Science for
Sustainable
Agriculture
Quote of
the week
"If we tried to feed the global population today on the average agricultural yields of the 1960s, we would need to farm over 85 percent of global land, instead of the 35 percent we use currently."
Professor Robert Henry
University of Queensland
Sign-up
Join our mailing list to receive regular email bulletins and comment from Science for Sustainable Agriculture.
comment
“A few years ago, we also studied the trade-offs between high yields and external environmental effects, measured per unit of product. Contrary to our expectations, we found the external harms of high-yielding systems quite often turned out to be much lower than those of more extensive systems, such as organic farming. In terms of nitrogen and phosphate losses, from different dairy systems, for example, the difference was a factor of two. So if you want to reduce pollution, you should probably avoid organic milk.”
Professor Andrew Balmford
University of Cambridge
Read full article HERE
must reads
Gene Editing and EU Regulations – a patent attorney’s perspective
Andrea Williams, Agri-techE, October 2024
The Organic vs. Conventional Farming Debate is Getting Tired. South America is Forging a Third Way
Jon Entine, Real Clear Science, October 2024
GMOs: Who Do You Believe; Scientists Or Activists?
Dr Rose Gidado, Science Nigeria, October 2024
Genome Editing: A Promising Path Toward More Sustainable Agriculture
Syngenta Vegetable Seeds Global, October 2024
Enhancing the Tool Box for Crop Breeding Innovation
Steven Savage, Forbes, October 2024
Paraquat, ploughs and perils: The future of global grain
Trevor Whittington, ARR News, October 2024
Scientists explore how indoor vertical farming could help future-proof food demand
Phys.org, September 2024
Hunger-ending seed technology is on the horizon – but will it reach the farmers who need it most?
Michael Keller, World Economic Forum, September 2024
‘Short corn’ could replace the towering cornfields steamrolled by a changing climate
The Independent, September 2024
Regenerative agriculture is sold as a climate solution. Can it do all it says?
Julia Simon, NPR, September 2024
Ag has always been a tech industry
Trey Malone, Talk Business & Politics, September 2024
Vandals Destroyed Italy’s First Gene-Edited Crop, But There’s Good News
Juergen Eckhardt, Forbes, September 2024
Research for climate-resilient milch cattle takes a vast step forward
Business Standard, September 2024
Creative Destruction in the Plant Breeding Sector
Marcel Bruins, Seed World Europe, September 2024
Some home truths about gene technologies
Revel Drummond, The Spin Off, September 2024
Joe Hinchliffe, The Guardian, September 2024
‘Depoliticise biotechnology research,’ urge African experts
Gilbert Nakweya, University World News, September 2024
Henry I. Miller, ACSH, September 2024
The Farm Babe – The Top Seven Food Label Myths: What You Need to Know
Michelle Miller, Ag Air Update, September 2024
Innovation: Moving the Seed Sector Forward
Marcel Bruins, Seed World, August 2024
Crops that fertilize themselves
Seed World, August 2024
100-Year-Old Wheat Could Help Feed the World
Discover Magazine, August 2024
Britain is heading towards potato armageddon – unless science can save us
Richard Godwin, The Telegraph, August 2024
Our gene technology blinkers are off at last
Alan Emerson, Farmers Weekly (NZ), August 2024
Organic Farming Activism Threatens Millions—and the Environment
Zion Lights, Human Progress, August 2024
New genomic techniques can contribute to reduced pesticide usage in Europe
Sundstrom J. et al, Plants People Planet, August 2024
It’s time to put the ‘taking sides’ GM debates of the 90s behind us
Michael Bunce, The Spin Off, August 2024
Scientists develop corn with built-in nitrogen sensor
Farm Progress, August 2024
British firms strive to create a buzz around insect farming
The Guardian, August 2024
US farming is getting greener, but focused on high production
Irish Farmers Journal, August 2024
Are Pesticides the Primary Cause of Species Decline in North America?
Richard A. Brain, Illinois Corn Growers Assn, August 2024
Precision breeding in agriculture and food systems in the United Kingdom
Oli Watson & Sadiye Hayta, Transgenic Research, August 2024
Nigeria's GMOs debate: Between ignorance and misinformation
Collins Nnabuife, Nigerian Tribune, August 2024
When Greenpeace wins, we all lose: The cynical war on genetically engineered crops grinds on
Kathleen L. Hefferon & Henry I. Miller, GLP, August 2024
Regenerative farming is the future direction
James Porter, The Scottish Farmer, August 2024
Dan Blaustein-Rejto, The Breakthrough Institute, August 2024
The future of paper could come from gene edited trees
The Washington Post, August 2024
Shortage of plant breeders could lead to dire implications for global food security
Clement Dionglay, ISAAA, July 2024
It's time for retailers to embrace gene-edited foods
Oliver Morrison, The Grocer, July 2024
European Glyphosate Constituents Aren't From Agriculture, They're From Laundry Detergent
Hank Campbell, Science 2.0, July 2024
Ghana releases first biotech crop: the Pod Borer Resistant Cowpea
Environews Nigeria, July 2024
Waging War on Modern Agriculture and Global Nutrition
Paul Driessen, Town Hall, July 2024
Not so good after all? People who eat more organic food have more toxins in their blood
Brussels Times, July 2024
History of misery when farmers are forced to go organic
Jack DeWitt, July 2024
Let’s look at the facts on pesticides
Ieuan Evans, Grainews, July 2024
“Our food security relies on Europe’s farmers: we must give them our support”
The Parliament Magazine, July 2024
The food crisis is one of our own making
Ben Payton, Agri-Investor, July 2024
What is the bioeconomy and how can it drive sustainable development?
