Organic Farming

The issue of productivity is more complex than a summary of yield (production per land area), which was the measure used in these studies. Instead, productivity could be calculated in labour time rather than by land area. Organic methods often require more labor, providing rural jobs but increasing costs to urban consumers. Also, grain forms the majority of world agricultural production, and most of that is fed to animals, not humans—broad calculations of how much agriculture is feeding people is therefore complicated when feeding animals to feed people is factored in.

The hidden costs of conventional agriculture are seldom addressed in productivity calculations. Conventional agriculture is based on importing energy, particularly in the form of fertilizer and other agrichemicals, machinery and fuel, and long-distance transport. The full cost of these inputs are not included. For example, maintenance of the airports and highways that allow easy transport are not factored into food costs. If airports were shut down, or highway systems compromised, however, there would be an immediate affect on the cost of food. More indirectly, it is argued that the cost of the side effects of chemical agriculture, like health care and environmental clean up, should be included in the cost of agribusiness. Instead, these hidden costs are paid by the public in other ways, such as through taxation to fund services like pollution control measures, and increased health care costs. Of course, many of these hidden cost factors are disputed, and they are difficult to investigate.

Related to this is the amount of money that actually reaches the farmer. Currently, large-scale farms receive around 10-20% of the supermarket retail price. The other 80-90% is absorbed by the food distribution system for processing, transport, packaging and marketing. The organic argument holds that more efficient distribution, through decentralization of production (e.g. family farm vs. factory farm), and development of local and regional markets, would put more money in the hands of farmers, allowing for increased productivity.

Another argument against organic farming is that, while it works acceptably at present because pests are kept under control in surrounding conventional farms and thus do not spread into organic farms, if it became universal, the "islands" they operate on would disappear and pests would become a severe issue. This argument also works in reverse, as organic farms can be islands of safety for predator insects and pollinators, without which, more pollination services would be required, and ever-increasing quantities of pesticides would be needed as pest populations acquired resistance to pesticides (to a degree, in both instances this is already the case). Workplace safety is a separate, related issue. Toxic agrichemicals create a hazardous work environment. Chemical accidents and the effects of long-term exposure are both well-known risks faced by many farm workers. Also, the effect of chemicals, airborne after spraying, and in the groundwater, on neighboring communities is a concern.

It should be noted that the conventional, chemical-based approach is also widely practiced in countries that do not heavily subsidise their farmers, such as Australia, as well as many other countries which are not mentioned here.

As discussed previously, the entry of large-scale businesses into production of organic food undermines the belief that a preference by consumers for organic food will necessarily translate into a substantive change in the nature of agribusiness. This is where the distinction between organic farming, organic food, and organic certification becomes tricky. If the strong consumer trend represents simply the desire for an "organic" stamp on their food, then the trend to large-scale, global, corporate farming, certified organic or not, will continue. If consumers embrace a broader concept of "organic", which includes fresh, local food, substantial changes in the food industry would have to follow to meet this demand.