Carbon Footprint Organic vs Conventional
I am trying to find good ranges of data concerning if organic food has a higher or lower carbon footprint than non-organic food. I have no ideological axe to grind about this, but the research I have been involved in, and work with research groups, tends to show that organic and non-organic carbon footprints (for different products) have similar ranges. In other words, there is not enough research to say confidently that, for example an organic apple has a lower (or higher) carbon footprint than a non-organic apple (and etc etc for carrots, beef, chicken, potatoes). This seems to be due to the trade-off between energy inputs and yield levels.
Now then... I have repeated discussions with people from the pro-organic movement who refuse to acknowledge that this could be the case - even when I show them metastudies that would back up this position.
The reason this matters (to me) is that I help food businesses to develop more sustainable food policies, and when it comes to reducing their carbon footprint I feel obliged to suggest that they should not assume organic to be lower carbon footprint than non-organic, but they should look at the meat/veg balance (especially when organic food is low supply in the area I work). But this is causing a lot of friction on a business level with people who are definitely pro organic food. It is almost as if they cannot take criticism...
Am I missing something, or is my position reasonably valid? (I am happy to be wrong so far, like I said, I have no ideological axe to grind)