Stefanie Ólives, World Economic Forum, July 2024
Caleb Hoversten, Daily Camera, July 2024
Climate change is pushing up food prices – and worrying central banks
Financial Times, July 2024
Can Gene Editing Help Tackle Global Issues?
Wired, July 2024
How a proposed herbicide ban would actually result in greater environmental harm
Karun Samran, The Fresno Bee, July 2024
Cécile Dumais-Louys, Seed World, July 2024
Farmers Want Gene-editing Technology
Cherilyn Jolly Nagel, Global Farmer Network, June 2024
Save the Whales, Blind the Children
Mark Crislip, Science-Based Medicine, June 2024
The Developing World (Still) Needs Golden Rice
Michael Fumento, The American Spectator, June 2024
Insider knowledge: How some exploit organic labels for profit
Amanda Zaluckyj, Ag Daily, June 2024
Why Eating Organic Isn’t a Climate Solution
Seth Millstein, Sentient Media, June 2024
Boosted Breeding and beyond: 3 tech trends that could end world hunger
Kristin Houser, Freethink, June 2024
Nature Knows Best? Naturalness in the Ultra-Processed Foods Debate
Hester van Hensbergen, Table Debates, June 2024
Let’s have crop regulation but don’t block science
Jack Kennedy, Irish Farmers Journal, June 2024
Opinion: Barriers continue to fall for genetically modified wheat production
Barb Glen, Bruce Dyck &b Karen Briere, Farmtario, June 2024
Food Security: FG launches high-yielding Tela maize varieties
Nigerian Tribune, June 2024
How do pesticides help agriculture? Here’s an explanation
Michelle Miller, AgDaily, June 2024
Mexico, Maize, and Food Sovereignty
L. Val Giddings, ITIF, June 2024
Q&A: The evolving debate about using genetically modified crops in a warming world
Orla Dwyer, Carbon Brief, June 2024
Greenpeace’s campaign against Golden Rice is a crime against humanity
Zion Lights, Spiked, June 2024
Editorial, Nature Biotechnology, June 2024
Gene editing in beef cattle: The possibilities could be endless
Mark Z. Johnson, Farm Progress, June 2024
Uruguay Advances Plant Breeding Innovation with Gene Editing Decree
Elena Mansur, Seed World, June 2024
GMOs aren’t changing your DNA or causing cancer
Dr Andrea Love, Immunologic, June 2024
Our favourite charities are becoming bloated and confused - they are losing their point
Paul Baldwin, Daily Express June 2024
Scientists are on a quest for drought-resistant wheat, agriculture's 'Holy Grail'
Amanda Stephenson, CBC, June 2024
We need some easy wins - liberalising GMOs could be one
Max Salmon, The Post, June 2024
What do we want from our farms: food or flowers?
Emma Duncan, The Times, May 2024
Susan Elizabeth Turek, The Cool Down, May 2024
Bogus ‘bee-mageddon’ is another fake environmental catastrophe scam creating buzz
John Stossel, New York Post, May 2024
Australian trial of gene-edited wheat aims for 10% bigger yields
Reuters, May 2024
GMOs and genetic engineering are wildly misunderstood
Dr Andrea Love, Immunologic, May 2024
Can the harsh conditions of space breed more resistant crops for Earth?
Diana Kruzman, Grist, May 2024
Argentina’s Bioceres makes world's first sales of genetically modified wheat seeds
Reuters, May 2024
Dr Luis Vaschetto, AzoLifeSciences, May 2024
Glyphosate still doesn't cause cancer
Dr Andrea Love, Immunologic, May 2024
Go home, ‘Save the Bees’ crowd — there was never a Beepocalypse
Colby Cosh, National Post, May 2024
CFIA Confirms Gene Edited Plants in Livestock Feed are Safe, Industry Applauds the Move
Seed World, May 2024
New Livestock Biotechnology Guidance Misses the Mark
Emma Kovak, The Breakthrough Institute, May 2024
University of Arkansas, April 2024
The West Needs to Come to Grips with African Fertilizer Needs
Vijaya Ramachandran, The Breakthrough Institute, April 2024
Gene genius: How gene technology is changing the future of food
Vincent Heeringa, New Zealand Herald, April 2024
Children could die because of Greenpeace’s Golden Rice activism
Mark Lynas, The Spectator, April 2024
Greenpeace Crusade Will Blind and Kill Children
Ronald Bailey, Reason, April 2024
How effective are policies in reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture?
Hannah Ritchie, Our World in Data, April 2024
Research priorities breed frustration, confusion
Robert Arnason, The Western Producer, April 2024
What does carcinogenic really mean?
Dr Andrea Love, Immunologic, April 2024
A Win for Common Sense and Science
Guillermo Breton, Global Farmer Network, April 2024
Turning plants blue with gene editing could make robot weeding easier
New Scientist, April 2024
Rejoice! You Are Living in the Golden Age of Fruit
Noah Rothman, National Review, April 2024
The glyphosate debate: Facts, risks and benefits
Jeff Miller, AgProud, April 2024
Bumblebees Don't Care about Pesticide Cocktails
University of Würzburg, April 2024
M&S invests £1m in tackling methane from burping and farting cows
The Guardian, April 2024
EU Continues Its Unscientific, Anti-Innovation Regulation Of Genetic Engineering
Henry Miller & Rob Wager, ACSH, April 2024
Why humanity is good for the natural world
Matt Ridley, Spiked, April 2024
Pieter de Wolf, WUR, April 2024
What if global emissions went down instead of up?
