NEWS: Scientific evidence refutes alarmist NGO claims of wildlife loss on Britain's farms

A growing body of scientific evidence is calling into question long-standing claims from environmental NGOs that Britain’s farmland birds and insect populations are in dramatic decline due to intensive farming. In fact, overall populations of both groups have remained broadly stable over the past three decades, according to new research highlighted by the think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA).

​

Read more...

​

​

Challenging the myth of declining farmland bird and insect populations in Britain

Peter Button, Daniel Pearsall & Matt Ridley

The scientific evidence increasingly refutes the alarmist narrative that our farmland bird and insect populations are disappearing due to intensive agriculture. In fact, total bird and insect numbers in Britain have been stable for the past 30 years. Freshwater insects are thriving. Many of the NGOs behind these misleading claims of ecological collapse have built their campaigns, and their fundraising strategies, on such fear-mongering. In doing so they risk undermining the very causes they claim to represent, argue Peter Button, Daniel Pearsall and Matt Ridley.

​

Read more...

​

​

NEWS: Think-tank challenges Government farmland bird data

​

Pro-innovation think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has reiterated its call for an urgent review of the ‘limited and highly selective’ list of indicator species used by the UK Government to determine and report the status of bird life on British farmland. It follows recent headline reports that farmland bird populations have declined by 62% since 1970, according to an indicator list of just 19 species, when alternative, more comprehensive data point to stable or even increasing wild bird numbers.     

​

Read more...

​

Beautiful mutants: How changes to plant DNA shape the food we eat

Dr Anthony Hopkins

​

When we hear the word mutation, most of us imagine something sinister: radioactive monsters, genetic diseases, or comic book villains. But in plant breeding, mutations are neither rare nor inherently dangerous. In fact, they are the quiet, constant changes in DNA that have helped make bananas seedless, almonds edible, and tomatoes juicy. With new tools like genome editing, we now have the power to guide these mutations with unprecedented precision, writes BSPB head of policy Dr Anthony Hopkins.

Read more...

​

​

AHDB must recover its yen for productivity growth

Paul Temple

Former AHDB board member Paul Temple expresses concern that the UK’s agricultural levy body is drifting from its core mission of boosting farm productivity, and that AHDB research funds are being misdirected towards niche, low-yield projects. Describing the recently-announced closure of ADAS’ Yield Enhancement Network (YEN) for cereals and oilseeds as nothing short of a national scandal in view of the urgent need to close a widening yield gap, he urges AHDB to step in to safeguard the YEN programme and its valuable insights and dataset for industry-wide benefit.

Read more...

​

​

Farmland loss risks food security crisis

Dr Derrick Wilkinson

​​

Britain is at risk of sleepwalking into a food security crisis. For a generation, the nation has watched farmland disappear under housing, infrastructure and environmental initiatives, while the rate of growth in agricultural yields and domestic food production has slowed as a result of challenging weather conditions and a greater focus on agri-environmental policies. Modelling these trends forward to 2050, and the evidence is stark: without urgent policy change, the UK is set to produce far less of its own food, relying ever more heavily on imports from a volatile world market, and increasing the risk of a domestic food security crisis, warns economist Dr Derrick Wilkinson.

​

Read more...

​

​

NEWS: Farmland loss threatens UK food security by 2050, report warns

A new report, UK Food Security – Outlook to 2050, warns that the potential loss of up to 23% of currently farmed land to competing land-use demands – for housing, solar energy, tree planting, biodiversity restoration and carbon sequestration – threatens to displace UK food production at an unprecedented scale.

​

Read more...

​

​

The gene editing revolution is only just beginning

Professor Mario Caccamo

News emerged this week that UK-based gene editing research could help protect declining honeybee populations from the combined threat of climate change and habitat loss. It is the latest in a rapidly growing list of applications demonstrating the enormous potential of a suite of new biotechnologies to help address global food security and environmental challenges. Britain’s scientists are at the forefront of this research, and with England’s progressive Precision Breeding Act due to come into force from mid-November, the UK Government must not allow forthcoming UK-EU realignment talks to stall progress, writes Niab CEO Professor Mario Caccamo.

