Re: De gustibus non est disputandum
"For a fixed population size, more "intensive" farming reduces the amount of land required for food production."
Spot on. World population is around 7bn and expected to peak at 9bn. It is estimated that if farmers around the world had continued with traditional farming methods rather than modern, intensive ones, we would have needed an area the size of the Amazon forest in extra farmland to feed the world 'organically'. In the next 20-30 years the world will not only have to feed 2bn more people, but to feed much better the 3bn or so of the current 7bn who are undernourished.
The tragedy is that there are many GMO strains that increase yields, increase nutritional content, are pest-resistant (so less pesticides are needed) and fix their own nitrogen (so less fertilizer is needed). Unfortunately GMO got a bad rap* and is generally banned or highly disapproved of in many areas, which is a pity. 'Good' GMOs would allow feeding the world with increased population without increasing farmland. In other words, GMOs can be good for the environment... but try explaining that to some environmentalists!!
* Mainly from the Monsanto GMOs that were pesticide-resistant (rather than pest-resistant), so they got sprayed more rather than less (and with Roundup = glyphosate which was thought to be less harmful when introduced but now is classified as 'probable carcinogen by WHO). I think a lot of anti-GMO feeling come from Monsanto's business practices rather than teh product itself.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
