this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43376 readers
1433 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] binary45@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

At best, organic food offers the same nutritional value as non organic food. At worst, it’s less nutritious and more expensive.

[–] DrFuggles@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

meh. nutritional value is about the same, yeah, but that's not the point of organic food. people who claim that eating an all organic diet makes you better are yahoos.

The point of organic farming is that it is just all-around better for the planet, the soil, the organisms therein and less polluting.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is not conclusive evidence that organic food is better for the environment. Obviously there are facets of the environment impact that will be better than conventional agriculture, but there is a ~19% reduction in yield, and lower soil carbon in organic agriculture. A reduction in yield means more land must be cleared for agriculture, so the other facets of organic ag would need a to be substantially better than conventional to make up for it.

[–] DrFuggles@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

I disagree. Just following your source to its conclusion, I think it's safe to say OA (organic agriculture) is better all around:

7.1 Pros β€’ Lower emissions of CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH4 β€’ Enhanced soil and water quality β€’ Lower energy use per land area β€’ Higher energy efficiency per land area 7.2 Cons β€’ Lower soil profile SOC stocks [i.e. how much carbon is in the soil] β€’ Lower crop yields β€’ Higher land requirement β€’ Lower energy production per land area

Your conclusion that we'd have to clear more land for agriculture use if we all switched to OA seems flawed; e.g. here in Germany we use about 60% of agricultural land to raise livestock feed like corn etc (https://www.landwirtschaft.de/tier-und-pflanze/pflanze/was-waechst-auf-deutschlands-feldern). Seems to me like eating less meat and growing idk lentils or beans would not immediately lead to food insecurity.

This is also what the FAO says: yes, OA leads to yield reduction when compared to conventional methods, but not to food scarcity and instead to healthier ecosystems (https://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/).

(sry gotta go, more.later)