Pilita Clark, Financial Times, April 2024
From novelty to necessity? The evolution of insect farming
Elaine Watson, AgFunder News, April 2024
An assessment of the linkages between GM crop biotechnology and climate change mitigation
Stuart J. Smyth et al, GM Crops and Food, April 2024
Feeding the world, whilst "sparing land"? Debating the rise of modern Brazilian agriculture
Adam Tooze, Chartbook, April 2024
TCA Sharad Raghavan, The Print, April 2024
Can World Hunger Ever Be Eliminated? Not Using Europe Or The UN
Hank Campbell, Science 2.0, April 2024
Solar farms are taking us back to the dark ages
Matt Ridley, The Telegraph, April 2024
How misinformation is making us fear our food
Jessica Steier, The Hill, April 2024
Quantifying changes in the environmental impact of in-crop herbicide use in Saskatchewan, Canada
Stuart J. Smyth et al, Weed Technology, March 2024
The Farmers are Fighting this One Alone
David Zaruk, The Risk-Monger, March 2024
Organic foods are not healthier...or pesticide free.
Dr Andrea Love, Immunologic, March 2024
The Era Of Healthier Produce Thanks To Science Is Just Getting Started
Juergen Eckhardt, Forbes, March 2024
How technology is making flour production more sustainable and healthier
Andrew Tindall, British Baker, March 2024
Biotech Matters: Innovation in Agricultural Biotechnology
L. Val Giddings, CNAS, March 2024
The EU Continues Its Unscientific, Anti-Innovation Policymaking
Rob Wager & Henry Miller, European Scientist, March 2024
Anila Badiyal et al, Frontiers in Plant Science, March 2024
India needs a new maize revolution
The Hindu Business Line, March 2024
New research shows unintended harms of organic farming
AFP, March 2024
Perspective: Can organic and conventional farming coexist peacefully?
Tim Durham, AgDaily, March 2024
Plant-killing genetic technology could wipe out superweeds
Michael Le Page, New Scientist, March 2024
Twenty-eight years of GM Food and feed without harm: why not accept them?
Richard E. Goodman, National Library of Medicine, March 2024
The EU Commission strikes again – New patent ban?
Dr Ute Kilger, European Biotechnology, March 2024
Climate and food security concerns prompting new openness to technology in agriculture
Real Agriculture, March 2024
Nutrition and food production: Our greatest challenges for the next 30 years
European Scientist, March 2024
Consumer benefits from tech a key part of acceptance
Editorial, The Western Producer, March 2024
2023: An Activist Annus Horribilis
David Zaruk, Seed World Europe, March 2024
Costs of inappropriately regulating all seed innovations as GMOs are too high for South Africa
Lukeshni Chetty, Daily Maverick, March 2024
China develops higher yielding wheat
World Grain, February 2024
Salmon ova heavyweights urge Norway to allow gene editing
Fish Farming Expert, February 2024
Economic Sustainability vs. Environmental Sustainability
Stuart Smyth, SAIFood, February 2024
Why firms are racing to produce green ammonia
Chris Baraniuk, BBC News, February 2024
Scotland’s farmers are more likely to be left at the coos tail
Brian Henderson, The Scottish Farmer, February 2024
The Media And I: Enhancing The Soil To Improve Farming
Henry I. Miller, ACSH, February 2024
China’s embrace of GM crops will have global implications
Shaleen Khanal & Zhang Hongzhou, Think China, 22 February 2024
EU pesticide bans: what are the impacts and are they necessary?
Eve Thomas, Just Food, February 2024
Are farmers markets or supermarkets the low carbon food choice?
Mark Harris, Anthropocene, February 2024
Agricultural chemical use and the rural-urban divide in Canada
Stuart J Smyth & Sylvain Charlebois, GM Crops & Food, February 2024
David Zaruk, The Firebreak, February 2024
The scientific case for land sparing is compelling
Daniel Pearsall, Farmers Weekly, February 2024
How science is helping farmers to find a balance between agriculture and solar farms
Magali Reinert, Nature, February 2024
PRRS virus-resistant nucleus herd ready for breeding upon regulatory approval
Ann Hess, National Hog Farmer, February 2024
Venner Shipley, February 2024
Five reasons why the anti-biotech movement is in retreat
Mark Lynas, Alliance for Science, February 2024
Norway Embraces GMO Canola Oil for Sustainable Salmon Farming
eFeedLink, February 2024
World first: disease resistant GM banana approved for consumption
Cosmos, February 2024
Regenerative Agriculture – Buzzword? Bust? Or the Future of Agriculture?
Judson Christopherson, SAIFood, February 2024
NGOs slam France’s plans to adopt EU method for measuring pesticides risk
Euractiv, February 2024
The future of farming: Exploring the realities of regenerative agricultural practices
Potato News Today, February 2024
The EPA does not require warning labels for Roundup—yet Bayer lost $10 billion for not having them
Center for Truth in Science, February 2024
Soil Survivor: Using Nanotech for Regenerative Agriculture
Amanda Jasi, The Chemical Engineer, February 2024
Taking a more modified approach
Alan Emerson, Wairarapa Times-Age, February 2024
EU proposal to regulate gene-edited plants raises concerns for biotech and plant breeders alike
Potter Clarkson, February 2024
BVDV-Resistant Calf Created Through Gene Editing
Bovine Vet Online, February 2024
The Buzz on ‘The Great Honey Bee Die-Off’
Michael Fumento, The American Spectator, February 2024
We Can’t Do it Without Patents
Marcel Bruins, Seed World Europe, February 2024
A Global Farmer Perspective on the Opportunity Offered With New Plant Breeding Technology
Diana Lenzi, Global Farmer Network, February 2024
How Indian Farmers Are Using AI To Increase Crop Yield
Janakiram MSV, Forbes, February 2025
The EU risks losing out on farming’s genomic reboot
Anjana Ahuja, Financial Times, January 2024
Will the USDA Ever Allow GMOs on Organic Farms?
