Kevin Andrews, there are big problems with this article.

Firstly, there is no mention of population growth. How on earth can you possibly leave this all-important factor out of an article about global food security??

It is simply daft and self-defeating to concentrate entirely on the supply side of the demand–supply equation, while letting the other side continue to rapidly increase with no end in sight.

You, practically all green groups and practically all those who are striving to increase our productivity, are guilty of this staggering omission.

The thing we need to strive for is a balance between supply and demand, not a constant increase in supply to battle to keep up with a constantly increasing demand, ultimately achieving nothing. Actually, this will achieve a strongly negative result, by way of promulgating the increasing demand and hence taking us further away from a sustainable future rather than closer to it.

Secondly, your comments on native vegetation legislation are way off the mark. It is wildly inaccurate to say that:

< vast tracts of highly fertile farmland are now an effective wasteland. >

As a result of this statement, I have no faith in the accuracy of all your other criticisms of the green movement.

You seem to have a very strong bias towards maximised food production, with little else coming into the picture.

There is of course another way to stop all those starving babies, Kevin.

If the Vatican stopped its endless campaign against modern family
planning in the third world, women would have a choice and not
be forced to pop em out like rabbits.

Even here in Australia, Catholic hospitals deny women the option to
have their tubes tied. Luckily here we have a number of choices.
Not so in the third world.

Check out the Guttmacher Institute data, which is good enough for
the Economist to quote from. Women don't choose to pop out 6-8
kids, they come along due to unmet need for family planning.

That means more hungry mouths to feed, more starvation and more
suffering. That is hardly humane.

Hi, a mea culpa from the editor. The article was accidentally misattributed to Kevin Andrews when it is actually by Tim Andrews. I have fixed that now, but it does affect the first comment on this thread.

It's not that Ludwig is "slow", I'm the one that is.

Whose science?
Which science?

Meanwhile of course everybody who has done the necssary research knows that industrial agriculture, especially as it is done in the USA, is unsustainable, and indeed is destructive of both the biosphere and of human culture. Human and humanizing culture as promoted by Wendell berry for instance, whose work can be found at both Resurgence, and Orion Magazines. Magazines which promote doable alternatives to business as usual big agri-business hi-tech agriculture.

One writer who is associated with Orion is David Orr who is the author of Down To the Wire and other superb books. He has also for many years been associated with the Bioneers. http://www.bioneers.org

Meanwhile for the real truth about how USA big-time Agribusiness really works why not check out:
Food Fight by Daniel Imhoff
Dirt! The Movie
Food Inc. The Corporate Takeover of American Agriculture.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/the-video-monsanto-does-not-want-you-to.html
http://www.responsibletechnology.org

Plus some other usual alternatrives to business as usual
http://www.greeningthedesert.com
http://www.cornucopia.org

Ludwig, we know you are a single-issue fanatic on the topic of population control.

>>Firstly, there is no mention of population growth. How on earth can you possibly leave this all-important factor out of an article about global food security?<<

The article highlighted a policy problem on the supply side. If the author had wanted to engage you in a discussion on "the impact of population increase on the availability of food", I'm sure he would have done so.

Instead, he would, I am sure, appreciate your view on the topic he chose to write about, which is the adverse impact of Greenpeace's attack on food production.

You might have a point, though, if you would like to expand on this.

>>It is wildly inaccurate to say that: <vast tracts of highly fertile farmland are now an effective wasteland.>.<<

The point the author made, that "Legislation to protect 'native vegetation' has allowed governments to appropriate land without compensation" was itself pretty vague. But your response was also somewhat short on evidence to support your rebuttal.

It is an important subject. I for one would love to understand better the mentality of people who actively oppose any scientific approach to the production of food. Diverting this discussion into the ambit of your population-control hobby-horse is not helpful.

An interesting article, but difficult to reconcile scientifically.
We see serious reduction in shark and blue fin tuna numbers.
Both these species are part of the top end food chain predators, needed to keep the reef and vegetation chewing types, in reasonable check.
Palm oil? The forests that are being cleared, with their native populations unceremoniously disenfranchised, recharge the monsoonal rains, we Australians rely on almost exclusively, for most of our northern food production?
Besides, there are superior forms of oil!
Our salt, frost and drought resistant native wisteria, i.e, is a soil improving, nitrogen fixing perennial legume, that grows quite happily, in barely marginal land.
It produces an oil, superior to most other vegetable oils, and is a ready made bio-diesel, virtually as is!
The very high protein ex-crush material is good enough for human consumption; or, to alone support many forms of feedlotting; including cattle, sheep, goats, pig, chickens and farmed fish!
As for NZ lamb producing less carbon even though transported 11,000 miles?
Sure, but you have to quite massively massage the figures, by including population density, electricity use, the amount of comparative feedlott versus grass fed production, etc/etc.
Britain is rediscovering gardening and the vegetable and orchard production, popular during the depression; and or, the last world war.
The carbon foot print is increasingly, a growing problem, as is fossil fuel powered transportation, which could be quite massively lowered, with less carbon producing fuel options, like say, Australian sweet light crude?
Why, the carbon footprint and trading, is the principal reason we are seeing something of a renaissance, in American manufacturing?
A far-sighted govt would simply set aside the self restricting ideological straight jacket! And proceed apace to build a nuclear powered fleet of ocean going, submersible, super tanker sized, roll on roll off, transport options!
Ocean going bulk freight forwarding, is still the most profitable business model available?
Nuclear power and serious automation, would serve to quite massively reduce the carbon foot print and the price of transport, all while quite massively improving the export income, of the fleet operating entity?
Rhrosty.