Viewpoint: Innovation vs. ideology — How the US and Europe differ on the goal of ‘green’, sustainable farming

Credit: Maren Winter via Getty Images
Credit: Maren Winter via Getty Images

With its new Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, the EU plans to expand organic farming, an approach that rules out both synthetic chemicals and modern biotechnology, and it intends to use trade and assistance policies to pursue this strategy not just at home but also through Green Alliances abroad.

The United States, by contrast, is emphasizing agricultural innovations based on the latest science—including gene-editing—and is now organizing with other countries a Coalition for Productivity Growth as a counter to European influence.

Environmentalists in Europe believe their new vision is “green,” but on closer inspection it is not. If organic farming scaled up to replace 25 percent of conventional farming in Europe, much more land would have to be converted to food production, with damaging results for wildlife habitat and the climate.

In its earlier rejection of GMOs, Europe caused environmental harm by foregoing options to cut insecticide use and adopt no-till practices. Europe’s regulatory example also discouraged the adoption of GMO food crops around the world. Europe is now inviting similar harms by classifying and regulating gene-edited crops as GMOs, but this most recent aversion to agricultural science is less likely to enjoy global influence.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Despite considerable progress on the chemical front, Europe continues to use excessive nitrogen fertilizer on crops, and it also allows excessive nitrogen emissions from livestock operations, causing acid rain, soil acidification, algal bloom, eutrophication in waterways, and animal die-offs. 

While continuing to lag in reducing farm chemical pollution, Europe has also failed to match the United States in production and farm productivity gains. 

Between 1995 and 2019 overall, the agricultural production index for the EU-27 increased by only 7 percent, while agricultural production in the United States was increasing 38 percent (FAOSTAT, 2021a).

  • A shift to more organic production in Europe under F2F will worsen this production performance. 
  • Organic’s complete ban on synthetic chemicals is based on a non-scientific conviction that only nutrients from nature—such as animal manure—can properly maintain soil health. 
  • Because organic farming constrains production so much, it is not sustainable at scale. 

America’s science-forward path

  • Farmers in the United States, who are less dependent on government protection than farmers in Europe, have learned the value of a science-forward path.
  • Even chemical use has declined on American farms over the past four decades, relative to total production, and in some cases it has declined even in absolute terms. Total fertilizer use on American farms peaked in 1981, and since then it has remained essentially flat, even while total crop production grew 44 percent (USDA, 2019). 

Europe’s rejection of modern biotechnology

  • Europe’s commercial farmers are comfortable with innovation, but government policies have at times held them back. 
  • With reduced tillage, climate protection gains have also been made from GMO canola 
  • The imagined risks associated with these new GMO seeds never materialized.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_16_37-PM-2
Viewpoint: Are cancer rates ‘skyrocketing’ as RFK, Jr. and MAHA claim? The evidence says mostly the opposite
Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-10.46.29-AM
Viewpoint: How to counter science disinformation? Science journalist offers 12 practical tips
Picture1-14
When superbugs threaten vulnerable children: Can AI help solve antibiotic resistance?
Screenshot-2026-04-23-at-11.00.36-AM
Regulators' dilemma: Thalidomide, Metformin, and the cost of getting drug approvals wrong
Picture1-1
Cooling the planet with balloons: Could a geoengineering gamble slow global warming?
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-08_39_41-PM
GLP podcast: Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food—health harming industries or life-saving innovators?
bigstock opioids on chalkboard with rol
GLP podcast: 'Safe injection sites': enabling drug addiction or saving lives?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.