mouths to the test, they found that people couldn't tell the difference between the two in blind taste
tests14, 18.

harms.
Nutrition does not improve–its just that organic food consumers buy more healthy
products overall
Mie et al., 16 (Axel Mie, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Johannes Kahl, Ewa Rembiałkowska, Helle Raun Andersen,
and Stefan Gunnarsson, Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset,
Stockholm, Sweden, andSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Centre for Organic Food and Farming
(EPOK), Ultuna, Sweden(Executive Summary, Introduction, Chapter 4, 6 & 7, Conclusions, Policy Options).,
Research Unit on Nutritional Epidemiology (U1153 Inserm, U1125 INRA, CNAM, UniversitéParis 13), Centre of
Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Bobigny, France (Chapter 2)., University of
Copenhagen, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Frederiksberg, Denmark(Chapter 3)., Warsaw University
of Life Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, December 2016,
accessed on 2-2-2022, European Parliamentary Research Service, "Human healthimplications oforganic food
andorganic agriculture",
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581922/EPRS_STU(2016)581922_EN.pdf)
3.4. Potential contribution of the organic agro-food system to sustainable diets

In contrast to the wealth of studies on the nutritional value and environmental performance of organic
products, there has so far been no evaluation of whether the organic food system, understood as
comprising agricultural production according to organic standards and dietary patterns of consumers who
prefer organic food, has distinct health and environmental sustainability characteristics [91]. With
respect to human health, it is apparent that the dietary preferences of consumers who prefer
organic food have similarities with the Mediterranean Diet and the New Nordic Diet [88], including
a comparatively low consumption of meat and a comparatively high consumption of fruit,
vegetables, legumes and wholegrain products. According to the discussion above, these dietary
preferences are likely to imply health benefits for the consumer. With respect to environmental
sustainability, organic agriculture performs favourably for many but not all indicators; importantly, the
yields are generally lower compared to conventional production systems, implying greater land use
to generate the same amount of food [4]. However, the dietary preferences of consumers who regularly choose organic food,
specifically the comparatively low meat consumption and comparatively high legume consumption, may imply favourable dietary land use and
greenhouse gas emission footprints. It remains to be investigated how the organic agro-food system compares to other food systems with respect
to these important indicators. 3.5. Conclusions Much of the research regarding the health effects of organic food has focused on the potential
dependence of the nutritional composition of foods on the production system. Recent large studies show that certain dietary patterns are
associated with the preference for organic food. These patterns, including a comparatively high intake of fruit, vegetables and wholegrain
products and a low intake of meat, are likely to have a beneficial effect on human health. They also coincide with patterns that are favourable
from the perspective of environmental sustainability, such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use. Further evaluations need to be undertaken
around the extent to which the organic agrofood system, comprising production and consumption, can serve as an example of a sustainable food
system with respect to health and environmental effects.

