I've invested a lot of my own money into organic and sustainable farming,

and to converting American farmland to organic,

and I'm here to dispel some misperceptions about organic food.

There is this prevailing notion

that organic farming is more expensive and less sufficient, right?

And that we need industrial agriculture and factory farms to feed the world.

"Feed the world."

Well, I'm here to dissect some of the assumptions behind that logic,

and to share some information that leads to a very different conclusion.

We all know organic food is expensive.

This is a fact.

And it's logical to therefore assume that it's for the 1%, the foodie elites,

the rich people, not for ordinary people.

Well, that's actually not correct logic, and I will show why in a second.

It also leads us to assume that if organic food is expensive,

organic farming must be more expensive, which then leads to wonder,

surely, it can't feed the world,

and back to concluding that it's only for the 1%.

Well, those assumptions actually are wrong as well.

The idea that organic food is only for the rich,

only for the 1% is a powerful one,

with huge implications on both business and policy.

And we need both business innovation

and policy change in this country to support organic.

Think about it, if you are a business person or a politician,

the way to be successful is to come up with products or policies

that cater not to the 1% but to ordinary Americans.

And so we need businessmen and policy makers to recognize

that organic food is not just for the 1%,

it's for everybody, it's for ordinary Americans.

And the first step in that change is to change that perception.

So, who is buying this expensive organic food?

Who in America is buying it?

According to Nielsen and NMI research,

three out of every four Americans have consciously chosen

to buy organic food in the past year.

Some of them might have only bought a single organic product,

but there is a subset that there are the so-called devoted organic shoppers,

that represent the vast majority of all organic food consumption in this country.

These so-called foodies are not 1%,

they are 25%, one out of every four Americans.

Now let's look at these elite foodies.

What does the elite foodie look like?

Two out of five of them have an annual household income

of less than 50,000 dollars.

One out of five has an annual household income

of less than 30,000 dollars.

These elite people are about 20% people of color,

and another 15% Hispanic.

Six out of ten of them shop at Walmart.

How does that profile compare to the general U.S. population?

It's exactly the same.

The general U.S. population is about two out of five income less than 50K,

one out of five income less than 30K.

About 20% people of color, 15% Hispanic, and about six out of ten shop at Walmart.

In every respect,

the foodie elite who are buying organic are the average ordinary American.

And it's one out of four Americans,

and they're already buying organic in spite of how expensive it is.

Just imagine how many more Americans would be buying organic food

if it wasn't so damn expensive.

Well, we actually know some of the answers to that.

Walmart asked its consumers

and found that 91% of them would be buying organic.

So, why is organic food so darn expensive?

It must be because organic farming is more expensive, right?

Not true; organic farming actually saves a ton of money

on a lot of very expensive inputs.

Fossil fuel is expensive.

Fertilizers are incredibly expensive.

The chemicals, the antibiotics that are used by factory farms.

These things are very expensive.

Not just their externalized costs,

but their actual dollar costs are very high.

Well, so maybe organic farming saves money but perhaps it produces less food.

That's not necessarily true either.

This is not a blanket statement, it varies by crop and region,

but there are lot of ways in which, when done right,

organic sustainable farming can produce more food.

One part of that is crop and livestock rotations,

so that nutrients are recycled into the soil.

Growing multiple crops at the same time, increasing the revenue of the land.

Exploiting natural synergies.

One of my favorites examples of this is sheep and asparagus.

Sheep love to graze but they do not like the taste of asparagus.

And so, when the asparagus farmer has a weed problem,

rather than spending a lot of money

buying a chemical herbicide to spray in the fields,

they can invite in a sheep farmer.

The sheep will clear the weeds.

The sheep farmer gets free pasture for his or her animals,

and the asparagus farmer gets free weed control.

And, the sheep add fertility to the soil.

You must be thinking: "Well, great,

but industrial agriculture, for all of its ills,

surely at least the one thing it has is that it's more efficient, right?"

I would say that it has the illusion of efficiency,

and it's a short-lived one.

For example, think about the topsoil.

America's topsoil,

perhaps the single, greatest national treasure this country possesses,

this rich topsoil, is like a bank account that we're drawing on every year.

Withdrawing money and not putting it back in.

That's not efficient.

It's inefficient and unsustainable.

Similarly, the way we treat nutrients.

Nutrients are supposed to come from the soil,

go through the body of a plant, into the body of an animal,

and back into the soil.

We all learned that in high school.

And that's not how the vast majority of North American agriculture works today.

Instead, we're mining minerals in Morroco, shipping them across the Atlantic,

spraying them on the fields,

only to have them wash off into the waterways,

and end up in dead zones, and places like the Gulf of Mexico.

That's not efficient, it's incredibly wasteful.

Not just ecologically, but economically.

Similarly, what I said earlier about fossil fuels,

antibiotics to feed the factory farm animals.

And all of this to increase the yield of corn and soy.

Crops that humans don't even actually eat.

We're maximizing the yield per acre of corn and soy,

yet the vast majority of American farmland does not feed humans.

It's either used to create ethanol or to feed livestock.

About less than 10% of the corn crop in this country

actually goes to feed humans.

This is the system that is supposed to feed the world?

Well, it's actually not feeding the world today.

If you measure, the right way to measure productivity in agriculture

is not the yield of corn per acre or soy per acre,

but the yield of human food per acre.

And when you measure how much human food is produced per acre,

America is not a leader.

We're not even average.

We're behind the world average,

and we're behind countries like India and China,

that are making a much better job of feeding the world population than we are.

So, if you were smart, you would realize what's really behind that status

is the fact that these other countries consume less meat that America does.

And, so, who is going to produce all the increasing appetite for pork in China,

And surely, American industrial agriculture and factory farms

are going to step forward to supply all the meat.

Well, I'm not sure that's true either.

The leading exporter of pork in the world today is Denmark.

Denmark is a country that has for many years banned

the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock.

One of the most disgusting and reckless practices of American factory farms

has been banned in Denmark,

yet Denmark has continued to maintain high yields and low prices for their pork,

and is the number one exporter of pork to places like China.

Ironically, China has recently banned pork imports

from several U.S. pork producers because of the use of antibiotics.

The real question though is:

What's the most efficient way to produce food

if people are going to eat more meat?

Well, if you look at one acre of corn,

it can produce about enough corn to feed one head of cattle.

This is an approximation, this is not very exact math.

That same acre-I wouldn't advocate planting organic corn to feed the cattle -

that same acre can produce about enough grass to feed one head of cattle.

Now, it's not an exact math.

I'm approximating,

and there is a lot of other things that change the equation.

Corn is a more efficient crop in a lot of ways.

It's a wonderful crop, it allows for a lot more control,

it has less seasonality,

but it also has a lot of other costs on the balance sheet.

At the end of the day, it's not a slam dunk

that industrial agriculture is more efficient, even for producing meat.

Now, the truly more efficient way to feed humans is to use that land