Last week's Oxford Farming Conference pushed the GM (genetic modification) debate back into the headlines.
It first became a hot topic in the UK about 15 years ago when Tony Blair's government decided to make GM crops available to farmers. The PM soon backtracked on that decision in the wake of the public backlash against the technology.
The Scottish Government is resolutely against GM and refuses to allow any such crops to be planted on Scottish soil.
Despite that, public sentiment south of the Border is steadily shifting in favour of GM.
In August of last year, scientists at Norfolk's John Innes Centre announced they had successfully developed varieties of potato resistant to light blight – the deadly disease that caused the Irish potato famine – and that those GM potatoes remained healthy despite last summer being the worst for the disease in years.
In total, British growers spend an average of £60 million every year controlling blight that causes global losses of about £3.5 billion – so this development is a major breakthrough.
Protests last summer by anti-GM campaigners against a £1m, two-year-trial at Rothamsted in Hertfordshire to see whether GM wheat can deter aphids were quashed by police. Scientists now report early results from the trial are encouraging.
It's much the same around the world, with different countries developing GM crops from maize and soy bean, to fruit and vegetables, and cotton.
Owen Paterson, Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) Secretary explained to conference delegates how widespread the use of GM technology had become, telling them: "In 2011, 16 million farmers in 29 countries grew GM products on 160 million hectares. That's 11% of the world's arable land.
"To put it in context, that's six times larger than the surface area of the UK."
Perhaps my favourite quote from the conference on the subject came from environmental campaigner Mark Lynas who said: "You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food."
That came from a man who controversially changed from being a GM sceptic to a supporter after studying the science.
As opposition to GM retreats in the face of ever more leading scientists backing the technology, it's interesting to note that support for organic farming systems is also fading.
Most recent figures for organic production show most sectors have declined from their peak a few years ago, despite generous subsidies in the past to help farmers cope with the high costs of converting from conventional farming to organic.
There are currently not many more than 450 organic producers left in Scotland.
The problem is that consumers are being financially squeezed and are less inclined to pay premiums for organic food. Farmers, on the other hand, need premium prices to make up for the lower yields and extra costs of production, and in the absence of meaningful premiums are giving up and going back to conventional systems.
Perhaps the biggest constraint on the growth in demand for organic food is that report after report shows there is no difference nutritionally between it and conventionally produced food.
The concept of producing food organically is an attractive one until you study it in more depth. Yields are lower, but, more importantly, crop failures are more likely as a result of weeds, disease and pests in adverse growing season like last summer.
Up to half the world's productive arable land could be lost over the next 40 years due to the combined impact of rising temperatures, salinity and water scarcity. Coupled with the increasing frequency of heavy rain and flooding, farmers must be given innovative crop production tools, like GM varieties, to produce more food on less land.
There is now firm evidence to demonstrate the adoption of more intensive farming practices, including the responsible use of modern science, offers the most effective route to mitigate and cope with the effects of climate change.
If we can introduce new crops more resilient to water scarcity or wet conditions, we will at the same time contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the more efficient use of energy intensive inputs such as fertiliser.
Above all else, such technology should help us to banish hunger from a growing world population.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article