Let’s farm and eat smarter by embracing New Genomic Techniques

What are the inventions that have most drastically changed the world? In the 17th century, philosopher Francis Bacon listed printing, gunpowder, and the compass. Ask any modern teenager, and they would probably name the smartphone. I would enter into the contest the Haber-Bosch process, the technology for creating ammonia (hence nitrogen fertilizers) from nitrogen in the air. The invention drastically increased agricultural productivity, doubling the number of people fed per hectare of arable land between 1908 and 2008. It allowed for the world population to double in my lifetime and lifted millions out of hunger or even starvation. However, every rose has its thorns: significant volumes of natural gas are needed to produce nitrogen-based fertilizers, making them one of the biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming. They have other harmful side effects, too, like water contamination and eutrophication of freshwater systems and coastal zones.

This leaves us with one of the most urgent conundrums of our age: how do we continue to feed 8 billion humans – half of whom are dependent on the Haber-Bosch process – without creating further damage to our fragile planet, which is already presenting increasingly alarming symptoms of manmade climate change?

Science can help us to do more with less  

Many scientists have already told us that smarter farming can be the solution. This means reducing our use of agricultural chemicals (by applying smaller volumes in a more targeted way, by working on innovative products and by integrating digital technologies into farming), reducing water use (for instance, in drier areas switching to crops that better suit the environment), and making better use of land (e.g. rewilding and reforesting where habitats and species are threatened).

All of these need us to fundamentally rethink farming and food systems, and to understand that science and technology have a much bigger role to play in agriculture. A more fundamental breakthrough might lie at the intersection of biology, chemistry, and artificial intelligence.

Leading the charge here are innovations allowing for breeding of crops via “New Genomic Techniques” (NGTs), a precise form of gene editing that targets specific genes, does not introduce genetic material from outside the original gene pool, and thus essentially offers an accelerated form of traditional plant breeding.

NGTs will allow us to reduce carbon emissions in agriculture, adapt crops to harsher conditions in a changing climate, and significantly reduce our dependence on fertilizers and crop protection chemicals. Some opponents want to present these as pipe dreams, but from the vantage point of our scientists they are all attainable goals. We can use NGTs to develop crops that store carbon (like Andes’ nitrogen- and carbon-capturing bacteria technology), require less fertilizer (like Sound Agriculture’s technology that allows crops to access more nutrients from the microbiome), are resistant to disease (like the PILTON project for fungi-tolerant wheat), can withstand extreme weather (like Bayer’s wind- and drought-tolerant short stature corn), increase productivity per acre (see Pairwise’s higher-kernel corn), transform cover crops into new revenue streams (see the dual cover and cash crop, CoverCress), and even increase the nutritional value of our food (like NuCicer’s high-protein chickpeas). It is even clear to me that NGTs could support organic as well as conventional farming: they could help increase yields on organic farms while also supporting the movement’s goals of less fertilizer and other chemicals, notably fungicide (where organic options are limited to copper sulfate, a heavy metal which may ultimately be phased out in the EU).

Our planet does not have time for ideology to trump innovation

NGTs and biotechnology in general offer us a path to a truly “green” revolution indeed – and one of which we have a dire and immediate need. The time pressure for Europe is threefold:

• Political will and ecological necessity will lead to more conservation of nature (and thus less available area for agriculture);
• Climate change is already impacting in this region faster and harder than anticipated just a few years ago (Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent);
• The EU is at risk of losing her leading position in wheat production and of falling behind other countries (notably the US, Latin America, and China) who are already investing in NGTs and in other innovative agricultural technologies.

NGTs are also vital as plant disease outbreaks grow in frequency and severity, which creates an increasing risk that global exports could be severely curtailed or even wiped out altogether by particularly harmful pathogens. This risk is real: exported bananas (one of the world’s most popular fruits) have previously suffered such a calamity, for instance, and precisely the same situation could easily arise again, due to the EU’s and US’s over-reliance on monocultures of the Cavendish banana variety. If the same happened for a staple crop like wheat, rice or corn, the consequences would be catastrophic, disrupting food security on a huge scale.

Gene editing can help enormously in averting such disaster by developing crops with resistance to particular diseases or fungi, thus increasing food security while reducing reliance on chemical crop protection.

Those who argue that we can achieve all these developments via traditional breeding techniques have missed the memo on the urgency of the climate crisis and of the multiple threats to food security. We cannot afford to spend the next quarter of a century cultivating drought-tolerant wheat or disease-resistant corn via traditional breeding techniques – we need future-proof food in our fields next year, not in a few decades.

The challenge of our time to feed ever more people on less land under increasingly less favorable climate conditions – all whilst respecting planetary boundaries – means we simply do not have time for ideology to trump innovation. And this is why I am truly thankful that the European Commission has proposed a new regulatory framework that welcomes innovation as it would allow easier market access for plants developed with NGTs, prevent individual member states from issuing bans on such products, and even equate some NGT crops with crops obtained by traditional breeding techniques. This represents a leap towards science, and away from the ideology-based rhetoric that characterized the debate over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) over previous decades.

I very much hope that the EU Parliament and Member States will grasp the urgent need we have of this exciting technology and will finalize the regulation needed grow a new generation of plants in the European market.

At the turn of this century, the world was divided when the first transgenic crops were introduced. This is still the case. The proposal of the EU, however, opens the door for a regulatory convergence when it comes to gene editing, which will accelerate the technology’s implementation around the world and allow for its societal benefits to be enjoyed globally.

