Time for a better debate about industry science, and so-called 'conflicts of interest'

Professor Tina Barsby OBE

​

A recent paper in Nature Food, entitled “An approach to conflicts of interest in UK food regulatory institutions” by Tim Lang and Erik Millstone, effectively calls for a ban on government scientific advisers in the food and agriculture sectors having any links to industry.

Without a hint of the irony at play, the paper was further amplified by Erik Millstone in a blog entitled “Can UK food safety regulators be trusted?” on the website of anti-pesticide lobby group PAN-UK. No conflict of interest there, then.

Read more...

​

​

Farm to Fork: How the Ukraine war has exposed Europe's green farming plan as unsustainable

Steven E. Cerier

International economist Steven E. Cerier explores how war in Ukraine has derailed the European Union’s Farm to Fork initiative - and sparked a debate about what really constitutes sustainable agriculture. F2F was never a realistic policy, he suggests. It is aspirational but without the necessary detail to deliver the most sustainable approach. In practice it would reduce food production and farm incomes, and drive up food prices. The EU needs to rely on science to forge a more sustainable agricultural policy to reduce the carbon footprint of farming and lower the use of chemical inputs, he concludes.

​​

Read more...

​

We must use scientific evidence to drive best practice in sustainable agriculture

Dr Harriet Bartlett

​

The results of a study recently published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, by far the largest study of its kind, challenge the popular belief that higher-yielding, more intensive livestock farming always and inevitably means higher antimicrobial use – indeed several of the farms studied combined high yields and low antibiotic use. Lead author Dr Harriet Bartlett notes that the study highlights the importance of using scientific data and evidence to drive best practice in sustainable agriculture, rather than relying on unfounded claims or popular assumptions.

​

Read more...

​

​

The unnatural nature of food (Part 4)

Matt Ridley

In the fourth and final part of his exploration of the concept of ‘naturalness’ in food and farming, science writer Matt Ridley concludes by warning that what those arguing in favour of more ‘natural’ ways of farming really mean is rejecting modern agricultural science and technology, and turning instead to old-fashioned, less productive and less efficient forms of food production. Ironically, in a world with more than 8 billion mouths to feed, this more ‘traditional’ approach to feeding people poses the most serious risks to nature and the planet, and at greater cost to humanity, he suggests.

​

Read more...

​

​

European Court ruling on neonicotinoids further highlights ongoing EU regulatory inconsistency and dysfunction

Graham Brookes

​

The recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling that EU Member States can no longer grant derogations for the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments to control pests in arable crops like sugar beet and oilseed rape highlights the regulatory inconsistency and muddle that the European Union (EU) has created for itself.  As its implications unravel, will the ruling extend to ‘emergency’ derogations permitting the routine and widespread use of ‘banned’ products in the EU organic sector, asks agricultural economist Graham Brookes.  

​

Read more...

​

​

Transitioning to ‘agroecology’ would make zoonotic pandemics more likely

Val Giddings

US agricultural science and policy expert L. Val Giddings notes that as COVID-19 spread around the globe, people turned to science for answers to develop new therapeutic drugs and vaccines - many produced with advanced genetic engineering. There were no moves to mass manufacture homeopathic and natural herbal remedies to protect ourselves from this all too natural epidemic. As a society, we understood that the solution lay in more innovation, not less; more progress, not retreat into romantic fantasies of a past in which plagues much worse than COVID were the common companion of near-universal malnutrition. The same is just as true for agriculture. Science and technology are the solution, not the problem. There is no greener way to feed and clothe humanity while reducing the risk of emergent pandemics.

​

Read more...

​

​

Gene editing: Is Labour really a

pro-science party?

Professor Johnathan Napier

As the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill completes its passage through the House of Lords, plant scientist Professor Johnathan Napier welcomes a significant milestone towards more enabling and science-based regulation of crop improvement techniques such as gene editing. But secondary implementing provisions could take another two years to pass through Parliament, meaning the new rules may not come into force before the next General Election. After supposedly ‘pro-science and pro-innovation’ Labour MPs and Peers characterised gene editing techniques as risky, imprecise and warranting additional safeguards, could a risk-averse future Labour Government stifle the Bill’s objectives to enable innovation and encourage investment in these technologies, he asks.