​

Read more...

​

​

Farming has a great story - and a bright future

Professor Paul Wilson

​

Farming often gets a bad press, but the reality is that modern agriculture has benefited society by delivering huge efficiency gains in food production in recent decades. Looking forward, a continued focus on technological innovation and resource use efficiency will secure a win-win-win for low carbon farming, more food and higher farm incomes. Farming has a great story to tell and a bright future – it’s time to celebrate this as we look to farmers to feed 10bn of us by 2080, writes agricultural economist Professor Paul Wilson.

​

Read more...

​

​

Africa’s quiet biotech revolution: Gene editing emerges from Europe’s anti-GMO shadow

Joseph Maina

Europe’s resistance to the use of biotech in agriculture has long dictated what farmers in the Global South can grow, but now a slow but steady revolution is taking place as a number of African nations move to embrace gene-editing on their own terms. New regulatory regimes in Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, and Malawi mirror those in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and the Philippines, alignments which could open up South-South trade routes for biotech crops, by-passing the EU altogether. In a geopolitical context, this shift could mark a small but meaningful decoupling from Europe’s dominance in global ag-biotech standards, argues Kenya-based journalist Joseph Maina.

​

Read more...

​

Common Ground: A narrow organic vision of regenerative agriculture

Andrew McGuire

​

Professor of Agronomy Andrew McGuire reviews the recent Amazon Prime documentary Common Ground.  In presenting an overly-simplistic, organic version of regenerative agriculture as the key to “saving the planet,” he suggests the film fails to show the reality of contemporary crop production, or any practice that uses modern tools responsibly, such as conventional no-till cropping, integrated pest management, or precision agriculture. A more sustainable future for farmers and food security will require honest conversations and robust evidence, acknowledging the inherent trade-offs of crop production, not romanticising nature or vilifying science-based agriculture as this film does, he argues.

​

Read more...

​

​

UK gene editing research could help avert another Covid-style pandemic

Lord Trees

​​

Eminent veterinarian Professor Lord Trees urges the UK Government to bring forward implementing rules under the Precision Breeding Act to allow the use of gene editing in farmed animals to help mitigate the risk of bird flu spiralling out of control and causing another zoonotic pandemic in the human population. It follows a stark warning from leading virologists at the Global Virus Network (GVN), who have called on governments worldwide to address the rising threat of H5N1 avian influenza, and to make preparations for potential human-to-human transmission. UK research using gene editing techniques to develop bird flu resistant chickens is ahead of the curve internationally and may offer a route to break the cycle of H5N1 transmission. But we must not fall off the pace in regulatory terms. When genetic technologies are available which can help alleviate animal suffering, reduce the risk of another zoonotic pandemic in the human population, and also free up opportunities to boost productivity and economic growth, why would we not use them, he asks.

​

Read more...

​

​

Why cutting out pesticides would not make food production more sustainable

Greg Dawson

​

Following the launch earlier this year of the UK Pesticides National Action Plan, with a strong focus on reducing the use of pesticides in crop production, agronomist Greg Dawson highlights concerns that by focusing too narrowly on arbitrary reduction targets, without considering their real-world implications, policy makers may unintentionally make growing food in the UK less sustainable – practically, economically and environmentally. If the restrictions go too far, it will make primary production in the UK unviable. The result will be more dependence on food imports, and less control on all aspects of production - including the use of chemistry, he warns.

​

Read more...

​

Would widespread uptake of organic farming practices be better or worse for the climate?

