My complaint about "organic" is that it's a case of jumping to conclusions, and I fear that this is far too complex an issue for that to be a successful long-term strategy.
Organic is typically understood to mean avoiding the use of things that aren't considered "natural." Which, in turn, tends to mean avoiding the use of both chemical and genetic engineering.
To me, the idea that the most environmentally friendly agents for use in large scale agriculture just happen to already be sitting around in nature seems quite extraordinary. To take the case of pesticides and herbicides, I'm certainly no biologist, but the general pattern I see is that that nature provides broad-spectrum, non-specific poisons that kill relatively indiscriminately. And the only reason that these agents don't tend to cause a lot of damage to ecosystems is that they tend to be used in the way nature intended - that is to say, on a very small, non-industrial scale. Think "poisonous animals only using it for personal protection," or, "clove oil mostly only being found inside of a clove plant." I can't see any reason to see why we should just assume that taking these sorts of toxic agents that evolved for very limited use cases, and applying them over countless hectares of cropland, is actually a good thing.
I also worry about just accepting organic agriculture's lower yield. Less yield per unit of cropland translates into more cropland being needed to feed the humans. Which, in turn, means more habitat destruction due to human activity.
Versus, if you allow engineering into the equation, you can start to try and engineer things to be less harmful when used at an industrial scale. A pesticide that is engineered to be as specific as possible to only the pest in question. Or, let's dream big, some sort of precision agriculture fertilization system that can dynamically reformulate the fertilizer being applied to meet the soil needs of that particular corner of the field.
None of this is to say that mainstream agriculture is automatically better than organic. More that. . . well, at least in the USA, the organic program is organized under the United States Department of Agriculture's marketing division. Which is very good at marketing. They've done an excellent job of convincing American consumers of a false dichotomy that the organic program is the sole standard bearer of environmentally friendly agriculture. And that's a shame, because some foregone conclusions about what it means to be organic have therefore trapped people who want to be environmentalist into a local minimum that probably isn't nearly as environmentally friendly as they could be if their options hadn't been artificially constrained by a paragon of crony capitalism.