​

Read more...

​

​

“We must get out more” – Gene editing debate highlights the need for livestock scientists and specifically breeders to talk more openly

Dr Craig Lewis

​

The Genetic Technology Bill currently before Parliament could unlock the potentially paradigm shifting impacts of gene editing for farmed animals, and would give livestock agriculture the potential to address major challenges of animal health and welfare, reduce antibiotic use, ease management, and improve sustainability, says livestock breeder Dr Craig Lewis. But as Peers prepare to debate proposed changes to the Bill, he warns that outdated and inaccurate perceptions of modern livestock breeding and production could lead to unwarranted regulatory barriers to these advances. In response, he says livestock farmers, scientists and breeders must redouble their efforts to connect, communicate, and explain the positive contribution of genetic innovation to animal health, welfare and the environment.     

Read more...

​

​

Precision Breeding Bill: Peers’ GM 2.0 style plans could put genome editing out of reach for smaller breeders

Robin Wood, Elsoms Seeds

Elsoms Seeds is an independent, family-owned UK plant breeding company which recently celebrated its 175th anniversary. Deputy Chairman Robin Wood notes that Brexit dividends have so far been ‘thin on the ground’ for Britain’s plant breeders, and that leaving the EU has meant increased costs, delays, bureaucracy and business uncertainty for the seeds sector while operating in a much smaller market-place. Against this background, he describes the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill as a ‘beacon of hope’ with the potential to boost prospects for UK-based breeding investment and innovation. But as Peers prepare to debate the Bill at Report Stage, he warns that amendments seeking to add GM 2.0 style requirements to the face of the Bill, without scientific justification, could put these promising new technologies out of reach for independent SME breeding companies like his.    

​

Read more...

​

​

Feeding 8 billion people has never been easier

Bill Wirtz

Brussels-based policy analyst Bill Wirtz argues that technological progress and innovation can help us create a world of more abundant food, and that agricultural efficiency will continue to improve insofar as we allow scientists, plant breeders and farmers to fully deploy their knowledge and skill in a way that benefits consumers and the environment alike.

​

Read more...

​

​

Land sparing policies can deliver biodiversity and climate targets at less cost to food production and at half the cost to taxpayers

Andrew Balmford and Lydia Collas     

A study recently published in the journal People and Nature by researchers at the Universities of Cambridge, Leeds and Glasgow is the first of its kind to compare the taxpayer costs of different farm policy approaches to meeting future biodiversity and climate objectives. It concludes that a land sparing approach of focusing some land entirely on food production to allow more space for nature on unfarmed land would be far more cost-effective than prolonging the current land sharing approach of paying farmers to adopt lower-yielding production systems. To achieve the same overall outcomes, sharing will cost twice as much and see loss of 27% more food production, while potentially also increasing environmental damage in food-exporting countries and reducing the space available for wild species that cannot live on farmed land. The study's findings should inform a rethink of the funding and direction of England’s Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMs), argue two of the study’s authors, conservation scientists Andrew Balmford and Lydia Collas.  

​

Read more...

​

​

Precision Breeding Bill could supercharge investment in UK crop innovation

Professor Mario Caccamo

Legislation to be debated by Peers in the House of Lords over the coming weeks could help unlock the UK’s global leadership in plant genetic science, and encourage additional investment in research to help address the most pressing agricultural challenges of today. According to Professor Mario Caccamo, CEO of UK crop science organisation NIAB, precision breeding techniques such as gene editing will help accelerate the development of crops that are higher yielding, more nutritious, more resilient to climate change and less reliant on pesticides or fertilisers. But he warns that attempts to add more layers of scientifically unjustified precaution to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill could blunt Britain’s gene editing revolution.    

Read more...

​

​

UK plant breeders support transparency on precision breeding techniques 

Nigel Moore

​

As members of the House of Lords prepare to debate amendments tabled in advance of the Grand Committee stage of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, there will be calls on Government to enforce statutory labelling of food and feed produced from precision bred organisms. But such a requirement would not only contradict the underlying rationale for the Bill that precision-bred products could equally have occurred naturally or through conventional breeding, it would also drive up costs to consumers and would, in practice, be unenforceable through testing, writes plant breeder Nigel Moore. 