Steve Savage

​

US pathologist Steve Savage reviews the scientific evidence which indicates that optimising conventional agriculture with new technologies will help tackle climate change more effectively than a shift to lower-yielding agroecology and organic approaches. He argues that the climate impact of different farming systems can only meaningfully be compared in terms of usable output, not the area farmed. Such assessments must also take account of the effects of indirect Land Use Change (iLUC) where food production is displaced elsewhere by the adoption of less resource-efficient, lower yield farming practices. He suggests that policymakers should be using this kind of data to inform their thinking on how to align future farm policies with their overall climate goals.

​

Read more...

​

​

AHDB must help levy-payers focus on what they can control

Dr Derrick Wilkinson

​

Former NFU chief economist Dr Derrick Wilkinson adds his voice to growing concerns at the appointment as new AHDB chair of regen ag and alternative markets champion, Emily Norton, and the implications this may have for the levy board’s strategic direction at a time when it needs to focus more than ever on supporting high-yield, resource-efficient agriculture. He warns UK farmers not to fall for the ‘jam tomorrow’ promises of lower-yielding regenerative agriculture, whose future profitability depends on projections of highly uncertain alternative income streams such as carbon credits. He urges them instead to focus on factors within their control to make their businesses as productive and efficient as possible. Relying on government payments and income from dodgy carbon markets is no basis on which to build the nation’s future food security, he writes. Funded by the industry, for the industry, AHDB should maintain a laser focus on food production. The organisation’s activities are levy-funded per tonne or per litre of production. If AHDB drifts towards a lower-yielding, regenerative agriculture agenda, it might as well sign its own death warrant, he warns.  

​

Read more...

NEWS: Agri-science think-tank calls on House of Lords to withdraw ‘biased’ report on precision breeding

Pro-innovation think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has called on the House of Lords to withdraw a report on precision breeding published earlier this year by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC), describing it as ‘biased’, ‘misleading’, ‘poorly-researched’, and at risk not only of undermining public trust in the policymaking process, but also of damaging the Lords’ hard-won reputation for serious legislative scrutiny.

​

Read more...

​

Yes, the SLSC report on gene editing was ‘biased’ and risks damaging the House of Lords’ hard-won reputation for serious legislative scrutiny

Rt Hon Lord Rooker

In an exclusive post for SSA, former Labour food safety minister and former chair of the Food Standards Agency, the Rt Hon Lord Rooker, goes public on why he labelled as ‘biased’ a report on gene editing from the House of Lords’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC). He notes that, in only considering evidence submitted by campaigning NGOs, the SLSC report has attracted ridicule from the mainstream scientific and plant breeding communities for providing a platform for undiluted NGO propaganda. The SLSC report’s lack of focus on scientific evidence and objectivity risks damaging the House of Lords’ hard-won reputation for serious scrutiny and analysis of secondary legislation, he warns. One of the real problems with the GMO debate first time round was the ‘false balance’ created in the media whereby virtually anyone could put on a white coat and claim to have scientifically valid views. There was no attempt to establish the ‘centre of gravity of scientific opinion’, as Professor Lord Krebs has described it, because that doesn’t sell newspapers. Sadly, the SLSC report is guilty of exactly the same, more than 25 years later, observes Lord Rooker.      

​

Read more...

​

Who pays for organic?

Daniel Pearsall & Dr Julian Little

​

A group of European researchers argued in a recent journal article that permitting the use of gene edited crops in EU organic farming would not only improve the bloc’s prospects for sustainable food production, it would also reduce costs to consumers by removing non-safety related co-existence, segregation, traceability and auditing processes from the supply chain. Given the organic sector’s rejection of these advanced breeding tools is essentially a marketing position, not backed by scientific evidence, and is at odds with policy objectives to promote these technologies to safeguard future food security, this raises fundamental questions about who really pays for organic? Of course, CONSUMERS pay extra for organic food, on average 75% more. But TAXPAYERS are also footing the bill for organic food through higher organic farming subsidies, even though most ordinary taxpayers cannot afford, or choose not to buy, organic food. Globally, BIODIVERSITY and the CLIMATE are paying the price of lower-yield organic farming, which displaces food production to other parts of world with even more damaging consequences. And when research also indicates that the food safety risks of eating organic food are higher than those of eating non-organic food, exemplified by Europe’s most deadly food poisoning outbreak which killed 53 people in 2011, PUBLIC HEALTH is also paying the price. Who pays for organic? It’s a fair question, argue SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall and science communicator Dr Julian Little.  