Our cultural narratives on food and farming are often idyllic – and deeply flawed

Some reactions opposing the EU’s proposal sound like a re-enactment of last century’s GMO controversy. Given a lack of solid scientific arguments, especially after many opponents of GMO had welcomed the far more invasive innovations of mRNA vaccines, most counter arguments rely instead on stoking fears. And this might work, because as history has showed us time and time again, getting large numbers of people to shift their attitudes towards food – a fundamental and emotional topic – is a huge challenge, in part due to humans’ rosy-tinted view of what farming should look like.

Growing our food using the traditional methods of previous ages is a charming idyll – one that is embedded in our culture, presented to children in storybooks, and sold to adults in utopic visions of how all-organic can feed 8 billion humans.

It is an idyll that forgets the harsh reality of the past: before crop protection and fertilizers, agriculture depended on back-breaking labor and nature’s bounty – which, as every farmer knows, is a dangerous and sometimes deadly game (most recently demonstrated in the disastrous aftermath of Sri Lanka’s sudden lurch towards traditional, all-organic agriculture). It is also an idyll based on the deep belief that “natural is better”, a cognitive bias that partly inspired a pivotal art movement and is so widespread that researchers have given it a name – the “appeal to nature fallacy”.

Most of the time, the appeal to nature fallacy is a relatively benign bias, albeit one that leads many of us to spend far more than we should on overpriced groceries or tastefully packaged cosmetics. But the appeal to nature fallacy has a darker side, as it leads people and countries to reject progress that could benefit our planet and humanity. The examples are numerous: the Ottoman empire’s initial rejection of the printing press in favor of beautiful but hugely labor-intensive hand-copied books, which held back literacy and the transfer of knowledge in the region for centuries; the anti-vaxxer movement which has risen throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, most recently manifesting itself during the COVID-19 pandemic; and, of course, the debate over genetically engineered crops that has simmered since the mid-90s and has recently reached a boil once more as scientists and companies including Bayer seek to develop crops with the much more precise NGTs.  

NGTs are just a small part of the puzzle in the journey

Consumer can be only convinced of the benefits of NGTs if we (farmers, the agrifood business and retailers) can offer and deliver a clear vision of the agriculture of the future in which NGTs are a force for positive change. Here are what I see as the founding principles for making NGTs a socially accepted form of smarter farming:

1. Remember that how we farm is even more important than what we farm. We need to be clear that NGTs are just one strand of the regenerative agriculture movement, and support farmers in shifting to sustainable techniques and methods that promote healthy soil and ecosystems: no-till cropping methods, for instance, which Bayer supports via our ForGround educational program. In addition, big agribusiness players thus have a duty to continue investing in technologies and techniques beyond NGTs: we have an urgent need for innovations like biologicals, or for data-driven crop solutions that allow farmers to use fewer inputs while still increasing productivity (like our ClimateFieldView farming application). We must also urgently mitigate the impact of agriculture on biodiversity. At Bayer, for instance, we are partnering with IFPRI and ETH Zurich on research, supporting growers directly in fostering species and plant biodiversity, and co-designing activities and programs for both large and smallholder farmers.
2. Make NGTs benefit the many, not just the few. The agrifood sector needs to prove that in any activities around NGTs, it is a partner to smallholder farmers and seed producers – particularly in matters concerning intellectual property and patents. However, while patents ensure transparency, and are necessary to winning shareholder support for investing in R&D, small companies in particular have concerns regarding the availability of patented innovations. Producers of NGTs must allay these concerns and aim to build trust between larger and smaller players. At Bayer, for instance, we have launched a cooperation with Euroseeds on its PINTO database, which will reduce the administrative and financial costs for small breeding companies to access seed patents.
3. Ensure NGTs play a role in both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. We go one step forward and one step back if we develop crops that are better adapted to higher temperatures but build up an environmental debt for future generations. We must ensure that our innovations are truly sustainable, in that they contribute to longer-term goals of decarbonization, increased biodiversity, and reduced land-use change. We must also commit to accompanying them with a high level of product stewardship to ensure that they are used safely, responsibly and with care for the environment.
4. Be transparent as we develop and market NGTs. Trust – between farmers and producers, and between the public and all agricultural players – is essential if NGTs are to reach their full potential. And transparency is necessary for building trust. At Bayer we have recognized this bye committing to contribute to public and industry-accessible databases (as Bayer is doing with PINTO, see point 2), and to disclose information clearly by labelling gene-edited seeds as such.

Smarter farming means embracing science, and moving past polarizing debates

Especially in Europe, the debate around our agricultural and food system has sought to polarize, rather than to provide solutions that can fulfil the needs of both humanity and our planet. Following tumultuous and loud protests, GMOs (which provide many benefits to agriculture) were de facto banned – but the same critics have simultaneously demonized farmers for their use of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals.

Farming cannot survive with zero genetic engineering and zero chemicals: there is, quite simply, no way of feeding our planet’s 8 billion inhabitants using traditional techniques and organic farming alone.

Some key players in the organic farming movement are starting to recognize this, and have spoken in favor of embracing the precise NGTs of today. I hope this nuanced stance grows in momentum, as organic and conventional farmers have a common end goal – feeding our population – which will only be harmed by a black and white debate. To achieve this goal, the farming of the future must meld the best and most innovative technologies from both organic and conventional camps.

Brussels has indicated that it wants to take the science-based route towards better, smarter agriculture, and I urge their decision-makers to continue down it, for the benefit of European innovation and for global food security. I also urge agribusinesses and farmers who want to go with them on that journey to undertake to do so boldly, quickly, and responsibly. Because success not only means delivering greater productivity on less land – it also means vindicating the fusion of science and farming in the eyes of society. NGTs can help us do agriculture better, and we cannot afford to miss this chance: the health of our planet and of future generations depends upon it.