Viewpoint: Agroecology supporters raise doubts about whether biotechnology-based intensive agriculture can both increase production and minimize biodiversity loss

Credit: Fishhawk/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)
Credit: Fishhawk/Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The idea that increasing agricultural productivity will free up land for biodiversity and solve global hunger is gaining popularity in Europe and beyond. In Our World in Data, Hannah Ritchie argued that “If we can find ways to produce enough food on less cropland we can preserve more habitat for the world’s wildlife.” In December 2022, Dutch MP Nilüfer Gündoğan claimed that thanks to agricultural intensification, “in Europe alone, we could give 75 per cent of our agricultural surface back to nature, without this leading to cold winters, food shortages, economic scarcity.”

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

Many conservation biologists, however, contested that approach, asserting that biodiversity depends on complex interactions across different land use types. An insect, for example, does not respect artificial boundaries, and its ability to survive is therefore influenced by the biodiversity conditions of both farmed and unfarmed land. Matters are made worse for biodiversity when farmed areas are characterised by monocultures with high pesticide and herbicide use, as is often the case in the land sparing model. In such contexts, local extinctions are more likely to become permanent. A virtuous model would therefore privilege the ecological quality of farmed landscapes over maximising productivity, while also combating the drivers of deforestation.

…

This idea is at the basis of agroecology with its political, social, and scientific practices of sustainability. Genuine ecologists should work in this direction instead of promoting a simplistic understanding of the food system.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

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-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-23-2026-02_36_39-PM
Viewpoint: After firing the entire National Science Board, Trump reshapes funding initiatives. Here’s the good and the bad.
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-2-2026-02_03_32-PM
How much of a problem is AI’s water use?
Screenshot-2026-09-17-at-1.07.08-PM
'We are dangerously addicted to antidepressants': Should we heed RFK Jr.’s sobering warning?
Screenshot-2026-09-28-at-2.41.21-PM
Viewpoint: 7-OH controversy: An opioid is available over-the-counter–even at gas stations. Should we be concerned?
Screenshot-2026-09-29-at-11.06.43-AM
Astrology, homeopathy, vaccine rejectionism, creationism: Why pseudoscience thrives as science advances
Screenshot-2026-09-24-at-3.25.18-PM
No, organic eggs are not more nutritious or necessarily healthier than regular eggs. They are far more expensive.
Screenshot-2026-09-25-at-9.24.04-AM
What constitutes a measles death? RFK, Jr. maneuvers to restrict definition to make pandemic seem less dire
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-25-2026-11_36_56-AM
Now AI almost started a war with China
generated-1790707585414
Facts & Fallacies podcast: America's health care system is broken. A doctor explains how to fix it
glp menu logo outlined

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