Luke Carneal, Ambrook Research, January 2024
Breakthrough Boosts Plant Yields in Dry Conditions
Mirage News, January 2024
Green shoots of hope for Italy’s first gene-edited crop field trial
Nature, January 2024
Plant scientists turn attention to African staples
Financial Times, January 2024
CRISPR-edited crops break new ground in Africa
Nature, January 2024
TELA Maize paves way for Nigeria’s self-sufficiency in maize production
The Nation, January 2024
Potato News Today, January 2024
Agriculture in a changing climate: Africa needs biotechnology
Matthias Berninger, Table Media, January 2024
Only scientifically-proven pest controls will reduce food losses
Business Daily Africa, January 2024
Unlocking the power of gene editing
Dr Helen Ferrier, NFU Online, January 2024
Cypriot scientist revolutionizes agriculture with soil-free crop growth
KNEWS, January 2024
Science for Sustainable Agriculture news
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 to 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.
NEWS: Think tank applauds bold moves by UK Ministers to boost access to genetic technologies in agriculture
Pro-innovation think tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has welcomed two recent announcements by UK Ministers which promise to boost prospects for the use of new genetic technologies in agriculture and food production: confirmation of plans to implement the Precision Breeding Act and the launch of a new Regulatory Innovation Office (RIO).
Is Britain one of the world's most 'nature-depleted' countries?
Henrietta Appleton
What do we really mean by the terms ‘nature’ and ‘biodiversity’, and how should we measure our efforts to protect them? As a relatively densely populated country, the UK performs badly against metrics of nature intactness, but ranks better than most in terms of our actions to retain and enhance biodiversity. But are policy interventions such as landscape recovery, or ‘rewilding’, intended to improve on current biodiversity, influenced over millennia by human activity, or to return to the original state of nature before humans set foot on the British Isles? With the UK Government’s proposed land use framework expected to be unveiled before the end of the year, understanding how best to reconcile the imperatives to protect nature and enhance biodiversity while maintaining sufficient levels of domestic food production is of critical importance. Research at the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton Project, demonstrating how science-based conservation measures can help double farmland bird numbers while maintaining high yield crop production, offers a proven way forward, argues GWCT policy officer Henrietta Appleton.
Food system transformations
Professor Stuart Smyth
“Our food system is ‘broken’ and needs a complete overhaul” is a common refrain among environmental NGOs, who lobby against agrochemical inputs, plant breeders’ rights and the liberalisation of international trade. But these are precisely the developments which have transformed our modern food system for the better, enabling global food production to keep pace with the needs of a growing world population. Misguided calls from these activist organisations for a return to lower-yielding organic and agroecological farming systems that reject modern innovations will simply perpetuate malnourishment and starvation. We ignore the accomplishments made over recent decades in more sustainable, efficient food production and supply chains at our peril, warns agricultural economist Stuart Smyth.
Precision breeding: We must not repeat the mistakes of the GM debate
David Hill
With encouraging signs that the new Labour Government is preparing to implement the Precision Breeding Act in England, Norfolk arable farmer David Hill urges Ministers to re-convene the cross-sector working group established under the previous administration to support routes to market for precision-bred products. New breeding techniques such as gene editing promise enormous benefits to society, for example through more sustainable and climate resilient farming systems, reduced food waste, and improved nutrition. But for these technologies to realise their full potential, a collaborative approach will be needed to negate the influence of those with a vested commercial interest in blocking such innovations. We must avoid the mistakes of the GM debate 20 years ago, when scientists kept their heads down, Government Ministers sent out conflicting signals, and the supermarkets used GM avoidance as a competitive issue. Britain’s farmers have missed out on a generation of progress as a result. It was a truly shameful episode in the history of British science, which must not be repeated with precision breeding, he warns.
Will climate change starve us all?
No, but bad science communication and fear mongering might
Alex Smith
The general public is subjected to outright fear mongering when it comes to the future of food. Beyond soil degradation and the “number of harvests left”, climate change is another cause for food panic. For journalists heralding the “end of food” as we know it, the main sources are typically long-standing critics of industrial food production, with a vested interest in its alternatives. A global switch to organic or regenerative agriculture would be far worse for food production and climate mitigation than continuing to rely on high-efficiency, conventional agriculture. To be sure, climate change will impact our food system. But technological breakthroughs and the adoption of modern technologies will also impact our food systems for the better. Rejecting industrial agriculture would be a grave mistake, argues Alex Smith, Editorial Director at The Breakthrough Institute.
Posh nosh: With a gaping black hole in the public finances, why are British taxpayers still subsidising premium-priced organic food?
Dr Julian Little & Daniel Pearsall
In the wake of the cost-of-living crisis, reports of plummeting consumer demand for more expensive organic food must pose a dilemma for the new Labour Government. No fewer than 14 of the 102 options currently available to farmers under Defra’s Sustainable Farming Incentive are explicitly designed to support and/or increase organic production in England, and the payment rates are eye-wateringly high. With a £22bn black hole in the public finances, and cuts to departmental budgets on the cards, why are British taxpayers subsidising the production of food most people cannot afford? And how does it square with Labour Ministers’ pledge that ‘food security is national security’, when a recent report from Natural England warned that increasing the area of lower-yielding organic farming would reduce domestic food production by up to 25%, ask science communicator Dr Julian Little and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.
