Some narratives are simply ubiquitous in our culture (every culture has its universal narratives). Sometimes these narratives emerge out of shared values, like liberty and freedom. Sometimes they emerge out of foundational beliefs (the US still has a puritanical bent). And sometimes they are the product of decades of marketing. Marketing-based narratives deserve incredible scrutiny because they are crafted to alter the commercial decision-making of people in society, not for the benefit of society or the public, but for the benefit of an industry. For example, I have tried to expose the fallacy of the “natural is always good, and chemicals are always bad” narrative. Nature, actually, is quite indifferent to humanity, and everything is made of chemicals.

Another narrative that is based entirely on propaganda meant to favor one industry and demonize its competition is the notion that organic farming is better for health and better for the environment. Actually, there is no evidence of any nutritional or health advantage from consuming organic produce. Further – and most people I talk to find this claim shocking – organic farming is worse for the environment than conventional or even “factory” farming. Stick with me and I will explain why this is the case.

A recent article in the NYT by Michael Grunwald nicely summarizes what I have been saying for years. First let me explain why I think there is such a disconnect between reality and public perception. This gets back to the narrative idea – people tend to view especially complex situations through simplistic narratives that give them a sense of understanding. We all do this because the world is complicated and we have to break it down. There is nothing inherently wrong with this – we use schematic, categories, and diagrams to simplify complex reality and chunk it into digestible bits. But we have to understand this is what we are doing, and how this may distort our understanding of reality. There are also better and worse ways to do this.

One principle I like to use as a guide is the Moneyball approach. This refers to Paul DePodesta who devised a new method of statistical analysis to find undervalued baseball players. Prior to DePodesta talent scouts would find high value players to recruit, players who had impressive classic statistics, like batting average. They would then pay high sums for these star players. DePodesta, however, realized that players without star-quality stats still might be solid players, and for their price could have a disproportionate positive effect on a team’s performance. If, therefore, you have a finite amount of funds to spread out over a team’s players, you might be better off shoring up your players at the low end rather than paying huge sums for star players. Famously this approach worked extremely well (first applied to the Oakland Athletics).

So let’s “Moneyball” farming. We can start with the premise that we have to produce a certain amount of calories in order to feed the world. Even if we consider population control as a long term solution – that’s a really long term solution for any ethically acceptable methods. I will add as a premise that it is not morally or politically feasible to reduce the human population through deliberate starvation. Right now there are 8.2 billion humans on Earth. Estimates are this will rise to about 10 billion before the population starts to come down again through ethical methods like poverty mitigation and better human rights. So for the next hundred years or so we will have to feed 8+ billion people.

If our goal is to feed humanity while minimizing any negative effect on the environment, then we have to consider what all the negative effects are of farming. As Grunwald points out – they are huge. Right now we are using about 38% of the land on Earth for farming. We are already using just about all of the arable land – arable land is actually a continuum, so it is more accurate to say we are using the most arable land. Any expansion of farmland will therefore expand into less and less arable land, at greater and greater cost and lower efficiency. Converting a natural ecosystem, whether a prairie, forest, meadow, or whatever, into farmland is what has, by far, the greatest negative effect on the ecosystem. This is what causes habitat loss,  isolates populations, reduces biodiversity, and uses up water. The difference between different kinds of farming is tiny compared to the difference between farming and natural ecosystems.

This all means that the most important factor, by far, in determining the net effect of calorie production for humans on the environment is the amount of land dedicated to all the various kinds of farming. Organic farming simply uses more land than conventional farming, 20-40% more land on average. This fact overwhelms any other alleged advantage of organic farming. I say alleged because organic farms can and many do use pesticides – they just use natural pesticides, which are often less effective requiring more applications. Sometimes they also rely on tilling, which releases carbon from the soil.

But even if we compare maximally productive farming to the most science-based regenerative farming techniques, designed to minimize pesticide use and optimize soil health – maximally efficient farming wins the Moneyball game. It’s no contest. Also, the advantage of efficient factory farming will only get greater as agricultural science and technology improves. GMOs, for example, have the potential for massive improvements in crop efficiency, leaving organic farming progressively in the dust.

But all this does not fit the cultural narrative. We have been fed this constant image of the gentle farm, using regenerative practices, protecting the soil, with local mom and pop farmers producing food for local consumption. It’s a nice romantic image, and I have no problem with having some small local farms growing heirloom produce for local consumption. But this should be viewed as a niche luxury – not the primary source of our calories. Eating locally grown food from such farms is, in a way, a selfish act of privilege. It is condemning the environment so you can feel good about yourself. Again, it’s fine in moderation. But we need to get 95% of our calories from factory farms that are brutally efficient. This also does not mean that factory farms should not endeavor to be environmentally friendly, as long as it does not come at the cost of efficiency.

At this point many people will point out that we can improve farming efficiency by eliminating meat. It is true that overproducing meat for calories is hugely inefficient. But so is underproducing meat. What the evidence shows is that maximal efficiency comes from using each parcel of land for it’s optimal use. Grazing land for animals in many cases is the optimal use. Cattle, for example, can convert a lot of non-edible calories into edible calories. And finishing lots can also use low grade feed not fit for humans to pack on high-grade calories for humans. Yes – many industrialized nations consume too much meat. Part of optimizing efficiency is also optimizing the ratio of which kinds of calories we consume. But zero meat is not maximally efficient. Also – half our fertilizer comes from manure, and we can’t just eliminate the source of half our fertilizer without creating a disaster.

It’s a complicated system. We no longer, however, have the luxury of just letting everyone do what they want to do and what they think is in their best interest. Optimally there would be some voluntary coordination for the world’s agricultural system to maximize efficiency and minimize land use. This can come through science-based standards, and funding to help poorer countries have access to more modern farming techniques, rather than just converting more land for inefficient farming.

But first we have to dispense with the comforting but ultimately fictional narrative that the old gentle methods of farming are the best. We need science-based maximal efficiency.