The Economist lays out the complexities of today’s local and organic questions.
If your organic January tomato was flown in from Chile, is it better for the environment, emissionswise, than a local hothouse version?
If organic farming produces lower yields, then there’s more land under cultivation - and, perhaps, less for the rainforest?
Do “fair-trade” practices upset the signals of an efficient market, are they a subsidy to farmers that disincentivizes diversification and quality, does the fair trade subsidy prevent adoption of more profitable crops and methods?
Argued in typical Economist fashion: a) set up a straw man, knock the man down b) and on the otherhand, maybe the straw man was right after all, with caveats — the piece still deserves a read for doing a better job than most of establishing the parameters of the debate.

This is the kind of issue I wish the growing food movement addressed more frequently — there is, unfortunately, a tension between feeding ourselves locally and feeding the world globally.
[…] Salon strikes back at the anti-organic arguments of Nobelist Norman Borlaug and the recent Economist article on the organic revolution. […]
“If organic farming produces lower yields, then there’s more land under cultivation - and, perhaps, less for the rainforest?”
The Dean of Harvard Law School once siad “If I state the issue I can never lose the debate”. The question ignores the fact that dietary assumptions will change with a concomitant shift in eating habits and that some land which was now being grazed will now go into cultivation. Thus a paradigm shift would effectively increase the total # of acres in cultivation. Smart little buggers - ya just gotta beat ‘em at their own game.