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 The article pointed to outdated and inflated claims for economic and societal impact made by one of the UK’s leading crop science institutes as symptomatic of the problem, and of the failure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...

​

Is this a NZ-style reset moment for farm policy in England?

Dr Derrick Wilkinson

​

The sudden closure of the SFI scheme has understandably shocked and angered farmers in England. It has been described as a reset moment by Defra Ministers, who could scarcely be clearer about the competing pressures on the public purse, and need for farmers to be less dependent on taxpayer support in the future. It should be seen as a wake-up call that a sustainable future for the industry does not lie in transitioning to production-limiting, subsidy-dependent regenerative agriculture. Our farming industry must heed the signals from government, and seize the initiative to help shape a more outcomes-focused regime, framed around clear, long-term objectives to increase our domestic food security while reducing agriculture’s environmental footprint. The APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture has set out a 30:50:50 vision to increase domestic agricultural production by 30% by 2050, while reducing farming’s environmental footprint by 50%. It warrants serious consideration by industry and government alike, argues former NFU and CLA chief economist, Dr Derrick Wilkinson.     

​

Read more...

​

ScotGov’s stubbornness on gene editing risks leaving Scotland’s scientists and farmers behind

Finlay Carson MSP

​

In response to mounting food security concerns prompted by climate change, war and geopolitical instability, Europe and the rest of the world are moving rapidly to embrace gene editing technologies in agriculture. As a renowned leader in agricultural science, Scotland now risks becoming increasingly isolated in research terms, and less attractive to prospective inward R&D investment, if the Scottish Government maintains its current opposition to these technologies. Our farmers, too, may be disadvantaged without access to the same innovations as producers elsewhere, with key crops such as strawberries and potatoes likely to among the first gene edited products to come forward, offering sustainability and yield improvements . To prevent Scotland being left behind, ScotGov must act now to bring our rules into line with an increasing number of countries which have already adopted more enabling regulation of new genetic technologies, or are in the process of doing so, warns Finlay Carson MSP, convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.

​

Read more...

Major ag policy reset needed to help UK farmers produce 'more from less'

George Freeman MP

​

George Freeman MP, former UK Minister for Science and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, explains why a major reset of domestic farm policy is needed to help Britain’s farmers produce ‘more from less’ by harnessing the latest advances in agricultural science and innovation. As we accelerate into a war-time economy, with unprecedented pressures on the public purse and against a backdrop of increasing geopolitical uncertainty, he argues that paying farmers to de-intensify production or to re-wild productive farmland is just plain wrong when the Government has made clear that ‘food security is national security’. He sets out next steps to take forward the All-Party Group’s 30:50:50 vision to increase UK agricultural production by 30% by 2050 while reducing farming’s environmental footprint by 50%.

​

Read more...

Gene edited crops: coming soon to England’s fields and glasshouses

Professor Mario Caccamo

​

The UK Government has this week published the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. NIAB chief executive Professor Mario Caccamo believes this is a truly historic moment for plant science - the first time in more than 30 years that new legislation has been brought forward in this country which seeks to enable, rather than to further restrict, the use of genetic innovation in agriculture. There are exciting opportunities ahead to democratise the process of crop research and innovation, and to deliver benefits for the food chain, consumers and the environment. With the Precision Breeding Act in place and in force, let’s seize them with both hands, he urges.

​

Read more...

​

Reclaiming UK cropland for nature may be five times worse for global biodiversity than the benefit to local species

Professor Andrew Balmford FRS

​​

Research published recently in the journal Science by a team of conservation scientists and economists suggests that conservation efforts in industrialised nations risk shifting harmful land use to other, less developed and more biodiverse parts of the world. From a UK perspective, domestic farm policies which take farmland out of production, or which encourage the adoption of lower-yielding practices, must take account of the wider biodiversity impacts of displaced or reduced food production. To avoid impacts which could be up to five times more damaging in other parts of the world, and working alongside demand-side interventions such as dietary shifts and waste reduction, it is vital that our farmers have the necessary tools and incentives to make up the shortfall here, by closing the yield gap and increasing production on remaining farmland, argues one of the study’s co-authors, conservation scientist Professor Andrew Balmford FRS.  

​

Read more...

​

Bovaer: some key lessons learned

Dr Geoff Mackey

Sustainability communications expert Dr Geoff Mackey shares his thoughts on the recent UK media storm over the methane-reducing cattle feed additive, Bovaer, and considers some of the key lessons learned for others considering bringing beneficial farming innovations to market in the UK.

