On Monday, the Government launched a new strategy aimed at increasing the influence of the sciences on the agriculture sector. The agri-tech strategy follows comparable reviews of other sectors including transport, aerospace and construction.  

The strategy includes plans to review private and Government funding available for agricultural research, boost funding for certain research centres and make financing more accessible. However, there are concerns that the government's pledge to ensure such funding is "aligned with the sector's priorities" could mean agroecological considerations, which have widespread support from key scientists, development groups and environmentalists, though a limited scope for commercialisation, could lose out to more specialised and proprietary high-tech endeavours.

The government's strategy was welcomed by the NFU who claimed the focus on agri-science "could lead to a step-change in [the] efficiency, profitability and resilience of UK farm businesses."

NFU President Peter Kendall said on Monday, "The strategy resonates strongly with existing developments and initiatives involving many food, farming and research organisations and will catalyse lots of further activity. Skills and training for farmers are absolutely critical so that knowledge generated through agri-science can be adopted at a commercial scale."

He continued, "It is essential that the science is translated into activity and behaviour change on farm. Showing agriculture as an innovative, rewarding and business-focussed sector will make it a career of choice for the next generation of farmers, advisers, engineers, vets and scientists."

However, some forms of agri-tech, for which the government has displayed unwavering support, have proven manifestly unpopular with UK citizens. For example, despite the fact that the practice continues to receive research funding and high-profile backing from ministers, the public remains opposed to genetic modification of food crops.

Last summer, a publicly funded trial of GM 'whiffy' wheat being grown at Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire sparked nationwide debate and a protest at the research centre attracted hundreds of demonstrators. Although supporters of the controversial crops maintain GM varieties are grown widely around the world, there is no scientific consensus on the technology and in reality the crops' cultivation is limited to the agricultural powerhouses of North and South America.  

On Monday, Tom MacMillan, director of innovation at the Soil Association, said the organic group would reserve judgement on the strategy. He elaborated, "Whether this big investment is good for farming, the environment and consumers will depend on how well government involves working farmers and the public in the new innovation centres its planning. The challenge is to make sure this is a strategy for innovation in agriculture, not just for the manufacturing and supermarket industries that are upstream and downstream of farming."

MacMillan continued, "How the new agri-tech strategy plays out in practice will depend on the detail. Some parts are potentially exciting, for example the new Centre for Agricultural Informatics and Metrics of Sustainability. While it pays lip service to minsters' unhealthy obsession with lobbying against the EU's precautionary approach on GM and pesticides, it at least seems there's no plan to fritter new money away on it."

He added that the Soil Association would support government "giving farmers and consumers a direct say in decisions about research funding, and investing much more in agroecology - approaches like organic that help farmers buy fewer inputs and make best use of the renewable resources they have on their farm."