My tl;dr : Our World in Data is still a good source of data (as it mostly gather data from other credible sources) but the author disagrees on some of their analysis.

The precise debate chosen to illustrate bias seems to be on whether we should have farming that is labor-efficient (big farms) or land-efficient (small farms) but the author does not spell it out clearly and jumps from one definition to the other to end up doing exactly what they are criticizing: making biased political statements purportedly (but only partially) supported by some selected articles.

Note that I mostly agree on their political claims: patents on seeds and genes should be done for and agriculture policies should be less dogmatic.

However let’s agree that it is precious to have some reliable data sources, which OurWorldInData is. The author even use their data to make their point about world hunger. Let’s have data-based debates but let’s not attack the data sources that lead to conclusion we dislike,

The Ritchie article specifically attacked is actually what scientific debate is about: it corrects some earlier mistakes, it does omissions itself which are then corrected. That’s good. And if in the process some biased billionaire-funded newspapers put a biased light on some selected results, that’s a problem of the media structure, not of the scientific discourse.