​

Read more...

​

​

Cart before the horse? Why a land use framework should have preceded post-CAP farm policy development

David Hill

​

The UK Government’s recent land use framework consultation for England follows the science in pursuing more of a land-sparing approach. But the consultation falls short in its simplistic assumption that the yield increases and productivity improvements needed to compensate for farmland spared for nature restoration and climate mitigation will happen by default, as if by magic. It fails to acknowledge the evidence that growth in national crop yields has stalled, and that current farm policies, for England at least, are projected to reduce yields and displace food production. This is primarily because they are focused on a land-sharing approach, with farmers rewarded for adopting agri-environment schemes, leaving land fallow, reducing input use, and growing food for birds and insects, rather than for humans. The underlying message from the land use framework consultation is clear. To deliver the best outcomes for food security, nature and the climate, a radical new policy approach is needed, focused on helping farmers produce ‘more from less’, argues Norfolk arable farmer David Hill.  

​

Read more...

​

​

30:50:50 - towards a new Innovation Agenda for UK Agriculture

George Freeman MP

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture (APPGSTA) has this week issued a call for the UK Government to adopt an ambitious new Innovation Agenda for UK Agriculture, focused on a clear, long-term objective to increase domestic food production by 30% by 2050 while reducing UK agriculture’s environmental footprint by 50%. The 30:50:50 vision. Here the Group’s chair, former science minister George Freeman MP, explains why a new vision is needed to re-frame the farm policy, regulatory and R&D agenda to address the urgency of UK and global food security, affordability and sustainability challenges, harnessing the latest advances in agricultural science and innovation.

​

Read more...

​

In our efforts to deliver for food security, biodiversity and the climate, focusing on so-called ‘nature-friendly’ land-sharing policies risks making things worse

Daniel Pearsall, Peter Button & Dr Derrick Wilkinson

A recent assessment from the Office for Environmental Protection, concluding that the UK Government is off track to meet its environmental targets, met with calls from some environmental organisations to accelerate and increase public funding for land-sharing policies which promote so-called ‘nature-friendly’ farming. But what if the scientific evidence indicates that these nature-friendly farming practices are likely to make things worse? In a new review article, bringing together more than 20 years’ research comparing land sharing and land sparing policy options alongside demand-side interventions such as dietary shifts and waste reduction, a team of UK scientists conclude just that. Lead author Professor Andrew Balmford and colleagues acknowledge that this will be uncomfortable reading for many conservationists, but they warn that unless radical policy change is adopted, centred on the land-efficient production of food, we will fail in our shared efforts to bend the curve of biodiversity loss.

Read more...

​

​

​

Now Britain can show international leadership on precision breeding in agriculture

Tina Barsby & Helen Sang

​

Amid media reports that prospective EU-UK realignment talks risked delaying or even derailing plans to introduce new gene editing rules in England, earlier this month the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture called on Defra Ministers to set out a clear timetable to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. The Government responded quickly and positively, with Environment Secretary Steve Reed MP telling the Oxford Farming Conference that the necessary secondary legislation for plants would be presented to Parliament by the end of March 2025. Co-sponsors of the All-Party Group initiative, plant scientist Professor Tina Barsby and livestock geneticist Professor Sang, explain why they led calls for Ministers to follow through on their commitment to free up the use of precision breeding technologies to strengthen food security and improve agricultural sustainability. They also highlight the urgent need for parallel implementing rules to be introduced for farmed animals.    

​

Read more...

​​

​

NEWS: Leading UK scientist questions ‘confused signals’ from Defra over farm policy direction

​

UK plant scientist Professor Tina Barsby OBE has challenged suggestions from a senior Defra official that the future for UK farm survival may lie in diversification away from primary production.

Read more...

​

​

The flawed thinking behind the “mimic nature” strategy in crop production

Andrew McGuire

Organic farming, regenerative agriculture, and agroecology all aim to ‘mimic nature’ under the assumption that natural systems offer the best solutions to challenges in crop production. But US agronomist Andrew McGuire explains why such an approach is the result of flawed thinking. First, in failing to recognise the fundamental differences between natural ecosystems and human-managed crop production. And second, in the approach’s ‘appeal to nature’, which assumes that natural is inherently good. There is a better way, he suggests: test all potential solutions, and keep what is useful.

​

Read more...

