Buying organic to save planet? Not so fast

For food, the carbon footprint measures the GHG emitted due to the energy consumed for production, storage and transportation processes. This includes the rations livestock eat, emissions from fertilizer manufacture and application and livestock digestion, use of tractors and refining processes, as well as transportation from the farm to the supermarket. The massive amount of energy that can go into food production should make the carbon footprint an influential factor in consumers' buying decisions. Since the temperature of the Earth is steadily increasing, the organic versus conventional dilemma is going to similarly increase. Extensive research spanning both the nutritional content and environmental implications of organic versus conventional product provides an answer to which product is better. Conventional farming methods produce the best balance between environmental friendliness and nutritional health for a number of reasons. Conventional farming methods produce food that is equally nutritious to food produced by organic methods (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2008). Nutritional studies that span the food pyramid have shown no success in claiming one or the other to be nutritiously superior. In addition, conventional methods are more energy efficient than organic methods, and the result is a lower carbon footprint for conventional foods...read more