Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Mar 10;3(3):e1602638.
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602638. eCollection 2017 Mar.

Many shades of gray-The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture

Verena Seufert  1 , Navin Ramankutty  1
Affiliations
Review

Many shades of gray-The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture

Verena Seufert et al. Sci Adv. .

Abstract

Organic agriculture is often proposed as a more sustainable alternative to current conventional agriculture. We assess the current understanding of the costs and benefits of organic agriculture across multiple production, environmental, producer, and consumer dimensions. Organic agriculture shows many potential benefits (including higher biodiversity and improved soil and water quality per unit area, enhanced profitability, and higher nutritional value) as well as many potential costs including lower yields and higher consumer prices. However, numerous important dimensions have high uncertainty, particularly the environmental performance when controlling for lower organic yields, but also yield stability, soil erosion, water use, and labor conditions. We identify conditions that influence the relative performance of organic systems, highlighting areas for increased research and policy support.

Keywords: organic agriculture; sustainability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Overall average performance of organic agriculture relative to conventional agriculture (indicated by the red circle). (A) Performance per unit area and (B) performance per unit output.
Average organic performance is indicated by the red circle. (A) Performance per unit area and (B) performance per unit output. Figure includes production (brown petals), environmental (green petals), producer (red petals), and consumer (blue petals) benefits (petals that extend beyond the red circle) and costs (petals inside the red circle). Dimensions assessed include (starting at the top, going clockwise) production, biodiversity, soil quality, water quality, water quantity, climate change mitigation, farmer livelihoods, farmer and farm worker health, farm worker livelihoods, consumer health, and consumer access. Larger petals represent superior organic performance (for example, a larger petal for N loss means lower N loss in organic). In addition, note that per unit output performance is only relevant for environmental variables; other petals are unchanged relative to per unit area performance. Shading of petals represents level of uncertainty for each variable, with uncertainty determined by the number of primary studies included in each assessment and the level of agreement between different quantitative reviews (see fig. S6 for details). Variables that could not be quantified are in gray. Length of gray petals also varies slightly depending on whether the qualitative assessment of each dimension (see Table 2) is uncertain or suggests no difference (that is, petal is on the red circle) or shows higher (that is, petal extends beyond the red circle) or lower (that is, petal is inside the red circle) performance. Means used to quantify each variable (also known as petal length) were calculated as weighted means (weighted by the sample size, typically the number of observations in each quantitative review) across estimates of response ratios (organic/conventional) from different quantitative reviews (see table S1 for sources and figs. S1, S2, and S5 for values used) and are represented on a log scale to treat changes in the numerator and denominator the same [with the red circle indicating no change, that is, log(org/conv) = 0]. Note that this approach does not account for double-counting of primary studies included in multiple quantitative reviews or meta-analyses. This double-counting might affect petal size but would not alter qualitative size relationships among petals.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Regional distribution of organic area, organic producers, as well as studies included in key meta-analyses on organic agriculture.
“Organic area” represents data on total organic agricultural area (in hectares) for 2014 (3). “Organic producers” represents data for 2013 (3). “Yield studies” represents all studies (n = 210) included in the works of Seufert et al. (18), Ponisio et al. (19), and de Ponti et al. (20). “Profitability studies” represents all studies (n = 44) included in the work of Crowder and Reganold (81). “Biodiversity studies” represents all studies (n = 150) included in the works of Crowder et al. (30), Bengtsson et al. (31), and Tuck et al. (32). “SOC (soil organic carbon) studies” represents all studies (n = 75) included in the work of Gattinger et al. (39).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Uncertainty range around the average (per unit area) performance (depicted in Fig. 1A) of organic agriculture relative to conventional agriculture (indicated by the red circle).
(A) Lower and (B) upper uncertainty range. Figure includes production (brown petals), environmental (green petals), producer (red petals), and consumer (blue petals) benefits (petals that extend beyond the red circle) and costs (petals inside the red circle). See Fig. 1 for details on variables depicted. Shading of petals represents the level of uncertainty for each variable (see Fig. 1 for legend and fig. S6 for details). Variables that could not be quantified are shaded in gray. Upper and lower ranges represent the lowest and highest values (typically low or high confidence intervals), represented as log response ratio (organic/conventional), from different quantitative reviews or meta-analyses (see table S1 for sources and figs. S1, S2, and S5 for values used).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Foley J. A., Ramankutty N., Brauman K. A., Cassidy E. S., Gerber J. S., Johnston M., Mueller N. D., O’Connell C., Ray D. K., West P. C., Balzer C., Bennett E. M., Carpenter S. R., Hill J., Monfreda C., Polasky S., Rockström J., Sheehan J., Siebert S., Tilman D., Zaks D. P. M., Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011). - PubMed
    1. FAO, IFAD, WFP, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015: Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress (FAO, 2015). - PMC - PubMed
    1. H. Willer, J. Lernoud, The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2016 (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, IFOAM–Organics International, Switzerland, 2016).
    1. Reganold J. P., Wachter J. M., Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2, 15221 (2016). - PubMed
    1. Badgley C., Moghtader J., Quintero E., Zakem E., Chappell M. J., Avilés-Vázquez K., Samulon A., Perfecto I., Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 22, 86–108 (2007).

LinkOut - more resources