​

​​​​

The importance of innovation in agriculture

George Freeman MP

​

On his return as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, former science minister George Freeman MP explains that a key priority for the Group will be to make agri-science relevant to the new intake of Parliamentarians, and to connect agri-tech innovation with the everyday concerns of constituents, from securing affordable food supplies to tackling climate change, safeguarding clean water supplies, improving health and nutrition, and leaving more room for nature. He previews the launch of ‘Agri-Science Week in Parliament’ early in the New Year, which will provide an opportunity for leading scientists and innovators in digital agriculture, robotics, advanced crop and livestock breeding, vertical farming, automation and AI to explain how UK-led advances can drive significant improvements in the productivity, end-use quality and environmental sustainability of British agriculture.   

​

Read more...

​

​

Consumers want affordable food with high standards of animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Thanks to innovation, they can have all three. 

Professor Helen Sang OBE & Daniel Pearsall

​

The Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) promises to improve animal welfare standards, but independent research suggests that it comes at a significant cost to consumers and the planet, in the form of higher prices and an increased environmental footprint. British consumers say they are concerned above all about the cost of food, but they also want assurances on animal welfare and the sustainability of food production. All three are possible thanks to innovations in genetic science, as well as advances in poultry housing, environmental and monitoring technologies. Rather than making excuses for reneging on its BCC pledge, this is what KFC and other restaurant chains and retailers should be telling their customers. The application of science and innovation can support access to healthy, affordable supplies of their favourite poultry meat with an assurance that both animal welfare and sustainable production can be safeguarded and improved, argue livestock geneticist Professor Helen Sang and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.

​

Read more...

​

​

Think-tank questions Government method for counting farmland bird numbers, says bird populations have remained stable, not gone down

“Attacks on ‘modern intensive farming practices’ as the main reason for declining bird populations are now well past their sell-by date.”

Pro-innovation think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has written to Defra chief scientific adviser Professor Gideon Henderson, calling for an urgent review of the ‘limited and highly selective’ list of indicator species used by Government to determine and report the status of bird life on British farmland.

​

Read more...

​

​

Are Defra Ministers being misled by campaigning NGOs over farmland bird numbers?

Peter Button, Daniel Pearsall &

Matt Ridley

​

An investigation by Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) into a recent Government report charting further declines in farmland bird numbers has raised serious questions about the scientific basis on which these statistics are collected and interpreted. Based on a highly selective (and unchanged) list of 19 ‘farmland birds’ used to determine changes in populations over the past 50+ years, the Defra report suggests that numbers are still in rapid decline and have declined by a further 9% over the past 5 years. Although no supporting evidence is provided, farming practice is cited as the main reason for the continuing declines. However, an alternative, much more comprehensive inventory of 64 British ‘songbirds’, which includes many species commonly found on farmland but not included on the Defra list, indicates that while there are fluctuations between species, the total number of birds in the UK has remained remarkably stable over the past 27 years, in fact numbers have increased slightly by 1.5%. The total bird ‘biomass’ has also remained unchanged over that period. This serious discrepancy calls into question the scientific basis on which Defra is reporting the status of farmland birds in Britain. It also raises concerns about the Government’s reliance on analysis and presentation of bird population data by campaigning NGOs whose existence depends on pessimistic forecasts of bird numbers, and on criticising ‘modern intensive farming practices’, argue SSA members Peter Button, Daniel Pearsall and Matt Ridley.

​

Read more...

​

Britain's farmers need a hand up,

not a hand out

David Hill

​

The inheritance tax row has sent shock waves through a farming industry already reeling from the impact of spiralling input prices and record rainfall. The autumn budget also brought the prospect of fertiliser price hikes and an accelerated reduction in basic payments to farmers. But the greatest threat to future generations’ freedom to feed the nation lies in current farm policies which incentivise farmers to be less productive and less efficient. A change in mindset is urgently needed from Government to recognise and harness British agriculture’s great strengths in terms of good soils, temperate climate, professional farming sector, and world-leading science base, by encouraging farmers to produce more on a smaller footprint, so leaving more land intact for nature restoration and climate mitigation, argues Norfolk farmer David Hill.

​

Read more...

​​

​

​

Think-tank reports Soil Association ‘greenwashing’ claims to advertising watchdog

Pro-innovation think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has written to the Advertising Standards Agency’s head of complaints and investigations, Miles Lockwood, calling on the ASA to investigate potentially misleading claims made by the Soil Association in relation to organic farming and regenerative agriculture. 

Read more...