​

Read more...

​

​

From its head start over Europe, is England now at risk of falling behind on gene editing in agriculture?  

David Hill

​

News that global agribusiness Syngenta is to cut its UK-based wheat breeding activities after 35 years, focusing activity on the continent, is a serious blow to prospects for home-grown wheat production. UK plant breeders have warned repeatedly that the post-Brexit challenges facing the sector, in terms of extra costs, red tape and regulatory delays, risk stifling investment in UK-based innovation. A continued domestic policy focus on so-called ‘nature-friendly farming’, rather than putting farm-level productivity, innovation and food security centre-stage (as the EU is now doing with its new Vision for Agriculture and Food), can hardly have helped. And while England has carved out a clear head start over the rest of Europe in relation to gene editing in agriculture with the passing into law of the Precision Breeding Act, are we about to cede advantage to the EU on this issue too? Draft guidance from the Food Standards Agency looks set to deter developers with GMO-style data requirements, and serious questions remain over how an exemption for the Precision Breeding Act from planned dynamic alignment of UK and EU food safety rules might work in practice. It is vitally important that the UK-EU realignment deal does not stall precision breeding progress in this country. The UK Government has a unique opportunity to establish an ambitious programme of precision breeding research, regulatory and public outreach services which will enable the UK to capitalise on its hard-won advantage over the rest of Europe, and to embed this capability as a stepping-stone to commercial activity not only in the UK but also in the EU as NGT regulations there are finalised, writes Norfolk farmer David Hill.

​

Read more...

​

​

The hidden costs of food misinformation

Dr Jessica Steier

​

Public health scientist Dr Jessica Steier calls for a new approach to food communication, warning of the consequences of abandoning modern agricultural practices: “Close your eyes and imagine grocery stores where produce costs triple, with a sparse selection and visible insect damage. This isn’t dystopian fiction—it’s a likely future if we turn away from the technologies that misinformation campaigns routinely demonise.”

​

Read more...

​

​

Seeds of influence: As the West hesitates, is China’s biotech push in Africa redefining ag innovation on a global basis?  

Joseph Maina

China’s biotech push in Africa is happening in the shadow of declining Western influence. While Europe remains sceptical about GMOs and the US scales back overseas development initiatives, China is positioning itself as a partner in agricultural modernisation as many African countries draft new biosafety laws and reconsider outdated GMO bans. Whether this is a boon for Africa’s food security or a subtle consolidation of foreign influence remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that China’s biotech seeds are already planted, and beginning to bear fruit, writes Kenya-based independent journalist Joseph Maina.

​

Read more...

​

​

Innovation, not demonisation, is the key to climate action in the livestock sector

Charlie Dewhirst MP

​

When UK consumers are turning away from plant-based meat and dairy alternatives, and as Britain’s farmers face unprecedented challenges, the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations of a 27% cut in UK cattle and sheep numbers by 2040, and a 25% reduction in meat consumption over the same period, seem increasingly divorced from reality. Efforts to reduce and mitigate agricultural emissions should focus first and foremost on encouraging new green technologies and scientific innovations, rather than on imposing measures which might harm economic activity and deter research investment, and whose contribution to reducing emissions on a global scale is likely to be minimal. With British science pioneering many of these innovations, consider the positive impact we could have – as well as the opportunities for economic growth - if UK-based leadership in animal feed technology, genetics, animal health, engineering and data science enables the development of emissions-reducing products, practices and technologies, all capable of being exported and deployed on a worldwide basis, writes East Yorks MP Charlie Dewhirst.

​

Read more...

​

Never forget.

