Our Food Footprint

Organic food is often labelled as superior in terms of its environmental footprint, nutritional quality and taste to regular, conventional food. My previous post discussed the reasons it is hailed as such. But the truth is, it's not the "be-all-end-all" solution to the environmental issues caused by agriculture. A main reason for this is the greater land that organic farming requires. According to Clark & Tilman (2017), organic farms use 25%-110% more land than conventional farms! This is because organic fertilizers like manure are not as effective as synthetic ones since they do not release the specific nutrients needed by plants when they need them. This means that farmers will receive less yield per unit of land and therefore be required to use more land to make the same profits as conventional farmers. (Although, certain organic practices like rotational farming and polyculture have been found to reduce land use.) Photo by Min An from Pexels  Another down...

When I go to the grocery store or farmers’ market, I often see products labelled “organic”. People generally think that organic foods are superior in terms of their environmental footprint, as well as their health benefits. However, I feel like it’s often a label that’s used just to hike up the price of produce, because conventionally grown alternatives are much more affordable. Should I jump on the bandwagon and just start buying organic food too or is it not worth it? What’s the deal with this organic agriculture ? Organic Produce. Photo by Zeyus Media . Well, Organic Agriculture (OA) is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) as: “a method of agriculture in which no synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are used. It involves the management of farms so that soil fertility and pesticide problems are reduced.” “Pesticides are chemical substances that are meant to kill pests” (Sharma & Singhvi, 2017), while fertilizers add nutrients to the soil to improve pl...