Dominic Dyer, BBC Green Room 25 Aug 09;
European policymakers are losing sight of the realities of food production, says Dominic Dyer. In this week's Green Room, the chief executive of the UK Crop Protection Agency says advances in agriculture risk being hampered by heavy-handed regulation and misplaced concerns.
There's a lot being written at present about the relative benefits of different forms of agricultural production, but one key fact often gets missed.
If farmers' yields were still as low as those of the 1950s, we would need nearly three times as much cultivated land to feed today's global population.
Many people are unaware or uninterested by how the food we eat is grown. Often incorrect perceptions and false assumptions are presented as fact as a result of a lack of familiarity with the countryside.
The truth is that if we enjoy a steady, year-round supply of fresh produce at affordable prices, it's thanks to modern agriculture and well-trained professional farmers.
Developed societies have come a long way since oxen pulled the plough. By doing so, they have drastically improved the nutrition and health of their communities.
Modern agricultural achievements are the result of technological advances, new management techniques and new chemical treatments that have made it possible to feed 6.7 billion mouths.
But soon, even this will not be enough. Experts warn that historic challenges await us. Farmers face external and uncontrollable pressures, putting into question Europe's seemingly continuous supply of fresh food.
Feeding frenzy
Not only is global demand dramatically exceeding the growth in supply, but also we have limited time in which to increase the amount of fruit, vegetables and grains produced if we want to prevent a worldwide food crisis.
Boosting productivity to meet this demand is easier said than done because the world faces huge challenges, with climate change, population growth and resulting resource shortages being perhaps the greatest.
Research presented at a recent meeting hosted by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concluded that agricultural production would still need to increase "by 70% (nearly 100% in developing countries) by 2050 to cope with a 40% increase in world population and to raise average food consumption to 3,130 calories per person per day by 2050".
Is there a way, other than science-based innovation, for humanity to meet these challenges?
As the world's largest agricultural producer, the onus is on the EU to make a substantial contribution.
EU agricultural policies should help to foster this much needed innovation and must be careful not to undermine current research efforts in this area. Our food supply depends on it.
The trick is to balance high yields with human and environmental safety and protection of biodiversity.
Balancing act
Despite perceptions to the contrary in some quarters, modern agriculture is very good at striking this balance.
Despite, for example, decades of well-funded research to find a "smoking gun" of a major public health impact from pesticides, nothing has been found.
Revised EU legislation to assess and authorise pesticides will soon be in place.
The regulation, which introduces a hazard-based assessment, moves away from a well-established scientific evaluation that has been used for decades in health, environment, epidemiology and even financial sectors.
Contrary to popular perception, it is not logical to use hazard rather than risk as the yardstick.
By looking at hazard alone we are forgetting the two key factors left in the equation: risk and exposure. If there is no exposure, no matter how high or how low the potential danger is, there is no risk.
The exceedingly restrictive new evaluation criteria for pesticides demonstrate a shift away from science towards policy based on myths about pesticides that haunt public opinion.
Moreover, what precedent will it set for other legislation? The safety of a substance is not based solely upon whether or not it is in itself harmful.
Let's take an example that's close to home: cars.
Cars are big, heavy and travel fast. Taking a purely hazard-based approach would mean banning them because inherently they endanger pedestrians.
While the motivation underpinning the regulation might be commendable, hazard-based evaluation criteria will not make our food safer.
At high concentrations most substances - including sugar and salt - are capable of causing damage, but everything needs to be understood in the context of its usage and under realistic conditions.
Looking only at the hazardous potential of substances may reduce the farmers' armoury of plant disease-fighting tools below the critical point.
That is food for thought, especially considering what lies ahead.
Reality check
While pesticides are the focal point of current media debate and criticism, many important questions regarding our food security remain unanswered.
In the face of climate change, how will farmers be able to control increasing pest damage?
How will Europe secure an affordable supply of fresh fruit and vegetables if our farmers' ability to fight pests, weeds and crop disease is eroded?
It seems obvious that innovative agricultural practices are required to increase the amount of grains, fruit and vegetables that we produce. But in which direction is EU agriculture going?
Today's regulatory vision needs to be connected to the reality of food production, and science needs to be put back at the heart of policymaking.
Dominic Dyer is chief executive of the UK Crop Protection Association
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