Food production is AHDB's future

Paul Temple

Highlighting concern over the lack of focus on increasing food production and securing the nation’s food needs in a global market that is weather, conflict and now tariff challenged, mixed farmer Paul Temple urges incoming AHDB chair Emily Norton to underpin her new strategy for the organisation with an ambition to help UK farmers produce more from less. But with Graham Wilkinson stepping down as AHDB chief executive, Ms Norton’s prominence in recent years as cheerleader-in-chief for a transition to regenerative agriculture makes him nervous for the organisation’s future direction. He suggests the industry will be watching closely for the appointment of a new AHDB chief executive, and looking for someone with the ambition to drive farm-level performance to match the market challenge, and capable of honestly holding an increasingly unsubsidised UK agriculture to the productivity of our global competition.

​

Read more...

​

​

UK crop science - are UKRI and BBSRC asleep at the wheel?

James Wallace & Daniel Pearsall

​

A recent SSA article asked why the UK’s world leading position in agriculture-related academic publications is not translating into farm-level productivity gains. The article pointed to outdated and inflated claims for economic and societal impact made by one of the UK’s leading crop science institutes as symptomatic of the problem, and of the failure to involve industry more closely in setting agriculture-related R&D funding priorities. The need for radical reform of the UK crop science sector was thrown into even sharper relief late last month with the shocking news that Rothamsted Research is to shed a quarter of its staff by November 2025 as part of a major re-structuring to contain costs. When two separate BBSRC reviews have concluded that the UK plant science base is failing to capitalise on its strengths in fundamental research because of the lack of a co-ordinated, functioning R&D pipeline to translate early-stage discoveries into products and technologies with farm-level application, what have UKRI and BBSRC been doing with this information? Have they been asleep at the wheel, and what can we learn from the way other countries organise and prioritise agriculture-related R&D, ask agribusiness consultant James Wallace and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.

​

Read more...

​

​

UK-EU reset talks must not jeopardise Precision Breeding Act progress

George Freeman MP

​

Former UK science minister George Freeman MP celebrates a landmark moment for genetic innovation in agriculture this week as the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament. However, he highlights nervousness among researchers and investors at the UK Government’s apparent reluctance to clarify that this hard-won regulatory advance, placing England ahead of every other European country, will not be a casualty of a prospective new Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement between the UK and EU. As chair of the APPG on Science & Technology in Agriculture, Mr Freeman has written to the Defra minister responsible, Daniel Zeichner MP, to seek his reassurance on this point, as well as to urge the UK Government to bring forward parallel implementing rules for precision breeding in farmed animals, amid heightened concerns of spillover disease risks from livestock into the human population.  

​

Read more...

Is Waitrose exaggerating the environmental benefits of its chicken welfare commitments? Can improved welfare be delivered in parallel with reduced environmental impacts?

Professor Helen Sang OBE & Daniel Pearsall

UK food retailer Waitrose recently announced that it is on track to meet the requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) this year, earlier than planned. BCC requires poultry farmers to adopt a range of additional, welfare-friendly measures for broiler chicken production. But research has shown that implementing BCC standards comes at a significant environmental and economic cost, and that this may be a barrier to its uptake. Waitrose’s statement that, through this move, it is “contributing to higher welfare and a more sustainable food system” does not reflect the significant increase in land use, water use, feed inputs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the switch to BCC requirements. Shoppers must not be misled into thinking that, by paying more for higher welfare standards, they are also helping the environment. Thanks to the innovation taking place in modern broiler breeding and production systems, consumers do not necessarily need to make those trade-offs. We don’t need to turn the clock back to less efficient, old-fashioned breeds and farming systems. Progress in genetic and other technologies can deliver better outcomes for both animal welfare and the environment. This more positive, forward-looking approach, with poultry breeders, producers and retailers working together to deliver these aims, offers a much stronger message for Waitrose and other retailers to share with their customers, argue livestock geneticist Professor Helen Sang and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall. 

