Does the study take into consideration the damage done to the ecosystem by fertiliser run off into streams and rivers. Many reports state that as the years pass by the yields of fertilised crops fall to levels below organically farmed produce anyway. Does it also take into consideration the decimation of insect biomass pesticides are causing? Or the cost to the general population caused by health problems linked to pesticides entering the food chain? Who paid for this study? Do they have a vested interest in the result? Just a few questions worth considering before concluding that organic is worse for the environment.

“Eat Monsanto products.. or die! good boy...!”

I totally agree with matthew4506! First of all, if we want to save this world, curb the climate change, we have to start from ourselves. This planet is overpopulated, we have to start controlling births, stop thinking about humans as the best and only species and being greedy. This greed is destroying everything around us and ourselves. We think we have no limits but this planet doesn't belong to us, we belong to it!

A plant heavy diet may be an excellent way to "save" the planet but it's also an excellent way to shorten your life, which also reduces the burden on the eco-sphere.

Mark, would you care to cite a source for your claim that a diet high in plant-based foods will reduce your lifespan?

I am very disappointed that new atlas will put such poor article, really any comment sense would know, for m2 concerning the growing population try permaculture, you will see that we have plenty of land available.Even for the freedom of speech some lies should be published.Did you know cigarettes use to be good for you ....

This is totally unbelievable! Does anyone really think you can concoct any bullshit, attach the words "research" or "new study" and it becomes reality??? The question is who paid for this study? Who benefits from the study? Why did that entity find an anti-organic farming study(agenda)? This "new study" asks far more questions than it answers (=a load of bullshit)!

This article does a bit of cherry picking of the paper to increase the click-bait factor and wind up anyone who actually thinks that it is important to consider just the carbon storage implications of farming. What the scientific paper does say is that meat from ruminants have 100 times the carbon impacts compared to plant based foods. So you can both save carbon and save the environment from the impacts of agri-chemicals by eating less - or no - meat. The paper also says "Organic systems might offer health and environmental benefits we could not investigate with our data set" so really looking at what farming system is better needs a broader perspective. The paper also assumed that organic farming would require the destruction of habitats that are already store high amounts of carbon. What about looking at the conversion of intensive farmland, which has low soil carbon (and more importantly erodes the soil resource), to organic farming with greater soil carbon and stable soils. The paper doesn't consider this option which skews the results. I would also question who funds such narrow minded research

This is poor research! It excludes consideration of entire pesticides and herbicides value chains and the carbon impact of these. This is how coal gets rated as cheap, no full life cycle accounting is done. We cannot continue to farm intensively, the health and ecosystem costs outweigh the benefits. The world cannot eat a US diet. We would need another Earth to sustain that. Duh!

Of course, a cow needs to eat more grass then soy beans. But at digestion it causes much less methane with grass. And so on and so forth... We are exposed to a war between food industry and organic farming. I really hope that more and more smart people step into organic farming because fintech and law are the most IT affected sectors to be replaced by more and more AI algorithms.