Can organic feed the world?

There is enough production capacity

Many people emphasize that hunger in the world is not a matter of production, but of bad distribution and food waste. In 2006 the United Nations stated, by word of special rapporteur Jean Ziegler, that the world was producing enough at that particular moment to feed 12 billion people. According to FAO estimates, 30% of all food that is produced, is wasted. Also, a huge part of agricultural production is used inefficiently for fuel and cattle feed. Since the beginning of industrial farming food production has increased tremendously, but hunger in the world has kept pace. At this moment 1 billion people are suffering from hunger, while 1 billion people are overweight. A lot of famine occurs in countries that have badly neglected their domestic agricultural policy for decades, under pressure of international neoliberal politics. Hunger in the world is, in the first place, an economical and political matter.

According to USDA statistics, the current world production of grains including rice, amounts to 791 grams per world citizen, if you would have to share it with 9 billion people. And that's only grains. According to researchers of Penn State University, who made a more conservatieve estimate, a production increase of 26%, counting from 2014, would suffice to feed 9 billion people in 2050. See also this article (Dutch only, try using Chrome).

The difference in yield between organic and conventional

Organic and conventional agriculture have a difference in yield per surface area. In Western countries, the yield of organic agriculture is less than conventional yield. Compared to subsistence agriculture in third world countries however, organic production has much higher yields. Our goal should not be to reach the highest level of production at any cost for future generations, but to reach sufficient production in a way that can be sustained. In 2007, scientist C. Badgley of Michigan University published the following results of modelling production per acre:

• In Europe and North-America: with good growing conditions, and assuming high use of fertilizer and pesticides, the yield of organic is 60 to 100% of conventional, depending on te crop.
• In the 2nd world: with moderate growing conditions and assuming more irregular use of fertilizer and pesticides, the yield of organic is 92 to 100% of conventional, depending on the crop.
• In the 3d world: with adverse growing conditions, with low inputs, in areas of subsistence agriculture, the yield of organic is 100 to 180% of conventional.

According to Badgley e.a. (2007), the total worldwide production would grow by 32%, if the whole world would convert to modern organic methods - because of the production increase in subsistence area's. Badgley was heaviy criticized by A. Avery, an advocate of conventional farming. Badgley then replied in detail to his criticism.

Sustainability in the long run

Organic agriculture can restore soils and ecosystems that have been degraded by conventional farming. The monocultures of the chemical-industrial approach do a lot of damage to ecosystems and to the climate. These monocultures depend on a finite reserve of fossil fuel and bring large risks for food security with them. In the long run it is clear that natural resources must be maintained in order to feed the world. This means that we need conservation agriculture with closed nutrient cycles, and organic farming techniques. Apart from food security there are advantages such as better health for farmers, better water storage in the soil, less damage to the climate, more biodiversity and food soevereignty of nations and peoples.

50% organic would already be spectacular

A worldwide 100% conversion to organic agriculture is an unrealistic scenario in the upcoming decades. At the moment, worldwide certified organic production is approximately 1% of total production. The International Food Policy Research Institute (Halberg e.a., 2007) looked into the effects of conversion to organic in different parts of the world. According to the study, a 50% conversion in Europe and North-America would have little effect on food production in those countries. For sub-Sahara Africa, a 50% conversion would potentially increase food production.