harms.
Human nutrition and health unaffected by organic products
Röös et al., 18 (Elin Röös, Axel Mie, Maria Wivstad, and Eva Salomon & Birgitta Johansson & Stefan
Gunnarsson & Anna Wallenbeck & Ruben Hoffmann & Ulf Nilsson & Cecilia Sundberg & Christine A. Watson,
Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, Department of
Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset,Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, EPOK–Centre for Organic
Food and Farming, Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 02-05-2018, accessed on 2-4-
2022, Link.springer, "Risks and opportunities of increasing yields in organic farming. A review",
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-018-0489-3.pdf)
It is well known that the input levels of plant nutrients affect plant development and composition (Bindraban et al. 2015; Wiesler 2012), as well as crop yields. To some degree, yield and
nutritional quality may be divergent breeding goals (Morris and Sands 2006), since historically, the breeding and production of high-yielding varieties has led to a decreasing content of certain
The production system, organic or conventional, generally has no or
minerals in some vegetable and cereal crops (Marles 2017).
only a small effect on the concentrations of most nutrients and secondary metabolites in crops. The
exception to this is phenolic compounds, where various meta-analyses report an overall modestly higher concentration (14–26%) of total
phenolics in organic crops (Mie et al. 2017). Increased N fertilisation has a negative effect on the concentration of phenolic compounds in crops
(Treutter 2010). Phenolic compounds from plant sources are believed to carry benefits for human health, although this is not fully understood
(Del Rio et al. 2012). Based on current knowledge, it is not possible to derive any specific health benefit
from the slightly higher concentration of phenolic compounds in organic crops. Accordingly,
increasing yields in organic farming by increasing crop fertilisation is not expected to lead to
nutritionally relevant effects on crop composition. In a 2-year controlled field trial examining the
composition of white cabbage using untargeted metabolomics, measuring approximately 1600
compounds, researchers were able to discriminate between cabbage from organic and conventional
production, but not between cabbage from one low-input and one high-input organic system (Mie et
al. 2014). Therefore, intensifying organic crop production within the range of current organic
fertilisation practices is not expected to lead to major changes in plant composition. The use of
chemical pesticides is strongly restricted in organic production. Limited data indicate that toxicity-
weighted human dietary pesticide exposure from organic foods in Sweden is far lower than
exposure from conventional foods (Beckman 2015), and the associated health risks are small. However, 10
compounds with some type of identified human toxicity are currently approved in organic crop production in the EU (Mie et al. 2017), and increased inputs of these compounds, which are likely
to lead to increased human exposure, are per se undesirable. Conversely, increased inputs in the form of ‘basic substances’ are regarded to be of low concern for human health (Marchand 2015).
Likewise, the use of microorganisms, macroorganisms or habitat manipulation in plant protection is not associated with any known risks for humans. Lowering the crop pest and disease burden
by good management could in some cases result in lower concentrations of some plant defence compounds that are expressed in response to infestation. However, there is no convincing evidence
that this effect is relevant for human nutrition. For cereal crops, deoxynivalenol (DON) is an important fusarium toxin and a common cause of cereal crop losses due to maximum limits for food
being exceeded. DON exposure is close to or higher than the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for certain subpopulations in Europe (EFSA 2013). On average, organic cereals have lower DON levels
than conventional cereals (SmithSpangler et al. 2012). Increasing yields through higher N fertilisation is likely to lead to increased DON concentration in cereal crops. On the other hand,
increasing marketable yields by counteracting fusarium infestation, through management practices such as suitable crop rotation, incorporation of crop residues in soils, choice of cultivar and
proper drying and storing of cereals after cropping, should lead to decreased DON concentration in the crop (Kabak et al. 2006). In a recent review (Bedoussac et al. 2015), cereals in cereal-
legume intercropping systems had a higher (0.33 compared with 0.27 kg m−2 ) and more stable grain yield than the mean of partner crops grown as sole crops under the same conditions. Cereal
intercrops also had a higher protein content compared with sole crops (11.1 compared with 9.8%), while the legume protein content was not affected by intercropping. In animal feeds, most
ingredients in concentrate feeds, such as cereals, contain less than 10% omega-3 fatty acids of total fatty acids, while grass and red clover contain between 30 and 50% omega-3 fatty acids
(Woods and Fearon 2009). Omega-3 fatty acids are a group of fatty acids that are essential to humans and, in general, increased human intake is desirable (Burdge and Calder 2006). The fatty
acid composition in feed largely determines the fatty acid composition of milk or meat, although this relationship is not linear for ruminants (KhiaosaArd et al. 2015; Woods and Fearon 2009).
Consequently, higher inputs in the form of concentrate feeds are likely to negatively affect the omega-3 fatty acid content of the product; on average, organic cow milk has 56% (95% CI 38,
74%) higher concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids (ŚrednickaTober et al. 2016b). A similar, plausible, although less welldocumented relationship appears to exist for meats (Średnicka-Tober et
The nutritional consequences are likely to be small, as studies from various European
al. 2016a).
countries indicate that dairy products on average contribute 5–16% and meat 12–17% of the total
omega-3 fatty acid intake in human diets (Mie et al. 2017), although this contribution may be higher for certain dietary patterns. A modest
increase in concentrate feeds in organic animal production is therefore not expected to lead to a substantial decrease in omega-3 fatty acids in the human diet. Measures to improve animal health
in general to avoid yield losses due to animal diseases could lead to lowered pathogen levels in e.g. poultry meat

