There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
The demand for organic foods is increasing worldwide due to health and environmental
benefits. However, there are several unanswered questions, such as: Do organic farmers
generate higher profits? Will the cost of cultivation reduce to compensate for low
yields? Can farmers practice as per the organic agriculture protocols and obtain certification?
The literature on organic agriculture varies widely in terms of profitability, yields
and costs of organic products. A few studies have researched site-specific organic
agriculture, but none have compared organic with conventional agriculture at larger
scale in India. The Indian government has promoted organic agriculture since 2015
through its pan-India scheme—Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY). Under this program,
there were 13.9 million certified organic farmers in 29,859 organic clusters, covering
0.59 million hectares (about 0.4% of the cropped area in India). This study assessed
the implementation process of PKVY and the impact at the farmer level using the Difference-in-Difference
approach. An economic surplus model was employed to observe the macro scale using
data from an all-India representative sample from 576 clusters for the crop year 2017.
The results identified that organic farmers experienced 14–19 percent less costs and
12–18 percent lower yields than conventional farmers. The net result is a marginal
increase in profitability compared to traditional agriculture. The economy-wide economic
surplus model indicates that there will be a reduction in producer and consumer surplus
due to reduced crop yields. However, if the shift from conventional to organic is
confined to rainfed, hilly and tribal areas, there will be an increase in both consumer
and producer surplus.
A doubling in global food demand projected for the next 50 years poses huge challenges for the sustainability both of food production and of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide to society. Agriculturalists are the principal managers of global usable lands and will shape, perhaps irreversibly, the surface of the Earth in the coming decades. New incentives and policies for ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and ecosystem services will be crucial if we are to meet the demands of improving yields without compromising environmental integrity or public health.
Numerous reports have emphasized the need for major changes in the global food system: agriculture must meet the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts. Organic farming—a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans—is often proposed as a solution. However, critics argue that organic agriculture may have lower yields and would therefore need more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environmental benefits of organic practices. Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems.
Summary Background 18% of the world's population lives in India, and many states of India have populations similar to those of large countries. Action to effectively improve population health in India requires availability of reliable and comprehensive state-level estimates of disease burden and risk factors over time. Such comprehensive estimates have not been available so far for all major diseases and risk factors. Thus, we aimed to estimate the disease burden and risk factors in every state of India as part of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2016. Methods Using all available data sources, the India State-level Disease Burden Initiative estimated burden (metrics were deaths, disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs], prevalence, incidence, and life expectancy) from 333 disease conditions and injuries and 84 risk factors for each state of India from 1990 to 2016 as part of GBD 2016. We divided the states of India into four epidemiological transition level (ETL) groups on the basis of the ratio of DALYs from communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases (CMNNDs) to those from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and injuries combined in 2016. We assessed variations in the burden of diseases and risk factors between ETL state groups and between states to inform a more specific health-system response in the states and for India as a whole. Findings DALYs due to NCDs and injuries exceeded those due to CMNNDs in 2003 for India, but this transition had a range of 24 years for the four ETL state groups. The age-standardised DALY rate dropped by 36·2% in India from 1990 to 2016. The numbers of DALYs and DALY rates dropped substantially for most CMNNDs between 1990 and 2016 across all ETL groups, but rates of reduction for CMNNDs were slowest in the low ETL state group. By contrast, numbers of DALYs increased substantially for NCDs in all ETL state groups, and increased significantly for injuries in all ETL state groups except the highest. The all-age prevalence of most leading NCDs increased substantially in India from 1990 to 2016, and a modest decrease was recorded in the age-standardised NCD DALY rates. The major risk factors for NCDs, including high systolic blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, high total cholesterol, and high body-mass index, increased from 1990 to 2016, with generally higher levels in higher ETL states; ambient air pollution also increased and was highest in the low ETL group. The incidence rate of the leading causes of injuries also increased from 1990 to 2016. The five leading individual causes of DALYs in India in 2016 were ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and cerebrovascular disease; and the five leading risk factors for DALYs in 2016 were child and maternal malnutrition, air pollution, dietary risks, high systolic blood pressure, and high fasting plasma glucose. Behind these broad trends many variations existed between the ETL state groups and between states within the ETL groups. Of the ten leading causes of disease burden in India in 2016, five causes had at least a five-times difference between the highest and lowest state-specific DALY rates for individual causes. Interpretation Per capita disease burden measured as DALY rate has dropped by about a third in India over the past 26 years. However, the magnitude and causes of disease burden and the risk factors vary greatly between the states. The change to dominance of NCDs and injuries over CMNNDs occurred about a quarter century apart in the four ETL state groups. Nevertheless, the burden of some of the leading CMNNDs continues to be very high, especially in the lowest ETL states. This comprehensive mapping of inequalities in disease burden and its causes across the states of India can be a crucial input for more specific health planning for each state as is envisioned by the Government of India's premier think tank, the National Institution for Transforming India, and the National Health Policy 2017. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Indian Council of Medical Research, Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; and World Bank
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.