Genetically modified crops are better for the world than organic
The reality is very different. Small-scale organic farming is harmless. But as a strategy for feeding the world, it’s a costly indulgence with severe unintended consequences. GM crops, by contrast, increase yields, reduce chemical use and enable sustainable farming on less land.
At the Productivity Commission, I led a major national inquiry into agricultural regulation. Our report found that productivity growth – producing more from the same or fewer inputs – is essential to meeting food needs without destroying more habitat.
Where productivity lags, more land must be brought into production, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Organic farming underperforms on productivity. Global studies show yields about 20-25 per cent lower than conventional farming, often even lower for wheat, rice and maize.
Our report confirmed that avoiding modern inputs – including synthetic fertilisers, targeted pesticides and GM traits – reduces yields per hectare. That shortfall can only be met by producing less food, driving up prices, or farming more land. Replacing all conventional farming with organic would need at least 0.5 billion extra hectares – two to three Australias of cropland. Clearing that land would release hundreds of gigatonnes of CO2, equal to several years of global emissions.
These are not abstract numbers. They mean destroyed habitats, lost biodiversity and a blow to climate goals. Ironically, many who buy organic to “help the planet” are supporting a system that, in aggregate, can do the opposite. This is a textbook negative externality: a hidden cost borne by everyone else.
The damage to the cost of living is just as clear. Higher production costs and lower yields mean higher prices. In wealthy suburbs, a 50 per cent premium for organic vegetables may be an optional indulgence. In low-income countries, similar price rises mean hunger. The global poor end up subsidising a first-world lifestyle choice.
Sri Lanka’s 2021 experiment showed what happens when ideology replaces agronomy. Banning synthetic fertilisers and pesticides caused rice production to collapse, tea exports to fall and food prices to soar, plunging the economy into crisis and sparking protests leading to the fall of the government.
GM crops are a different story. A meta-analysis found GM adoption increased yields by 22 per cent, cut pesticide use by 37 per cent and boosted farmer profits by 68 per cent. GM crops also enable conservation tillage, reduce erosion, and deliver climate-critical traits such as drought-tolerant maize and Golden Rice, which prevents blindness in vitamin A-deficient children.
GM risks such as pest resistance and seed market concentration are real but manageable with stewardship, just as we manage risks in medicine and aviation. So too are the risks with the use of pesticides and herbicides, which should be well regulated to enforce better-measured residue levels.
The real problem is perception. Organic enjoys a “health halo” and moral prestige far beyond its actual benefits. GM carries a stigma rooted in 1990s scare campaigns. This distorts markets and policy: governments preference organic in procurement while keeping GM under moratoria.
This must change, starting with public information. Just as smoking was once glamorised until health campaigns exposed its true costs, so too should the downsides of large-scale organic farming be made clear. People should know that organic’s yield penalty drives deforestation, raises greenhouse gas emissions, increases food prices, and harms the poor. They should also know that GM can reverse those trends.
In recent years, meat eaters have been shamed as environmental vandals. But if the goal is to reduce harm, it is large-scale organic, non-GM agriculture that deserves the sharper scrutiny. It clears more land, emits more carbon per calorie and prices food beyond the reach of the poor, all while claiming the moral high ground.
If consumers had the facts on labels, in campaigns and in schools, many would see organic not as virtuous but as an environmental indulgence. Over time, buying organic could become a socially disfavoured act: tolerated as personal choice, but recognised as harmful in aggregate. The prestige would shift. GM foods, chosen for their ability to deliver more nutrition with less environmental cost, could become the new marker of responsible consumption.
Organic should remain a personal choice, like luxury coffee, meat or gas-guzzling large cars. But there’s no case for subsidies, procurement biases, or marketing that hides its true costs. There is every reason to remove GM moratoria, invest in public-sector biotechnology, and ensure farmers have the full range of tools to produce more food on less land.
The ethical test is simple: Can it feed more people, with fewer resources and lower net harm to the environment? On that score, large-scale organic fails. GM, when well managed, passes. It’s time to strip away the marketing gloss, confront the negative externalities, and make informed choices. The moral high ground shouldn’t belong to those who buy the most expensive lettuce – but to those who use every safe and effective technology to feed the world sustainably.
Paul Lindwall is a former productivity commissioner.
More Coverage
Why anti-Semitism has no place in our universities or society
The modern food debate is full of comfortable myths. The most persistent is that “organic” is better for you, and the planet, while genetically modified food is unnatural and risky. These labels have stuck not because they are true, but because they have been repeated until they feel like common sense.