NEWS: UK scientists welcome positive signal from Defra Minister on precision breeding plans
The two scientists behind a joint letter urging early action by the new Labour Government to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 in England have welcomed what they describe as a ‘positive response’ from the Defra Minister responsible, Daniel Zeichner MP.
Oilseed rape in crisis: But where is Defra's chief scientist?
Paul Temple
Reports that UK self-sufficiency in home-grown vegetable oil has more than halved from 40% to 15%, and could fall even further, present a major food security test for the new UK Government, writes Yorkshire farmer Paul Temple. But the plight of the UK oilseed rape crop also raises fundamental questions about the scientific basis for policy decisions intended to protect biodiversity and the environment. Do these decisions take sufficient account of the ecological consequences of any potential changes they may cause in cropping systems, such as a 62% decline in plantings of a key flowering crop, he asks.
Why we must stand up for intensive farming
Prof Helen Sang & Daniel Pearsall
The BBC’s coverage of farming and countryside issues, and its editorial bias in favour of small-scale, more extensive forms of agriculture, may be discouraging a more open and evidence-based conversation about sustainable farming and food production. Greater sustainable intensification in agriculture is urgently needed if we are to feed ourselves without wrecking the planet. The world needs to increase food production and availability by up to 70% by 2050 to keep pace with the food needs of an expanding global population, in the face of a changing climate, biodiversity loss and pressure on finite natural resources of land, energy and water. Advances in agricultural science and technology offer multiple ways to deliver on this objective, but only if farmers have the social licence to use them. Influential public service broadcasters like the BBC must be willing to support a more balanced debate, rooted in scientific evidence, rather than pandering to those who hanker for a nostalgic and idealistic past which, in all probability, never actually existed, argue livestock geneticist Professor Helen Sang and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.
The ultimate irony. Organic farming exempt from planned EU greenwashing rules
Dr Derrick Wilkinson & Daniel Pearsall
When it comes to 'greenwashing', the organic sector is one of the major culprits, so it is perhaps the ultimate irony that the EU's proposed Green Claims Directive, designed to prevent consumers being misled about a product's environmental credentials, specifically excludes organic products. Under the new rules, consumers can continue to be duped into paying a premium for organic food, believing they are doing their bit for the environment, when the scientific evidence surrounding the organic sector's green credentials is highly contested, primarily because organic farming consumes much more land and natural resources than equivalent non-organic farming systems to produce the same amount of food. Thankfully, the EU rules will not apply in the UK, where there have been numerous occasions on which the organic sector has been called to account for greenwashing. People should be free to choose organic. But in doing so they should not be misled about its environmental impacts. It is time to adopt consistent, science-based metrics at farm-level to let consumers know how products compare in terms of their impact across a range of sustainability factors, including land and water use, carbon emissions, as well as their effects on soil health, water quality and biodiversity, argue retired UK economist Dr Derrick Wilkinson and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.
Why humanity is good for nature
Matt Ridley
Because good news is no news, stories of environmental doom – such as collapsing bee colonies – catch the headlines and linger in the public consciousness, despite being outdated and wrong, writes Matt Ridley. He highlights examples of species after species which have successfully recovered from the brink of extinction in recent decades, thanks in part to human intervention. He also notes that the world as a whole is now reforesting rather than deforesting. Contrary to the prevailing view that the forest area is declining, global tree cover has actually increased by 2.24 million square kilometres since 1982. And he points to the phenomenon of ‘global greening’, with the earth’s green vegetation increasing by around 15 per cent over 30 years to the mid-2010s, as a potentially stronger signal of the impact of rising CO2 concentrations on the planet than global warming. Of course, not all environmental news is good today, he accepts. Overfishing of the oceans continues, invasive species are causing extinction of unique subspecies, plastic pollution of the sea is a disgrace, sewage is spilling into rivers, habitats are fragmented by concrete sprawl and so on. But in Britain, the return of the otter, the beaver, the osprey, the red kite and the sea eagle would have astonished conservationists of the 1960s. Today’s environmentalists and news editors should try selling hope as well as fear. A better future is possible.
ELM: What are Defra ministers going to do about it?
Paul Temple
A new report from the Government’s watchdog, the National Audit Office, is highly critical of Defra’s Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme, and the lack of evidence to support the department’s assumptions about its projected outcomes, particularly in relation to food security and increased productivity. This mirrors previous research led by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), which identified a high risk of displacement of food production as a result of yield-reducing ELM options, with unknown effects on either domestic food security or the environment. Reports that the UK is set to import more oilseed rape than it produces for the first time ever this year therefore pose a dilemma for the new ministerial team at Defra. In a Labour Government elected with a commitment to drive economic growth, and whose leader has repeatedly declared that “food security is national security”, why would Defra ministers make a commitment to maintain the outgoing Government’s flawed policy blueprint for agriculture without first examining the evidence behind it, asks mixed farmer Paul Temple.
NEWS: Call for early implementation of precision breeding rules in England
Scientific and industry leaders are urging Ministers in the new Labour Government to act quickly and decisively in bringing forward the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 in England.
In an open letter addressed to Ministers in Defra and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, more than 50 leading organisations and individuals across the scientific, food processing, farming, breeding, veterinary and input supply sectors have welcomed the signing into law of the Precision Breeding Act in March 2023 as a significant milestone for sustainable innovation in food and agriculture, but note that until detailed implementing rules are introduced at Westminster, the Act itself serves no functional purpose.
Supply chain interest in climate positive farming: is it a route to net zero?
