Consumers are becoming more conscious about the origins of their food, placing greater weight on labels such as organic produce and free-range meat. Unfortunately, the trade off between land use impact and factors such as animal welfare or chemical inputs may not be as expected. Agricultural land area is approximately 40% of the global land surface and the industry is the primary cause of biodiversity loss.[1] While intensive farming intuitively seems environmentally degrading, it could support high-yield food production that spares land for habitat restoration. This “land sparing” setup is often supported by conservationists but recent consumer trends have hindered its implementation.
Organic products are promoted for their supposed health benefits and sustainability. This narrative implicitly blackwashes modes of intensive farming. Every region of the world has seen an increase in organic food consumption, with the European market size set to almost double between 2024 and 2029.[2]In a recent paper, researchers evaluated different types of pig production systems, including woodland, organic, free range, RSPCA assured and Red Tractor certified.[3] They assessed each systems’ impact across four metrics: land use area, greenhouse gas emissions, antibiotic use and animal welfare. Their study concludes that no individual farm type performed consistently well across all four areas. While organic farms had lower antibiotic use and improved animal welfare, they also had on average three times the CO2 output per kg of meat of more intensive Red Tractor or RSPCA assured systems and four times the land use. This highlights the need to reconsider what certification and terminology on food labels is communicating to consumers and reduce generalisations of systems.
Despite the vital role of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides in the 20th century “Green Revolution”, consumers are not only seeking minimal input farming, but are willing to pay a premium price for it.[4] For example, the German farmer’s cooperative “KraichgauKorn” refrain from pesticide use during the growing season for KraichgauKorn cereal grains and the extra costs of the cooperative’s products (due to lower yields) are covered by end-consumer prices.[5] Yet, contrary to many people's perceptions, lower land use intensive farming may produce fewer pollutants, reduce soil erosion and require less water. For example, high (but not excessive) application of inorganic nitrogen can lower the land use of Chinese rice production without increasing greenhouse gas emissions or water-use.[6] Additionally, it was found organic dairy farms in Europe caused at least one third more soil loss and 2 times as much land use as conventional farms for a given volume of milk produced. While some scientists argue intensive livestock farming increases the risk of pandemics, others argue that free-range alternatives increase expansion into natural habitats and the likelihood for diseases carried by wild animals to come into contact with humans and jump the species barrier.[7]
One risk of widespread intensive farming systems is a rebound effect where more efficient growth leads to reduced food prices, which paradoxically enlarges the industry and stimulates further land conversion for agriculture. In order to mitigate this effect, it must be assured that rises in yield are complemented by enhanced biodiversity. This requires planned coordination of land use across large areas via land use zoning.
The global food system is highly complex but consumers are attempting to be better informed and more selective about their purchases and diets. Consequently, the organic sector is seeing a surge in demand and more efficient intensive agriculture is being shunned.
Whilst organic and free-range products often highlight their health and welfare benefits, they fail to mention the environmental trade-offs of these benefits. This dynamic could have ramifications for biodiversity and the planet's ability to support increasing food demands. Precision farming methods, including those that incorporate AI, could help to satisfy consumer concerns about excessive inputs by monitoring plant disease, pests and livestock stress and automating application of pesticides, antibiotics and irrigation. To have a wide-scale impact, this technology must be accessible and easily implementable in different systems.