Read more...

​

In farmed animals, gene editing could be a game-changer for disease control, animal welfare and the environment

Lord Trees

Veterinarian Professor the Lord Trees explains his support for the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill and its potential to deliver positive outcomes for disease control, animal welfare and environmental impact. And he points out that existing laws governing animal welfare, both in research and in agriculture, if properly enforced, should reassure those who have welfare concerns.

​

Read more...

​

​

Wringing your hands or getting the ball rolling? Two approaches to decarbonising agriculture

Dr Julian Little

Science communicator Dr Julian Little examines two contrasting approaches taken by leading food businesses to promote more sustainable agriculture and food production – the apparently “unscalable” regenerative agriculture, and sustainable intensification. Which approach is most likely to deliver the necessary increases in global food production while at the same time reducing agriculture’s footprint, delivering net zero and leaving room for nature? And are they in conflict?

​

Read more...

​

ELMS review is an opportunity to put scientific evidence and data at the heart of farm policy

Julian Sturdy MP

​

It is absolutely right that the Government should be reviewing policies which would set our farming industry on a trajectory towards lower-yielding production systems and even re-wilding of productive farmland.         

To deliver the best outcomes for food security, the environment and the climate, Defra Ministers must restore the strategic policy focus on sustainable intensification in UK agriculture, underpinned by science-based metrics, and with a clear focus on genetic innovation as the main driver of agricultural productivity.   

​

Read more...

​

​

Gene editing - three simple questions for ScotGov

Finlay Carson MSP

Speaking in a member’s question debate on gene editing at Holyrood earlier this week, Finlay Carson MSP, convenor of the Rural Affairs Committee, urged ScotGov to introduce simplified rules for experimental research to ensure Scottish research is not left behind. He called on Ministers to acknowledge the positive signals emerging from the EU regarding the benefits of precision breeding for more sustainable, climate resilient agriculture, and the rapid progress towards regulatory reform in Brussels. And he highlighted ScotGov’s own consumer research showing that two in three Scots would be willing to try gene edited foods as a good basis to embrace the potential of a technology with so much promise for Scotland’s world-leading scientific, farming, and food and drink sectors. 

​

Read more...

​

The unnatural nature of food (Part 3)

Matt Ridley

In the third part of his investigation into the concept of ‘naturalness’ in food and farming, science writer Matt Ridley discovers more about how human beings have tampered with nature in search of food for a very long time. From breeding improved strains of crops and livestock to the very act of cooking itself, he argues that the more scientific and artificial our food system becomes, the more likely it is to sustain both humankind and the natural environment.

​

Read more...

​

Mandatory labelling of crop biotech-derived foods:  the evidence shows this is a failed regulatory policy

Graham Brookes

​

Proponents of mandatory labelling of foods containing or derived from genetically modified (GM) crops have long claimed that their primary objective is to facilitate informed consumer choice.  Based on a review of more than 20 years of evidence in countries or regions where mandatory GM labelling has been implemented, that policy has failed.  The main outcomes have been increased food industry costs across the supply chain, higher prices and reduced choice for consumers.  In contrast, in cases where labelling is voluntary, consumers and taxpayers have had more food choices with lower costs, writes agricultural economist Graham Brookes.

​

Read more...

​

We must consider the ethical implications of not embracing genome editing in farmed animals

Professor Helen Sang OBE FRSE FRSB

As the bird flu outbreak worsens in the British poultry flock, prompting further housing and biosecurity orders after the virus over-summered in the UK for the first time, it is distressing that animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA are campaigning against the use of genetic technologies, such as genome editing, which offer potential solutions.

And when the Covid pandemic, which has now claimed more than 6 million lives globally, is thought to have originated in animal to human transfer, it is concerning that ethical discussions about the use of genome editing in farmed animals appear to centre more on opposition to livestock agriculture than on the technologies themselves, writes animal geneticist Professor Helen Sang.

​

Read more...

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​