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...

​

​

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).  

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

 

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.    

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

 

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.   

​

Read more...

​

 

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.

​

Read more...

​​

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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. 

​

Read more...

​

​

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. 

​

Read more...

​

 

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.

​

Read more...

 

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...​

 

 

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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.

​

Read more...

​

​

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. 

​

Read more...

​

​

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.    

​

Read more...

 

 

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.  

​

Read more...

​

​

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.   

 

Read more...

 

 

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.

​

Read more...

 

 

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.        

​

Read more...

​​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

 

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​