Reporter: Analysis of industrial vs. organic farm productivity is 'apples and oranges' comparison

The journal Nature recently offered analysis of the productivity of 66 farm yields, comparing industrial versus organic methods. Since then, there's been much discussion about its two main findings: Organic farming yields were 25 percent lower on average than those that employed industrial methods, but only for grain crops like wheat, not in crops like fruits and vegetables.

The fallout from the study was centered on whether the organic work and additional acreage was worth the loss of efficiency. The study was headlined and reported in the media through a lens that made "industrial agricultural look hyper-efficient and organic look like a laggard," writes Tom Philpott of Mother Jones. (Photo by Pete Zaria, Illinois grain elevator)

Philpott analyzed stories about the study in The New York Times and Time Magazine. The Times made a case for "a hybrid path in agriculture" incorporating both industrial-style production and organic practices when they made sense, Philpott reports. Time's headline wondered: "Why Organic Agriculture May Not Be So Sustainable." Such reporting doesn't take into account anything but gross output per acre, argues Philpott. There was no consideration of, "ecological trouble like the plight of honeybees and other pollinators in a sea of pesticide-laced crops or resources consumed, like synthetic nitrogen-laced fertilized, which is made of natural gas."

By focusing on yield, "the authors presume that maximizing production should be the chief goal for policymakers," writes Philpott. But from a global perspective, the emphasis now is on "what we grow, where we grow it and who grows it."