Dr Nigel Davies
In the brewing and distilling sectors, the evidence is mounting that the adoption of regenerative farming practices such as minimum tillage and cover cropping by malting barley growers can contribute significantly to Scope 3 emissions targets, by reducing farm-level GHG emissions and increasing soil carbon sequestration. But for this to translate at scale into ‘triple win’ benefits for people, prosperity and the planet, and to avoid claims of greenwashing, the supply chain must collaborate to provide consistent, robust, outcomes-based data and, by sharing best practice, give growers the confidence to embrace these practices without incurring yield penalties or high investment costs. Reliable metrics are already in place for farm-level carbon emissions, and are in development to measure soil carbon sequestration. In addition, a relentless focus on maintaining and increasing crop yields through improved soil health will be imperative to ensure the transition is sustainable in the long-term for growers, maltsters and end-processors, argues industry sustainability consultant Dr Nigel Davies.
Environmental NGOs are undermining society’s need for more climate-adaptive, sustainable farming
Stuart Smyth
Thirty-years into the agricultural biotechnology revolution, economist Stuart Smyth notes that the initial science-based concerns about GM crops posed by environmental NGOs have proved unfounded, based on more than twenty years of peer-reviewed research, assessment and analysis. But these activist groups still opt to ignore the ever-mounting evidence and continue to promote misinformation, scaring people into rejecting demonstrably beneficial farming technologies. In doing so, they risk being marginalised as their hypocrisy becomes clear, but the public still feels the pain of their myopia, radicalisation and self-indulgence.
What will a Labour UK Government mean for agricultural science and innovation?
Professor Johnathan Napier
UK plant scientist Professor Johnathan Napier welcomes the newly elected Labour Government’s willingness to break new ground in relation to science policy, applauding plans for a new Regulatory Innovation Office, and suggestions that 10-year funding cycles and research programmes might be more appropriate than the current 3-5 norms. He expects Ministers to follow through quickly with the implementing rules needed to free up precision breeding techniques such as gene editing, after both Houses of Parliament approved the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act last year. But given the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to focus on wealth creation, he urges the new administration to go further in freeing up genetic innovation in agriculture, noting that the only place where UK science is creating wealth when it comes to GM crop research is North America. Blight resistant potatoes, purple tomatoes with increased antioxidant levels, and most recently omega-3 enriched camelina are all examples of GM crops worth billions of pounds which have been developed by public sector scientists in the UK, but commercialised in other countries with a more favourable regulatory landscape. Pointing to a recent Royal Society report calling for more proportionate, evidence-based regulation of GM crops, Professor Napier argues that after almost 30 years of safe and effective use of GM crops around the world, it is time for Britain to ditch the time-consuming, costly and restrictive rules we inherited from the EU, and unlock the potential economic and environmental benefits on offer.
Pro-innovation think tank sets out five ag policy priorities for the next UK Government
As the general election approaches, the major political parties have emphasised the importance of domestic food security, and the need to achieve a better balance between farming and the environment. But the critical role of agricultural science and innovation in delivering those objectives has scarcely been mentioned. Here, five members of the pro-innovation think tank Science for Sustainable Agriculture set out their top policy recommendations for the next Government.
The world is richer than ever, but it’s not due to communism or capitalism, it’s science
Hank Campbell
Award-winning science writer Hank Campbell notes that proponents of competing political ideologies are keen to take the credit for the dramatic reductions in the number of people living in poverty seen over the past 70 years. The world is richer than ever, he says, but this is not because of communism or capitalism, it's advances in agricultural science supporting increased yields, allowing more room for nature and biodiversity, while elevating more people out of poverty and hunger.
Unfinished business? Next Government must prioritise implementing rules for precision breeding in agriculture
Professor Mario Caccamo
It is hugely disappointing that the outgoing UK administration was not able to complete the implementation of its flagship legislation to free up the use of precision breeding techniques such as gene editing in agriculture. Time and time again the Precision Breeding Act was heralded by Ministers as an example of Britain flexing its new-found regulatory freedoms outside the EU to pursue a more pro-science, pro-innovation agenda. And yet at the end of this Government’s term in office, the new rules have still not come into effect. The potential to accelerate the development of crop varieties with increased yields, improved climate resilience and reduced environmental footprint will remain unrealised until the necessary implementing rules are introduced. Scientists, breeders, farmers, environmentalists and all those with an interest in freeing up the use of these promising new technologies must make that point clearly and unequivocally to Ministers and elected representatives in the next administration, urges NIAB chief executive Professor Mario Caccamo.
Yes, we can learn lessons from organic farming: it is not the way forward for a safe, secure or sustainable food supply
Matt Ridley & Daniel Pearsall
The expansion of the human population to over seven billion people during the twentieth century was made possible by the enhancement of agricultural yields through innovation. As the world’s population expands towards ten billion, it is continued access to innovation, rather than new land, that will be needed to keep pace with increased food demand. And yet a number of European countries are still setting ambitious targets for an increase in the proportion of organically farmed land, which would reduce yields and rule out the use of land-sparing technologies such as GM and gene edited crops. Of course, people should be free to choose organic food. But policies designed to increase the amount of land under organic production are dangerously misguided because, as the evidence shows, they would make our food supply less safe, less secure and less sustainable, argue Matt Ridley and Daniel Pearsall.
