DEAR EDITOR: I am very concerned by the disinformation campaigns in the UK against the methane-reducing feed supplement Bovaer. Allowing this campaign to continue will harm all of us.

Products like Bovaer could reduce livestock emissions by as much as 30%. There is little low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing agricultural emissions. Teagasc is doing great work on the Future Beef Programme and it will be the first to tell you a lot of things need to go right to get double-digit reductions on-farm.

Emissions reduction targets are not going away and will get steeper, so we need every tool in the toolbox. If the rumour mill wins and Bovaer becomes tainted in the eyes of consumers, we are in big trouble. I would compare this to a hypothetical scenario in which the coal industry spread disinformation that solar panels caused harmful radiation. How many gigawatts would we have missed out on because suddenly people did not want panels near their homes? This is why everyone loses.

I believe some calling for a boycott online are actually just hoping Arla will lose market share, making this a thinly-veiled ‘buy Red Tractor’ campaign.

The European Food Safety Authority has given Bovaer the green light and it is the strictest regulator in the world, to the point that many trade partners complain its precautionary principle is overly cautious.

We must not allow people with no credentials, on social media, to dissuade us from benefiting from vaccines, technology to reduce emissions, and developing climate-resilient crops, in the case of new genomic techniques (NGTs). The science-based approach must win.

Finally, the debate I do want us to have is around Bord Bia and others to present plans for the price premium farmers would receive to compensate them for feeding Bovaer to reduce emissions. Farmers must not shoulder the cost burden.