There are millions starving; GM foods (which the WHO says are harmless) could massively help feed them. The Greens say no: just who do they think they are?

Sorry but I do not buy the current sales spiel of the GM companies about global hunger. At the moment it is far more down to inequality and politics – there is more than enough food overall in the world to feed every body. And if we want to greatly increase the amount of food available to feed the world then we in the West and in the richer developing countries should cut down greatly on our meat habit. Meat production is just about the most inefficient way of producing protein for human consumption in terms of land and fossil fuel used known to man.  We should only been eating meat raised on food waste and land unsuitable for any other purpose such as growing crops for direct human consumption.

That’s still part of the anti-GM propaganda. Of course it’s wrong; and it doesn’t happen, though theoretically possible

The comment by “Guest” about windmills in Scotland last winter is completely at variance with what actually happened. In fact, when the wind was high, the things had to be shut down, and electricity had to be purchased from someone with a fossil powered power plant. 
As well, during the extremely cold period, which happened to coincide with a stationary high pressure, there was no wind, and so electricity had to be purchased from someone with a fossil powered power plant. 
Again. As for the first comment, which purported to read GKC’s mind, how on earth does Guest know this?Of course, the whole point of such a comment is to distract from the real topic, GM food.Could this be because the writer doesn’t understand GM? 

I generally support any criticism of the environment religion, and if the Pontifical Academy of Sciences signs off on the use of certain manipulated crops, then I can’t really argue much. Of course, the document by the academy did qualify its support somewhat.

However, I wish to point out that the starving of millions has nothing to do with the lack of GM plants, nor would an increase in GM plants reduce world hunger. There is more than enough food on the planet to feed everyone as it is, so food production is not at all the problem. Of particular relevance is the fact taht this would probably not be the case without the sort of plant breeding which humans have been doing down through the centuries, a point which is often forgotten.

Furthermore, given the WHO’s generally dubious statistics, their recommendations should always be taken with a huge handful of salt, as they seem to spend as much time doing political lobbying as promoting authentic human health.

Of course, the regrettable irony is that those push hardest to protect the ‘natural’ state of the environment are the same who simultaneously push hardest for artificial human environments – denying the “ecology of man” as the Pope recently put it.

In light of this, I would recommend Roger Scruton’s marvelous rethink on the whole issue called ‘Green Philosophy: Thinking seriously about the Planet’.  It is the most sensible and best analysis of the issue and offers local solutions and sensible ideas as opposed to trendy scaremongering and top down failures that are currently in vogue.

First point: humans have genetically modified biological organisms for millenia – for example, by saving the largest wheat grains for sowing for next year’s crop, or, slowly changing the wolf to the domestic dog.  In both instances, the actual genetic structure is modified – or, to put it another way, The grain became GM, and the domestic dog is GM.
Second point:  For those who don’t think GM crops are good.  Recently, biologists developed a rice that is better adapted to flooding – needed badly in Bangladesh – where the annual rice crop often was decimated during typhoons.  The new rice will have increased yield, and may save millions from starvation over the coming decades.  So, let’s end the polemics about GM.  Humans have always had GM crops. 

One of the unsung heroes of the modern era was Norman Borlaug. He created a new strain of modified wheat in the early 60′s which doubled wheat yields in India, and later in South America, Africa and Asia. He’s often referred to as “The man who saved a billion people”. Although he won a Nobel Prize in 1970, he is practically unknown outside scientific circles. He was a truly inspiring man who grew up as a farmer’s son in Iowa, I would recommend everybody to read about his life and the contributions he made to humanity.

As a counterbalance, I would also recommend reading about Thomas Midgley, probably the unsung villain of the modern era. Decades after his death he still credited with being the single worst thing to happen to the environment in human history. Even his death was an example of being “hoist on your own petard”

 I agree wholeheartedly with you concerning Norman Borlaug and his contribution to feeding the millions of hungry people in India and South America.. The ignorance about him and the effects of his work s to be deplored ibut in the west most are too wrapped up in their own gratification, too few are dedicated people like him. However I think you are much too hard on Thomas Midgeley. There is no doubt that his invention of an antiknock additive for petrol (tetraethyl iead) transformed transport and industry at the time and it is far too easy to condemn the later environmental impact  with the benefit of hindsight – it is very easy to be virtuous  once more knowledge becomes available. Also let us not forget that the war against Hitler was aided immeasurably by he efficiency of the mainly  American transport system which would not have happened without tetraethyl lead. As for freon, the non toxic refrigerant gas – where would we be without refrigeration? True it was later found to affect the ozone layer – but you cannot blame Midgeley for this and substitutes are now available. All the self-righteous “greens” who condemn men such as Midgeley have had a net enhancement to their lives from such discoveries and have been quite willing to accept this benefit. As has been said – hindsight is a marvellous thing – 20-20 vision at last.

As I was tucking into my breakfast of sausage, eggs and bacon, I asked myself “is this a catholic breakfast?”
The eggs should be unfertilised, so I’m safe. But then I realised… the pork came from an animal that was artificially inseminated, ripped from it’s mother at a young age, denied nature and nurture as it was grown in a giant barn, then slaughtered for my delectation. 

Not respected from conception to natural death.

Then I remembered that “Natural Law” only seems to apply to gays and condoms and the like. So I’m safe, as long as it wasn’t Friday, in which case I’d just have to ignore issues about over-fishing.

I just dislike food snobbery. It all well for middle class people to insist on organic veggies, but that isn’t an option for the vast majority of people. The same would apply to meat, it is a luxury we take for granted. I personally don’t care if the sausage I eat is mostly ears, hoofs and the like, that just means there’s less of the animal wasted.

I am, of course, concerned about how animals are farmed. Not just in the ethical, cruelty or natural sense I described with breakfast example. Simple things like anti-biotic use and pollution of the water and air are things which can affect us all.

Absolutely right Mr Oddie.
Down with the neo-Luddites!