To be honest, I would’ve thought that organic meat might produce more greenhouse gases, since they need more land and higher quality food for the same amount of meat.

I think you could argue it's more about marketing than either of those things. I don't know about meat, but one of the more interesting facts to come out of the Randy Constant case was that there was no way to chemically test whether or not grain was actually organic - which would only be possible if organic and non-organic were chemically identical.

>Organic isn’t about greenhouse gases, it’s about keeping toxins out of food.

Organic is about selling expensive food to stupid people.

There is nothing inherently better about organic. It isn't healthier. It isn't better for the environment. At best, the yields are equal, but normally they are lower. With lower yields come higher prices. There are plenty of organic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers that are just as dangerous as synthetic varieties. There are more cases of food recalls for organic contamination than synthetic.

The issue with GMO is not food safety, it is patents. The use of GMO crops have reduced chemical usage while increasing yields. They have also introduced critical vitamins and minerals to groups of people that have deficient levels. This has been a boon in Africa.

Because it is being popularised as being an environment friendly and animal friendly option. The latter is still true I suppose?

> out of food.

Yes but keep them out of food and put them in the air (or elsewhere) is not a good goal.