​

​

Why we must keep the dialogue going on gene editing in farmed animals

Dr Craig Lewis

Reflecting on a recent meeting hosted by the British Society for Animal Science (BSAS) on the theme of ‘Gene editing in farm animals: the facts’, Dr Craig Lewis, chair of the European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders (EFFAB), says it is positive and encouraging that animal welfare NGOs such as the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming (CiWF) have both acknowledged publicly that there may be welfare-positive applications of gene editing which they could support. This highlights the importance of keeping the conversation going, and for livestock breeders to explain the steps they are taking to promote transparent, responsible and balanced breeding programmes. Only through continued open dialogue can we hope to ensure ethical and other concerns around the use of these technologies can be addressed, and that over-precaution does not give rise to inaction, with even greater ethical consequences for animal health, welfare and food security, he argues. 

​

Read more...

​

Pro-science think-tank slams food health report for unsubstantiated claims about the impact of modern farming

There are genuine concerns about the human, social and economic costs of diet-related health problems such as obesity and diabetes, but in making sweeping and unsubstantiated claims about modern farming practice to support calls for radical change to the food system, a new report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC) is a missed opportunity, says pro-innovation think-tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA).

​

Read more...

​

​

What does the UK Government really mean by food security?

Professor Tina Barsby OBE

​

Environmental NGOs have criticised the recent budget statement for leaving a ‘monumental gap’ in the public funding needed for nature recovery. But what about the impact on food production, asks plant scientist Professor Tina Barsby. When independent assessments suggest that the Government’s current farm support policies are incentivising England’s farmers to produce a quarter less food, and with a recent Food Standards Agency report indicating that one in four people in the UK are still ‘food insecure’, what exactly do Ministers mean when they insist that ‘food security is national security’? In an increasingly unstable world, recovering from a global pandemic and facing the triple shock of war, spiralling energy costs and extreme climate events, we must be very cautious about pursuing agricultural policies which encourage farmers to adopt lower-yielding practices, or to take farmland out of production altogether. At the very least, we must properly monitor and understand the impact of those policies in terms of productivity and domestic food output. But it is still not too late to change course. UK research has shown that switching to a land sparing approach of focusing some land entirely on high-yield food production to allow more space for nature on unfarmed land would be far more cost-effective. Given the current Government’s budgetary constraints, and with such a strong commitment to food security, surely the potential of a policy approach which scientists say can deliver food production, biodiversity and climate targets at half the cost to taxpayers warrants closer examination?

Read more...

​

​

The worst strategy for UK research is to go-it-alone and make all the results freely available!

Peter Button

Increased UK public sector funding for translational plant science which improves the chances of early-stage genetic discoveries reaching commercial application is to be welcomed and applauded, but making the results of such research freely available - particularly in crops which have no UK-based breeding programmes – may simply hand the economic benefit to our competitors, warns plant breeding IP expert Peter Button. The UK Government needs to think more strategically about the effective use of IP protection, and learn from other countries’ approaches to prioritising and protecting the outputs of publicly funded agricultural research, to ensure the primary economic benefit is derived by UK breeders and growers and, therefore, ultimately the UK economy.

​

Read more...

​

​

Agricultural economist questions Lloyds Banking Group’s support for ‘regenerative transition’

A former NFU chief economist has described Lloyds Banking Group’s support for the Soil Association Exchange programme, billed as a blueprint for delivering a transition to a more sustainable farming sector, as ‘surprising and worrying’ in view of the initiative’s lack of focus on food production.  

Dr Derrick Wilkinson, who was also previously chief economist at the CLA, said it seemed ‘rather reckless’ for Lloyds Banking Group to be encouraging its farming customers down a path of unknown and unchartered territory, which would result in much lower yields yet with no guarantee of financial reward.  

Read more...

​

​

We cannot ignore the importance of food production when measuring farm-level sustainability

Dr Derrick Wilkinson

​

Economist Dr Derrick Wilkinson highlights concerns that UK-based initiatives such as the Global Farm Metric and Soil Association Exchange, which both claim to provide a harmonised approach to measuring on-farm sustainability, are largely area-based and do not take sufficient account of food production. Measuring resource use and environmental impact per unit of production is the only meaningful and consistent way to express the environmental footprint of specific products, and to enable supply chain operators to comply with environmental reporting obligations, including Scope 3 emissions. He points to the food eco-labelling proposals developed by IGD as the most promising UK blueprint to date, in terms of objectivity, practicality and robustness. But when this approach has already attracted howls of protest from the organic lobby, he calls for strong leadership from Government to establish an objective, evidence-based approach to measuring sustainable and efficient food production, and to providing meaningful information to consumers about the sustainability impact of their food choices.

