Agroecology supporters mull threats and opportunities posed by agro-biotechnology revolution

filippo evaluating cwr wheat x
Credit: Mike Major/Crop Trust (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The result of 18 months of workshops and analysis, the Agroecological Intelligence project brought together agroecological farmers and growers for a series of in-depth discussions about the role of technology in their farming systems and the main factors at play when making their decisions.

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

Agroecology – rooted in cyclical systems, functional biodiversity, resilience and ecological efficiency; and built on values of justice, equity, knowledge sharing and community-based governance – has traditionally been seen as low-tech with no or limited external inputs. As such, the values on which it is based are distant and disconnected from those of Agriculture 4.0.

We… began with a couple of assumptions. One was that choices around technology are not values- neutral. The other is that while the agroecological ‘umbrella’, made up of these different approaches, provides a narrative canopy made up of language and concepts – such as natural, holistic, food sovereignty, social justice, equity, health, small- scale, co-creation and indigenous knowledge – strict allegiance to these concepts likely varies between the different strands, which might make consensus over technology criteria, choices and implementation difficult.

We wished to understand what UK agroecological farmers and growers wanted and needed from technology developers and from the government

We did not find definitive answers to all these things. Nor was it possible to answer with any certainty whether agritech was a transition pathway or a ‘Trojan horse’. What we did find was an eloquent antidote to the agritech hard-sell based on deeply held values and an interest in technology that serves those values, but little to no interest in technology that does not.

The farmers and growers we spoke to emphasised the importance of a more critical and context-specific approach to technological innovation, one that involved creating and evaluating technology based on its compatibility with agroecological principles and practices.

[Editor’s note: Download the final report here: Final Report]

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

Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-05-21-at-12.15.17-PM
UK gene-editing milestone: Livestock barley that increases ruminant value and reduces methane emissions is first-approved CRISPR crop

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

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