Sustainable food production must focus on outcomes, not labels
Dr Derrick Wilkinson & Daniel Pearsall
Recently published scientific studies comparing the environmental footprint of different farming systems challenge popular assumptions that premium-priced food labels such as welfare-friendly and organic represent more sustainable choices. In fact, the evidence indicates that they may be significantly worse for the planet in terms of resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than labels indicating particular farm types or systems, a move towards providing outcomes-based information on a product-by-product basis would offer consumers more meaningful choices. This would mean using consistent, science-based metrics to let consumers know how different products compare in terms of their impact on a range of sustainability factors, including land and water use, carbon emissions, as well as their effects on soil health, water quality and biodiversity. It would also provide the basis to embed farm-level data at the heart of an evidence-based policy agenda focused on securing the optimum balance between each unit of food produced and its external impacts across a range of societal concerns. It’s not rocket science. Let’s hope the next Government is paying attention, argue retired UK economist Dr Derrick Wilkinson and SSA co-ordinator Daniel Pearsall.
No big deal. Co-existence of precision bred and other crops in England
Julian Sturdy MP
Arable farmer and politician Julian Sturdy MP outlines the recommendations of a new policy paper issued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, which concludes that farm-level co-existence between precision bred and other crops in England can be delivered through existing, well-established arrangements for meeting the quality and purity specifications of different end-markets. He also joins calls for more targeted action from the next Government to help registered organic producers source genuine organic seed, and so reduce their dependence on emergency use of non-organic seed.
30% fall in UK organic area shows producers need access to better tools and technologies
David Hill
The area farmed organically in the UK declined by a further 2.1 per cent in 2023. It has fallen by more than 30 per cent over the past 15 years. When there is so much commercial interest and food industry hype around regenerative agriculture, and the need for more ‘nature-friendly’ farming, this is shockingly bad news for organic farming, acknowledges Norfolk arable farmer and registered organic processor, David Hill. Organic producers need access to better tools and technologies, he argues, and with the UK Government expected to look into the rules around the use of gene editing in organic farming, he urges the organic sector to embrace these new breeding methods to avoid terminal decline.
As the EU stalls, England must not let precision breeding opportunity slip
Nigel Moore
With little progress now expected on the stalled gene editing file at EU level until 2026 at the earliest, plant breeder Nigel Moore says Britain has a golden opportunity to steal a march on our European counterparts, and to deliver on the Government’s vision to make the UK a science and technology superpower. The Precision Breeding Act has attracted strong interest from potential investors and innovators at home and overseas, supported by a trebling of Government funding for translational plant science. But he warns that this precision breeding opportunity could be at risk, due to concerns that provisions in the secondary legislation needed to implement the Act might lead to restrictive GM-style risk assessments and data requirements for precision bred products, and that the timetable for adopting the implementing regulations could be running out of road before a General Election is called. He urges MPs and Peers on all sides to recognise the risks of consigning British agriculture to the slow lane of science and technology, and to press Defra and FSA for fast and effective secondary legislation. Britain can take a genuinely world-leading position in the development and commercialisation of these transformational technologies. As the EU stalls, we must not let that opportunity slip, he argues.
Our food system is not broken!
Professor Mario Caccamo
Faced with claims that we should shift our agricultural systems to embrace more agroecological farming practices, NIAB chief executive Professor Mario Caccamo cautions against reverting to low-input, low-yielding agriculture. Our food system is not broken, he argues, pointing to the success of agricultural innovation not only in minimising the amount of extra land required to feed a rapidly growing world population, but also in reducing farming’s direct impact on the environment. We don’t need to change course, he says. We need greater access to more innovative farming technologies. We need more of the same, only faster.
Is UK agriculture facing a downward spiral?
Paul Temple
Mixed farmer Paul Temple warns that Defra’s Environmental Land Management (ELM) policies will not only affect UK food production, and increase our reliance on imports, they will also impact the infrastructure of the entire farming industry, for example in terms of its contribution to the rural economy, opportunities for the next generation, and its attractiveness for those investing in and bringing forward innovation. When the scientific evidence increasingly indicates that the best way to produce enough food, enhance biodiversity and tackle climate change is through high-yield, high-tech farming on as small an area as possible, the Government’s current policies risk irrevocably dismantling the fabric behind a productive farming industry, in favour of unproven and unmeasured environmental objectives. Defra’s own research has identified a high risk of displacement of food production as a result of yield-reducing ELM options, with unknown effects on either domestic food security or the environment. It’s time Ministers took heed and changed course, he argues.
Fresh approach needed to secure UK organic seed supply
Dr Anthony Hopkins
Twenty years since a Government-funded database was established to help organic farmers source supplies of organically produced seed, and despite a long-term decline in the UK organic area, emergency derogations allowing organic growers to use non-organic seed are at a record high. This raises concerns over the need to maintain consumer confidence in the integrity of organic production, and to prevent unfair competition with conventional growers. In addition, the prospect of widespread uptake of new precision breeding techniques, which the organic industry prohibits, suggests alternative policy approaches are needed to ensure a reliable supply of certified organic seed in the future, argues BSPB head of policy Dr Anthony Hopkins.
Food labelling schemes are not helping consumers make informed sustainability choices, nor rewarding the most sustainable farmers
Dr Harriet Bartlett
In a study published recently in the journal Nature Food, a team of researchers from the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and São Paulo conclude that the way we classify farm types and label pork isn’t helping consumers to make informed decisions when it comes to buying more sustainable meat. Instead of singling out particular farm types or practices, the research highlights a need to focus on meaningful, measurable outcomes, and reward individual farms based on these. Lead author Dr Harriet Bartlett discusses the findings.
What is (risk) appropriate regulation of gene editing technology?
Graham Brookes & Stuart Smyth
Despite the much-hyped expectation that Europe was on course to follow other parts of the world in removing GMO-style regulatory requirements from gene edited (GE) crops, with EU elections looming and no agreement in sight the bloc now risks slipping back towards precautionary inertia. Summarising their recent peer-reviewed paper exploring risk-appropriate regulation for gene editing, agricultural economists Graham Brookes and Stuart Smyth warn that we must learn the lessons from past experience of divergent international regulation of agricultural innovations. The impact of over-precautionary EU regulation of gene editing will not only disadvantage European agriculture, but will also compromise global efforts to address urgent climate, biodiversity and food security challenges, they argue.
