A leading South Australian farmer and grains researcher says it will be critical the cropping sector participates in debate on sustainability goals for the agriculture sector, lest it be drowned out by non-science based opinion.
Speaking at last month's Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) update in Bendigo, Andy Barr said growers and and their advisers could not afford to sit quiet on sustainability rules.
"Growers must participate in the debate otherwise poor decisions may be made which will not achieve local, national or global food security or environmental outcomes."
Dr Barr said he had been paying close attention to the European Union's movements in the space, in particular the controversial Farm To Fork policy, which is regarded as one of the strictest of its type globally.
Following the introduction of the policy there have been widespread protests among the European farming community, which have seen some local leaders enact changes to water down aspects of the policy.
Dr Barr said the ambitious targets would alter global food production, via European banks and lenders which are likely to require similar commitments from farmers overseas.
Some of the Food to Fork policy's harshest requirements include a 50 per cent drop in the use of pesticides and an increase of land under organic production to 25pc.
Dr Barr said these strict guidelines would have an impact on global food supplies, but given Europe is an affluent region the reductions in production would not be felt so keenly there.
He said the Farm to Fork example highlighted why farming groups had to get involved in the sustainability debate or risk seeing it hijacked by groups that did not actually understand farming systems.
"We're going to see multiple alternative systems promoted and not all of them will have a basis in sound agricultural science."
Organic systems were one example he used of a system popular in some circles that had some serious flaws.
"They are touted by their proponents as better for the environment, but productivity is generally around 70pc of conventional systems so you need more land to grow the same amount of food," Dr Barr said.
Dr Barr said the nebulous term of regenerative agriculture also needed scrutiny.
"Populist versions of regenerative agriculture generally present anecdotal evidence as to its merits."
However, he said it was getting more quantifiable.
"A lot of big food corporations have been big advocates of regenerative agriculture, and after some early missteps they are promoting farming methods with a greater basis in science."
He said Australian growers should monitor sustainable schemes carefully to see if they were worthwhile.
"A big example is the ISCC (International Sustainability and Carbon Certification), which is required to sell canola into the EU."
"Farmers could see the value with a $25 a tonne premium, but with barley that premium is only $2/t, so for the extra work and conditions, such as 'no-burn' and setting aside, it may not be worth it if you were doing it for barley alone."
He raised the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) platform as a potential alternative to ISCC, with good popularity among big food companies.