harms.
AT: Pesticides & Herbicides

Pesticide risks can be minimized without organic crops
organic/)
In the 1950s and 1960s, new regulations set maximum allowable residue levels on foods while denying official registration to products deemed unsafe. In the 1970s, the EPA removed not just
DDT but a number of other persistent pesticides from the market. In 1996 the Food Quality Protection Act set stricter standards and required a new review of allowable residue levels. In response
to federal requirements such as these, the chemical industry worked to develop synthetic products less toxic to farmworkers and less persistent in the environment.
Pesticide risks have also been diminished thanks to integrated pest management (IPM), a technique
that advises spraying only when monitored pest pressures threaten a commercial loss, and only
after nonchemical control options (for example, using good bugs to kill bad bugs) are no longer
working. In this system, a judicious use of chemicals is permitted, something the organic rule does
not allow. New varieties of crops with better genetic defenses of their own against insects and crop
disease have also reduced insecticide use in America, and “smart” sprayers now apply chemicals at
optimal rates and with far greater precision.
Thanks to all these things in combination, farmers in the United States have reduced pesticide use
significantly since the 1970s. The total pounds of herbicide and insecticide ingredients applied to
crops declined by 18 percent between 1980 and 2008, even as total crop production increased 46
percent. For insecticides specifically, total use peaked in 1972 and has now fallen more than 80
percent below that peak. All these gains were achieved without any significant switch to organic
farming methods.
Despite those advances organic food only became commercially significant in America after a series of media-led cancer scares linked to
pesticide residues on foods. The climax came in 1989 with a report on “60 Minutes” (viewed by 18 million households) describing the chemical
Alar, used on apples, as “the most potent cancer-causing agent in the food supply today.”
“60 Minutes” had mostly ignored the views of toxicologists. Four years earlier an EPA report had
shown that consuming the Alar residues found on food over a lifetime would bring an added risk of
only 1 more cancer death per 10,000 people. The director of the National Cancer Institute’s cancer
etiology division went further, characterizing the cancer risks from eating Alar-treated apples as
nonexistent. EPA never did ban the chemical, but when growers voluntarily stopped using it due to
consumer fears, this was taken as evidence that the threat must be real. Concerns over pesticide
residues on food persist to the present day despite that in the United States since the 1970s
increased regulation plus reduced spraying have brought risks under control.
Although dubious on its merits, the Alar scare created what Newsweek magazine called a “panic for organic.” In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act to create a uniform
understanding of the practices that would disqualify a farm from organic certification. The strongest push for this new law came from large-scale commercial organic growers, especially in
California, as well as consumer groups, some environmental organizations, and animal welfare advocates.

