Methane and Bovaer: hot air, or should we be concerned?

As someone who passionately believes that most livestock production can get to net zero and, if ignored, will have a solution forced upon it, I have watched the last three weeks of hysteria around the methane-reducing feed additive Bovaer, with equal feelings of frustration and concern.

My frustration stems more from the myopic, public, private, policy fascination on methane reduction, than Bovaer itself. Last week, the UK’s House of Lords published the findings of its methane inquiry and, surprise surprise, it joined the call for rapid reduction of methane from livestock production.

But with that publication, I had skin in the game. Six months ago, I gave evidence on behalf of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) to this inquiry. Most of my suggestions were accepted and included, but my key point was completely disregarded.

Five months later I had the privilege of representing AHDB at COP29. While there, I attended the launch of the UN’s latest assessment on the impact of nitrous oxide on climate change.

The opening remarks from David Kanter, co-author from the International Nitrogen Initiative, were remarkable: “We have wasted the last three years by the distraction of the Global Methane Pledge...”

He said that when considering agriculture emissions, only a reduction in nitrous oxide emissions can stop the depletion of the ozone layer; a statement which just so happened to have been my key point, disregarded from the House of Lords’ Methane inquiry report.

Farming will rue the day at the COP in Glasgow, when US President Joe Biden sold an out-of-his-depth Boris Johnson the principle that a global reduction in methane emissions would drive a little-known process called global cooling. This gave Johnson the soft landing his COP needed to find success, and hence the Global Methane Pledge was created.

Without any proper recognition that biogenic methane from farming was different than that from fossil fuels, it has largely let the emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels off the hook for the last three years.

My concerns stem, not from a worry that European Food Safety Authority, Food Standards Agency and the Food and Drugs Administration have got their food safety approvals wrong with the approval of Bovaer; but from the assumption from big tech firms and policymakers, that regulatory approval means you have also secured the social licence to use the product, from those who consume the ultimate food.

Going in circles

I can’t help but feel a huge sense of déjà vu. Twenty-five years ago, I and 13 others, were appointed by the then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to try to secure the social licence for genetically modified crops.

Led by Professor Malcolm Grant, this new Agriculture Environment Biotechnology Commission spent three years working the length and breadth of the UK, taking evidence, listening to impassioned debate, trying to find the compromise.

At the end, we failed, as did others trying in Europe, and the EU and the UK became a ‘cold house’ for most emerging and useful biotechnology developments, taking with it other really promising innovations.

One case that springs to mind, was the Flavr Savr tomato. It was created by isolating and reversing the gene for rotting, allowing the modified tomato to be picked when more ripe, giving it a better flavour, while maintaining its shelf life.

In 1994, Calgene, the company that created the Flavr Savr worked with the supply chain and consumers, including in-store tasting sessions, and secured its social licence, as well as its regulatory approval. Both human consumption and market share took off.

Alas, it didn’t last. Caught up in the European backlash against GM crops, the Flavr Savr was removed from shop shelves and the company was bought out in 1997.

At the end of our three years of deliberations across the UK, and feeling really bruised and scarred, one of our commission’s key conclusions was that the developers of commodity GM crops, predominantly Monsanto, and, ironically, the purchaser of Calgene, had made one huge mistake.

It assumed that when it got its regulatory approval its job was done, bar convincing farmers to use GM crops. In the absence of any public awareness, education or engagement programme, Monsanto refused, when asked by concerned citizens and consumers, to segregate the resultant GM crops, or even label them.

But what it missed was the fact that when consumers, having had no information on what the benefits were for them, felt ignored and encouraged their politicians to ban the use of them, and the rest is history.

The question I am now asking myself is whether DSM, the innovator and developer of Bovaer, is making the same mistake as Monsanto did, 25 years on?

Where is the investment in winning the social licence, particularly essential, when you bring a completely new technology to the market, which gives no immediate, direct benefit to consumers and tinkers with something as precious and nourishing, as our daily litre of milk?

Policymakers, you don’t get off the hook either. You encouraged commercial companies like DSM to answer your policy demand. DSM has given you one answer and your silence at this time of real consumer concern is deafening.

If there isn’t a collective effort to bring our consumers and citizens along with our essential technology improvements, don’t be surprised when you get such a backlash. Remember too, you won’t just lose Bovaer, you will lose the whole next generation of new technologies. These are vital if we are going to eradicate global human hunger and control climate change, as the Food and Agriculture Organisation asked for last year.

All of the above misses out on one huge point -–who is going to pay for these expensive, single-dimensional, climate mitigation technologies? As a farmer, I certainly cannot.

Instead, I will keep beside me Teagasc’s 2023 publication on the economics of climate mitigation. I know Teagasc has taken much criticism about its Marginal Abatement Cost Curve work, but on my global travels I have not found a publication that surpasses it.

I will be staying focused on the win-win solutions that improve my profitability and reduce my impact on climate change, water quality, biodiversity and more.

For me, it starts with how I can better use legumes and greatly reduce my nitrous oxide emissions.

If someone wants me to engage with win-lose options, they better be prepared to pay me, and make sure that our consumers are actually prepared to accept them.

John Gilliland is a willow and livestock farmer, Professor of Practice in Agriculture and Sustainability at Queens University Belfast; and chair of the carbon farming project, ARC Zero.