«An area one and a half times the size of the EU»
The world’s population will increase to roughly 10 billion by 2050. If agriculture is to keep pace with growth, enormous areas would have to be converted to use for food production. This puts additional pressure on the environment, biodiversity and the climate. Urs Niggli is therefore convinced that we need to make more productive use of existing land. This also means using gene editing.
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
In an interview with the newspaper “Tagesspiegel,” Urs Niggli, an agronomist and the former director of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), spoke about the challenges ahead for global agriculture.
One major problem is the need for more land. As he points out, “Even if global agriculture continues to produce higher yields, by 2050 we would need roughly an additional 200 million hectares of cropland and 400 million hectares of grassland in order to feed the world’s population, which is expected to reach nearly 10 billion by that time.” This corresponds to an area one and a half times the size of the European Union. The impact on biodiversity and the climate would be enormous. Niggli therefore argues that unspoiled moors and rain forests should not be turned into agricultural land, but that existing land should be managed more productively instead.
Organic farming uses more land
A variety of approaches will be needed if this is to succeed. First, Niggli says, in most cases farmland should not be used for the cultivation of forage plants. We also need to reduce food waste as much as possible. It has to be said that However, this requires new technologies. Pests and plant diseases will continue to be a problem – and alien species will continue to spread, thanks to trade flows and climate change.
The breeding of resistant crops will play an important role in this context. “Wheat varieties that modern ‘gene scissors’ technology has made resistant to mildew, as well as fruit trees that have been genetically engineered to withstand apple scab, could reduce crop losses,” says Niggli. It is likely that gene editing will soon play an important role in conventional agriculture. Niggli points out that organic farming can continue to provide important new ideas.
It can’t feed the world
Organic farming is not capable of feeding the global population, for one simple reason: Its yields are 20 to 25 percent lower than those of conventional farming. When the soil is good, the discrepancy is even greater. If the goal is to save land, therefore, organic farming is not the right choice. Our conclusion is that truly sustainable, resource-efficient agriculture combines the expertise of the organic and conventional sectors and takes advantage, in a clear-eyed way, of all available, safe technologies.
Related articles
Sales bans due to PFAS: Should we be worried?
After spectacular sales bans on fish and meat due to PFAS contamination, consumers are asking themselves: How dangerous are these substances really – and what can still be placed in the shopping basket without concern?
How German Experts View New Breeding Techniques
In hardly any other country is the idyllic image of organic farming cultivated in the public sphere as carefully as in Germany. Naturalness and rural authenticity are powerful mental refuges for many Germans. Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that resistance to new breeding techniques is strong – and that ignorance about the realities of organic farming sometimes appears almost deliberate.
Why consumers accept gene-edited foods on their plates
Acceptance of gene-edited foods increases when the tangible benefits for consumers are easy to understand. A recent study by the Center for Food Integrity (CFI), conducted in collaboration with FMI – The Food Industry Association, shows that consumers evaluate technologies such as genome editing positively when they recognize clear advantages for health, the environment, or food security.
Beautiful and delicious mutants on your plate: The misunderstood world of crop improvement
When most of us hear the word mutation, the images that come to mind are not positive. We think of radioactive monsters, comic book villains, or genetic diseases like sickle-cell anemia. In popular culture, “mutants” are often synonymous with danger. Possibly the most famous are Marvel’s X-Men, who have enjoyed four big-screen incarnations and an enduring place among sci-fi movie aficionados.