harms.
Organic chemicals aren’t less dangerous—they’re sometimes more dangerous than
atrazine and other herbicides
Driessen 21—Suspect Science Threatens US Farming, Again. (2021). Retrieved 2 February 2022, from
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/suspect-science-threatens-us-farming-again
[Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free
Enterprise, nonprofit public policy institutes that focus on energy, the environment, economic development and international
affairs.]
That is useless and unacceptable. Decisions affecting our farms, produce and dinner tables must not be
made so cavalierly, on the basis of such patently insufficient evidence and rank guesswork.
But suppose they do ban atrazine. What guarantees will we have that this will prolong the existence
of species that are already marginal and threatened by countless other human and natural factors?
None.
And what next for conventional farmers? There is no substitute for atrazine or other modern
herbicides, which are more effective, less toxic and more biodegradable than their predecessors. In
their absence, corn yields would decline nearly 40% – and growers would have to control weeds by hand
(by thousands of migrant workers and their children?) and by regularly tilling their fields. Food prices
would soar.
Tilling means tractor mileage and fuel would skyrocket, crops would need far more water and
irrigation, soils would lose their integrity and many organisms, carbon sequestration would
plummet, and millions of tons of farmland would erode annually. Millions more acres would have
to be planted to get today’s corn and other yields – and much of that acreage would come from land
that is now wildlife habitat.
It’s the “precautionary principle” at its very worst: always focusing on alleged, highly speculative risks
of using chemicals – never on the risks of not using them; always highlighting risks a technology
allegedly might cause, but ignoring often far greater risks it would reduce or prevent.
Finally, if environmentalists, courts and regulators truly are concerned about chemical threats to
these and other species, they would not look only at conventional, synthetic chemicals – but
at organic chemicals.
Atrazine has an LD50 of 3090 for rats, meaning it takes 3,090 milligrams per kilogram of body weight
to kill half of a test group of rats that ingest it orally. Copper sulfate used on thousands of organic
farms is ten times more toxic: an LD50 of 300. It is deadly to fish, hugely harmful to avian
reproductive systems and highly toxic to humans. The LD50 for rotenone is 132; a little bit will kill
every fish in your favorite woodland pond. Pyrethrin (LD50: 200-2600 mg/kg) and neem oil (LD50:
3540) positively slaughter bees! Yet they (and many more such nasties) are approved for organic
farming all over the US, EU and world.
When will environmentalists sue to have dangerous organic pesticides banned? When will courts and
federal agencies initiate studies of their effects on EPA’s list of 1,795 threatened and endangered
species?

harms.
Rotenone—only recently removed from the list of approved substances for organic farms
—can be used to model Parkinsons disease in mice
Wilcox 11—Wilcox, C. (2011). Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture. Retrieved 4 February
2022, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-
sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
[Christie Wilcox is an award-winning science writer with a decade of experience in online and print storytelling. Wilcox's
extensive scientific background and firsthand experience as a researcher has given her a different perspective on the latest
discoveries than most popular science writers. ]
What makes organic farming different, then? It's not the use of pesticides, it's the origin of the pesticides
used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all
before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are
generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain
plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been
created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn't true, either.
Many natural pesticides have been found to be potential - or serious - health risks.2
Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for
decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of
subtropical plants, it was considered "safe" as well as "organic". However, research has shown that
rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all
living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson's Disease-like symptoms in
rats 4, and had the potential to kill many species, including humans. Rotenone's use as a pesticide has
already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns***, but shockingly, it's still poured
into our waters every year by fisheries management officials as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish
species.
The point I'm driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn't make it non-toxic or
safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you definitely
wouldn't want sprayed on your food.
Just last year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in
Europe failed to pass the European Union's safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the
chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it had yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of
organic foodstuffs produced in 2007 and tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to
contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels - and these are of pesticides that
are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches,
green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they
found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-
organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits8.
[footnote from bottom of article]
*** Oh, it turns out Rotenone got re-approved for organic use in 2010. See for yourself.

Organic Agri Brief Debatetrack

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organic Agri Brief Debatetrack

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 22: In the United States, the benefits of increasing organic agriculture outweigh the

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Definition: organic crops are non-GMO

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

The organics industry is upbeat about its future.

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

This leads us to three key conclusions in the organic-conventional farming debate:

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

[Helen Briggs is an Environment correspondent for the BBC]

This theory needs to be tested in follow-up studies, they say.

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Agricultural practices contribute considerably to emissions of greenhouse gases. So far, knowledge

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Here are the facts:

New Approaches to Policy

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Farms & Farmers

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

5.2. Pesticide use – exposure of consumers and producers

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Chlorpyrifos, which belongs to a nerve-agent class of pesticides called organophosphates (OPs), is

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

To investigate the impact of an organic diet intervention on levels of insecticides, herbicides,

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Organic farming tends to be better for the environment

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

AT: Big Orgo

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

AT: Climate Change

[Courtney Vinopal is a general assignment reporter at the PBS NewsHour.]

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!

AT: Environmental Damage

Enjoy these briefs? Keep posted on lectures by subbing on YouTube!