​

Read more...

​

​

Resetting UK agricultural R&D to improve productivity

James Wallace

Against a background of stagnant UK crop yields and stalled agricultural productivity growth, agribusiness consultant James Wallace challenges projections made for the economic impact and return on investment of UK taxpayer investment in agriculture-related research. To drive much-needed improvements in UK agricultural productivity, the government must focus R&D funding decisions more on the needs of the farming industry (the market), and move away from the current researcher (supplier) led process. The 30:50:50 Innovation Agenda launched recently by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture identifies the need for clear, consistent and measurable targets for UK agriculture over the long-term. Such targets should also be applied to R&D funding priority decisions, he argues.

​

Read more...

​

​

The great non-organic seed scam, and how farm subsidies are making it worse

Daniel Pearsall & Dr Julian Little

A recent statement from international organic body, IFOAM, seeking to establish organic as the only true form of regenerative agriculture, exemplifies the organic sector’s brazen sense of entitlement, which assumes that it can play by a different set of rules. Nowhere is this brazenness more evident than in the raft of exemptions and loopholes built into organic standards which are designed to make life easier for organic producers, but which are totally at odds with the consumer-facing narrative that organic farming is founded on holistic, natural principles which prohibit the use of artificial inputs. In Britain, the most glaring example of this is the so-called ‘emergency’ use of non-organic seed, which not only reached an all-time high in 2024, but also helped organic producers qualify for eye-wateringly high subsidy options under the now-closed Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) scheme. That organic producers have been able to qualify for premium rate organic SFI options using non-organic seed is, quite frankly, beyond the pale. How can Defra Ministers justify such a situation to the many conventional farmers who lost out on SFI payments when the scheme ran out of money? It is seriously time for Ministers to clamp down on the worsening non-organic seed scam, argue SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall and science communicator Dr Julian Little.  

​

Read more...

​

​

The focus has to be science

Paul Temple

​

Following the closure of Defra’s SFI scheme, recent advice from York-based Fera Science that farmers in England should continue to set their sights on reducing food production, for example by considering other government-led agri-environment schemes, or by relying on the future promise of Biodiversity Net Gain and carbon credit payments, is deeply misguided, warns Yorkshire mixed farmer Paul Temple.  A bold new vision is needed for farmers in this country to produce more from less, by harnessing the latest advances in agricultural science and innovation. Applied research organisations such as Fera Science should be at the forefront of this agenda, with a laser focus on equipping the nation’s farmers with the knowledge, technologies and practical advice they need, he suggests.

​

Read more...

​

Organic yields set to fall further behind conventional crops

Stuart J Smyth

Agricultural economist Professor Stuart Smyth notes that, while under optimal conditions organic crop yields can be comparable with conventional agriculture, in practice a significant yield lag exists because creating those optimal conditions is extremely challenging without access to modern fertiliser and crop protection tools. Reported crop yield increases from using gene editing technologies are set to widen the gap still further, as long as the organic industry rejects these newer, more targeted techniques. The organic industry will continue to rely on older, outdated varieties with lower yields, lower disease tolerance, and lower drought tolerance, he notes.   

​

Read more...

​

​

​

Precision Breeding Act: It’s time to move on from the divisions of the past

Baroness Helene Hayman

​

As members of both Houses of Parliament prepare to debate and vote on the draft regulations needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England, Baroness Helene Hayman welcomes the sense of cross-party unity behind the legislation, and the support for more enabling, science-based regulation of much-needed genetic innovation in agriculture. What a welcome turnaround from 25 years ago, she writes, recalling her time as an agriculture minister with responsibility for GM issues under the Labour government, at the white heat of a highly polarised and often bitter public debate. The country missed out on a generation of scientific and agricultural progress as a result, she argues. With the new era of precision breeding technologies such as CRISPR gene editing, we must not let that happen again. 

​

Read more...

​

​

​​

Find earlier articles here

​​

​​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​

​​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​