​

Read more...

Why Labour must press ahead with precision breeding in farmed animals too

Professor Helen Sang OBE FRSE FRSB

Livestock scientist Professor Helen Sang welcomes recent confirmation from Defra minister Daniel Zeichner that the new UK Labour administration will shortly introduce the secondary legislation needed to free up precision breeding techniques such as gene editing in England. However, she asks why Mr Zeichner’s announcement related only to plants, and was silent on the Government’s plans in relation to farmed animals, which were also covered by the original Act. This is a serious omission, she argues, since gene editing offers enormous potential to accelerate the delivery of health and welfare, environmental and productivity benefits in farmed animals. A clue to Labour’s reticence on this issue may lie in the politics of animal welfare rather than the science, she suggests, with campaigning organisations such as the RSPCA simply declaring that these breeding techniques represent a ‘backward step’ for animal welfare, and the British Veterinary Association’s recent policy position on gene editing demanding a higher regulatory bar for precision bred animals compared to conventionally bred. The BVA’s stance is particularly disappointing, because it runs the risk of perpetuating and reinforcing outdated perceptions of livestock breeding, she notes. The modern reality is that the application of science and innovation in breeding and livestock production systems is helping to deliver better outcomes for animal health, welfare and the environment, not worse. Put simply, healthier animals are more productive animals, and the greatest cause of morbidity, mortality and poor welfare is disease. Technologies such as gene editing promise much greater potential to address previously intractable disease challenges for which there are currently no effective vaccines or treatments, as well as to accelerate the delivery of environmental improvements, such as a lower carbon footprint. Let’s hope ministers are listening to the science, and are willing to engage further in implementing the Precision Breeding Act to bring the benefits of these technologies to animal production, she concludes.  

​

Read more...

​

​

Superstition fuels the war on GMOs, not science

Jason Hayes & Craig Orji

​​

Biotech opponents rely on the precautionary principle to suggest that GMOs are intrinsically dangerous, arguing that it is an unnatural process which needs additional scrutiny. But in doing so, these groups gloss over how natural processes and human activity can both produce GMOs. Sweet potatoes are an excellent example, which naturally contain genes from the bacterium Agrobacterium with no human intervention. But had humans caused this change, anti-GMO interests would have attacked the sweet potato as a “Frankenfood.” This points to a pseudo-religious or mystical view of the sanctity of nature, in which humanity’s actions are immediately viewed as necessarily destructive or disruptive, and ignores the significant positive impacts of genetically modified crops. Rational risk management, not the precautionary principle, can encourage the safe use of GMOs and promote agricultural innovation. Harnessing the technological advancements possible with genetically modified organisms will benefit everyone and ensure we meet the challenges of feeding a growing population while preserving our planet's resources, argue Craig Orji and Jason Hayes of the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

​

Read more...

​

​

Organic campaigners are right to call out the supermarkets for ‘farmwashing’, but for all the wrong reasons

Dr Julian Little & Daniel Pearsall

In their latest marketing campaign against supermarket rivals, organic veg box suppliers Riverford Organics target ‘farmwashing’, and call for greater transparency from retailers. But when Riverford’s current offerings include courgettes, cucumber, cherry tomatoes and sweet potatoes imported from Spain, and when their suppliers include large-scale operators with production sites in multiple countries, is there really such a difference? And perhaps the same principles of transparency should apply to the widespread use of non-organic seed by certified organic growers under an ‘emergency’ loophole in the organic rules? Shoppers paying a hefty premium for organic products would not expect them to have been grown from non-organic seed, and certainly not without labelling to that effect. When recent FSA research reveals that one in four people in the UK are still ‘food insecure’, there is something rather grotesque about a ‘farmwashing’ campaign clearly intended to encourage people to pay much, much more for their food. The fact that modern agriculture has been able to keep pace with the food demands of a global population of more than 8.2 billion people is nothing short of a miracle, which has been achieved through the application of the most amazing science, technology and innovation. A number of years ago, as science minister, Lord Willetts was right to challenge the food industry to do more to celebrate and communicate the fact that agriculture is a high-tech, scientific endeavour. In the face of a changing climate, war and geopolitical instability, securing a reliable and affordable supply of safe, healthy food does not lie in turning back the clock to some imagined bucolic idyll. It lies in embracing the potential of new technologies and scientific innovation in agriculture, and ensuring we take consumers with us on that journey, argue science communicator Dr Julian Little and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.

​

Read more...

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​