If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?

What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?

One of the key contentions in the on-going debate about GMOs is that such technology is necessary to feed the world. On the other side, it is argued that more intelligent and careful farming (using such methods as organic farming, permaculture, etc) can do the job better, with less risk. I'm wondering if this is true, without requiring a utopia where everyone maintains a rooftop garden.

Note: by "organic" I'm referring to farming without fossil-fuel based or synthesized fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. My understanding is that organic farming still includes mechanized methods.

Organic farming saves the planet...

Proponents of organic, non-GMO farming argue that such methods are necessary to preserve the long-term health of the soil and the environment as a whole.

But conventional farming feeds the world?

On the other hand, proponents of "conventional" farming methods, which include GMOs, chemical pesticides and herbicides, and petroleum-based fertilizers, argue that organic farming is too labor intensive, and does not produce high enough yields, to provide enough produce to meet the world's needs.

What does the evidence say?

While I personally believe that organic farming is more environmentally sustainable, I'm interested in the evidence for one small part of this debate:

If organic farming were implemented around the world, could it provide enough food to feed everyone, without being prohibitively expensive or labor intensive?

If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?

What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?

One of the key contentions in the on-going debate about GMOs is that such technology is necessary to feed the world. On the other side, it is argued that more intelligent and careful farming (using such methods as organic farming, permaculture, etc) can do the job better, with less risk. I'm wondering if this is true, without requiring a utopia where everyone maintains a rooftop garden.

If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?

What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?

One of the key contentions in the on-going debate about GMOs is that such technology is necessary to feed the world. On the other side, it is argued that more intelligent and careful farming (using such methods as organic farming, permaculture, etc) can do the job better, with less risk. I'm wondering if this is true, without requiring a utopia where everyone maintains a rooftop garden.

Note: by "organic" I'm referring to farming without fossil-fuel based or synthesized fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. My understanding is that organic farming still includes mechanized methods.