The question I wanted to ask the environmental panel at 
yesterday’s Conservative Women’s Association conference was my concern about food security.
I wanted to ask Zac Goldsmith and Lord Melchett whether simply growing organic crops will provide enough food for us all, not only in the UK, but in drought stricken countries like Africa too.
However, the green-blooded Tory ladies gave me no chance, they also had pressing environmental questions which were given precedence, my raised hand remained invisible.
Undeterred, I remained behind and spoke to Lord Melchett afterwards, he is policy director of the Soil Association. He is convinced that organic crops can produce high yields in the UK, sufficient to fill our bellies, as well as those who are starving in Africa. He is going to send me copies of reports which support this view. I look forward to receiving them.
As readers of this blog know, I am a very keen environmentalist, but I also want to be realistic. My concern is whether organic crops can feed the world’s expanding population, that demands on our crops will increase for many reasons, eg. farmers will opt for biofuels which is more profitable. As a result,farmers will need to use fertilisers and pesticides, as well as GMO products which are proven to be safe, to help meet this need.
Just as life is not just “black and white”, neither can it be totally “green” in order to feed the world. Or can it?
I fear that true organic crops alone will not feed the world. Unpopular as it may seem now, I think that genetically modified crops are the way forward. Just imagine wheat/maize/rice with nitrogen-fixing capability (as in legumes) – wow! No need for fertiliser!
I don’t know, Ellee. I’ll be interested to read your follow-up posts on this one, after you have received all the information.
I’m sure there’ll be some calamity to cure the world of its problems with the humans before long.
The greenest thing we can do is to stop breeding, surely ?
I doubt that we could feed the world’s population using organic methods and like you I think one has to be realistic. Let’s see what the reports say.
The criticism of that is usually the offsetting pollution created by flying the food to Africa.
I’ll be interested to see what his reports say.
Aren’t ‘organic crops’ the reason the majority of people lived meager, short, and miserable lives before technologically advanced and intensive farming made the cost to an indiviual of food inconsequential to poverty?
Even if the advocates could propose the unctuous, economy-killing notion that government redistribution could take care of the matter, doesn’t realize that under a fully organic scenario, we couldn’t grow enough to feed the world.
They need to bear in mind that much of what are now forests were under cultivation at the time, and there were a lot less people to feed than out present day world of 6,5 billion hungry mauls.
Sustainable farming is crucial if we are to safely feed the world. I would like to direct reader to http://www.livingcountryside.org.uk. The Countryside Restoration Trust, based in Barton Cambridge aims to prove to governments that sustainable food production is not only econonic but also crucial to the wildlife who play a very important role in sustaining the eco system.
“Green” is also quite complex here. For instance, organic requires more land to be cultivated due to lower yields. That means tractors have to travel further, producing more CO2.
More land for farming also means less land for woodland. It means less land being left for wildlife. It means less land that could be left as rainforest (and thus take on the CO2).
Thanks to Peter Melchett for sending me the reports, shall read them over the weekend.
Since when did ‘organic’ become ‘green’. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that farms using pesticides are not ‘green’ or that non-organic carrots are bad for you.