Organic Food is good for the environment but will not feed the world. GM Food will feed the starving but wreck the environment in the process. Is it really this simple? The Today Program just caried an intreresting debate on the relative merits of GM and Organic food with respect to feeding the world's burgeoning population. There were some clearly agenda-driven items: on one side "do we want to see half of Scotland covered in oilseed rape in order to meet Europe's directives on bio-fuel?" and on the other "GM crops have no proven yield increase...organic crops have globally been found to have higher yields" However, some interesting observations came out. More affluent people eating less meat (China's meat consumption has doubled in the last 10 years) and using crops to feed people instead of cattle will have a dramatic effect on world starvation - nothing new here. However, is it a better use of land to grop crops for biofuel and reduce carbon emissions by maybe a couple of % or to use that land to grow food? What was not asked, but might be relevant, is whether global warming might allow double harvests and therefore increase food production, although Lord Melchett (chairman of the organic food Soil Association) did mention using the sun's power to grow bigger crops, not fertiliser - well he would, wouldn't he? Whether global warming is due to the sun or not is the subject of another thread. Interestingly, Naughtie introduced the piece by asking whether we were self sufficient in terms of food production. I assume he must have meant on a global scale, because in the UK we haven't been self sufficient since well before WW2 which is why we had rationing into the 50's. Even now, UK farmers can only produce about 30% of our requirements and DEFRA's current "incentives" will only serve to reduce that amount as more and more farmers give up the unequal struggle. David Miliband, are you listening? Edited to add this Telegraph link:Growing demand for biofuels 'could lead to food shortages'