The importance of translating plant science into practice
Professor Mario Caccamo
The lack of long-term strategic funding for research organisations that are focused on translational research, as recently reported in the media, raises serious concerns about the future of applied crop science in the UK. Efforts to translate fundamental scientific discoveries into practical farming innovations which can boost productivity while addressing climate and biodiversity challenges are too slow and fragmented when compared to other countries. Bridging this ‘valley of death’ may require a major re-organisation of our R&D landscape, suggests NIAB chief executive Professor Mario Caccamo.
ELMS: It’s time for Defra to go back to the drawing board, and listen to the science
Matt Ridley
In the first of a series of essays examining the impact of farming innovations on food production and the environment, science writer, author and farmer Matt Ridley argues that the UK Government is squandering opportunities to accelerate the adoption of yield-boosting advances on Britain’s farms which could increase food production while freeing up land for nature. In pursuing a land-sharing approach to farm policy, Defra Ministers are failing to heed their own scientific advice, let alone the accumulating body of scientific evidence which supports a land-sparing approach as the most effective policy option to produce enough food while leaving room for nature, biodiversity and climate action.
ELMS: Defra not heeding the multiple warning signs from their own science on land-sharing vs land-sparing. Is this a leap in the dark for Britain’s farmers?
A pro-innovation think tank is calling on MPs to investigate the impact of the Government’s environmental land management schemes (ELMS) on domestic food security after a Defra-funded scientific review identified multiple risks to both food production and the environment from its land-sharing policies.
Sustainable Yield Growth - a gamechanger for the SDGs?
Dr Derrick Wilkinson
A 70% increase in global demand for food by 2050, set against urgent biodiversity and climate pressures, requires an unprecedented transformation of our food system. This challenge can in part be mitigated by reducing food losses and waste, and through dietary change. On their own, however, these measures will not be enough. Promoting sustainable yield growth provides the most powerful solution to meeting the growing food needs of billions of hungry people, while protecting biodiversity and improving the health of the ecosystems on which we all rely. If real progress is to be made toward the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris climate agreements, the technical and technological innovations at the heart of sustainable yield growth must be given the highest priority, argues retired UK economist Dr Derrick Wilkinson.
False dawn for gene edited crops in the EU?
Steven E Cerier
With Europe’s agriculture sector in turmoil, as farmers stage mass protests against unworkable environmental restrictions, new breeding technologies such as gene editing could go a long way in helping the EU achieve its sustainability goals. Considering the bloc’s stringent, historical opposition to GMOs in agriculture, the European Parliament’s recent decision to adopt looser rules for the cultivation of NBTs is a significant step forward. But the regulatory regime being proposed is not likely to set the stage for a full-scale food revolution in the EU. Without a commitment to complete deregulation, Europe will remain a genetic engineering backwater for decades to come, argues retired international economist Steven Cerier.
Why the Nuffield Council on Bioethics must revisit its report on genome editing in farmed animals
Professor the Lord Trees & Lord Curry of Kirkharle
Leading veterinarian Lord Trees and veteran farming champion Lord Curry of Kirkharle explain why they have called on the Nuffield Council on Bioethics to revise and update its 2021 report on the ethics of genome editing in farmed animals. They challenge the report’s characterisation of our food production system as ‘morally indefensible and unsustainable’, citing evidence of significant and ongoing improvements in livestock breeding and welfare improvements, driven by science. They also warn of the report’s disproportionately negative impact on the political and public debate, urging Nuffield to take greater account of the ethical implications of not embracing a technology with the potential to deliver solutions to previously intractable disease problems, such as bird flu in poultry, PRRS in pigs and BVD in cattle.
Focus on genetics and IP needed to boost Britain's horticulture sector
Peter Button
A recent one-off House of Lords inquiry into the challenges facing the horticulture industry, and the ensuing report entitled ‘Sowing the Seeds: A blooming English horticultural sector’, was a missed opportunity to put the essential genetic research, plant breeding and seed sectors which support the industry on a more secure footing, writes former UPOV Vice Secretary-General Peter Button.
Crop biotechnology opponents are losing their war against genetic engineering, but the battle for science is not yet won
Steven E. Cerier
After years of reaping the tainted rewards of disinformation, the ground is shifting against anti-biotech activists. The world’s eight most populous countries now either grow GM crops and or have approved the deregulation of gene-edited crops. That’s more than 50 percent of the global population. But for a number of countries, GMOs still remain in regulatory limbo as a residue of the Frankenfood branding by anti-biotech campaigners. In an ideal, science-driven world, with overwhelming evidence that both transgenic and gene-edited crops pose no identifiable unique health or environmental threats, the two complementary breeding techniques would face minimal regulatory hurdles. We will eventually look back upon this period of hyped worries and predictions of impending environmental catastrophe and be mystified at what all the fuss was about, writes Steven Cerier.
Harnessing the power of farm-level data
George Freeman MP
Former UK science minister George Freeman MP explains his longstanding passion, first inspired by the US Field to Market programme, for using farm-level data to drive improvements in sustainable, efficient food production, and to inform consumers about the environmental impact of their food choices. He reflects on his disappointment that the pivotal role envisaged for agrimetrics in the UK Agri-Tech Strategy has not yet transpired in practice, but highlights two recent developments which give cause for optimism that Britain may get back on track to mirror the US in harnessing the enormous potential of agricultural data and sustainability metrics.