simonmaechling.bsky.social
Science. Innovation. Agriculture.
Innovator at Bayer Crop Science.
171 posts
725 followers
862 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Thanks!
comment in response to
post
Did you read the publication?
comment in response to
post
Its an example of how misinformation can negatively affect policy-making.
There is an opinion paper available here if you are interested:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
comment in response to
post
You can’t feed 8 billion people with slogans.
You need science, efficiency, and modern tools.
Which countries should learn from Sri Lanka’s mistake before making the same one? 12/12
comment in response to
post
The takeaway?
1. Science beats ideology. Farming works best with innovation, not wishful thinking.
2. Organic isn’t scalable. It can supplement, but not replace modern agriculture.
3. Bad policies hurt real people. Sri Lanka didn’t just lose crops—they lost stability. 11/12
comment in response to
post
The irony?
🚨 The government reversed the ban in 2022—but the damage was done.
🚨 Farmers went back to fertilizers and pesticides, because science works.
🚨 The world ignored the lesson, and activists still push “100% organic” fantasies. 10/12
comment in response to
post
In less than a year, Sri Lanka went from a functioning country to economic disaster—all because of a reckless farming policy. 9/12
comment in response to
post
As farming failed, the entire economy crumbled:
💰 Inflation hit 50%+—food became unaffordable.
⛽ Fuel shortages—supply chains broke down.
🔥 Riots and protests—people stormed the presidential palace. 8/12
comment in response to
post
Sri Lanka’s leaders believed the “natural = better” myth.
Their people paid the price. 7/12
comment in response to
post
Why did this happen?
🚨 Organic yields are lower—you need more land and labor to produce the same food.
🚨 Pests don’t care about ideology—without pesticides, crops were destroyed.
🚨 Soil health declined—without synthetic fertilizers, nutrient depletion hit hard. 6/12
comment in response to
post
The government had to import rice for the first time in decades, spending hundreds of millions just to avoid famine.
Organic farming wasn’t feeding the country. It was starving it. 5/12
comment in response to
post
The immediate consequences:
🌾 Rice production fell by 40%.
🍃 Tea exports—the country’s biggest industry—collapsed.
💰 Farmers went bankrupt. 4/12
comment in response to
post
What they got:
❌ Crop failures
❌ Skyrocketing food prices
❌ A full-blown economic crisis
Ideology met reality—and reality won. 3/12
comment in response to
post
The government banned chemical fertilizers and pesticides to become the first fully organic nation.
They promised:
✅ Healthier food.
✅ Environmental benefits.
✅ Self-sufficient agriculture. 2/12
comment in response to
post
💡 Many high-profile organic advocates praised Sri Lanka’s move - until it collapsed.
Vandana Shiva, a leading anti-GMO and organic farming advocate, called the policy a “visionary step” and urged other nations to follow Sri Lanka’s lead.
comment in response to
post
🔍 Sri Lanka’s crisis was directly linked to its ban on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
comment in response to
post
Thanks!
comment in response to
post
@stevenvbussche.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
This isn’t just about farming.
It’s about Europe’s future:
• Food security = economic security.
• Innovation = sustainability.
It’s time for Europe to lead in agriculture again - not lag behind.
Let’s break free from fear and learn the science.
comment in response to
post
Until then?
European agriculture will struggle to compete.
We’ll keep relying on imports, burning fossil fuels to transport food from thousands of miles away.
And we’ll stay stuck in the past.
comment in response to
post
The solution is clear:
1. Embrace GMO cultivation with proper regulation.
2. Support farmers with tools to innovate.
3. Reduce food imports and secure Europe’s food supply.
4. Lead the world in sustainable, science-based agriculture.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
The irony:
European scientists are pioneers in biotech research.
• CRISPR gene-editing was co-developed here.
• The labs lead in biotech innovation.
But policies force these breakthroughs to be commercialized elsewhere.
We’re exporting our brains - and importing our food.
comment in response to
post
But it gets worse:
By rejecting GMOs, we missed tools to address climate change:
• Drought-resistant crops to conserve water.
• Pest-resistant crops to reduce chemical use.
• Higher yields to grow more food on less land.
Instead, Europe sticks to outdated methods.
comment in response to
post
The hypocrisy is staggering:
Ban cultivation of GMOs for European farmers but import GMO crops from abroad.
And here’s the kicker:
• GMO bans increase costs for farmers.
• Food prices in Europe are now 20-40% higher than in North America.
www.europeanscientist.com/en/features/...
comment in response to
post
While Europe said no, others said yes:
• The US and Brazil became global leaders in GMO farming.
• Farmers there benefit from higher yields and fewer pesticides.
Europe? Imports over 30 million tons of GM crops annually - for animal feed.
comment in response to
post
The root of the fear:
In the 1990s, media and activists fueled public panic about “Frankenfoods.”
Despite overwhelming scientific consensus on GMO safety, Europe chose caution over innovation.
The result?
comment in response to
post
First, let’s start with the facts:
Europe has some of the most advanced research in plant science and agriculture.
Yet, nearly all GMO cultivation is banned.
Why? Because of fear - not science.
comment in response to
post
Who is Monsanto?
comment in response to
post
What you are saying is that you are incapable to dialogue with anyone that doesn’t agree with your point of view.
There is a word to describe that?
comment in response to
post
Now you move to ad hominem.
Are you aware of the logical fallacies you are committing?
comment in response to
post
I am interested in a good faith discussion.
Which you have not provided.
comment in response to
post
And now you play the shill gambit.
comment in response to
post
No it’s not.
You are now far off topic.
comment in response to
post
Not true.
comment in response to
post
That’s a hand waving argument, and moving the goalposts.
comment in response to
post
There is no link to cancer. This has been shown by more than 15 regulatory agencies.
comment in response to
post
Nature isn’t optimized to feed billions of people. Agriculture serves a different purpose. By embracing science, rejecting false equivalences, and focusing on solutions that work, we can ensure farming remains efficient, sustainable, and resilient. 13/
www.linkedin.com/posts/peter-...
comment in response to
post
Farming shouldn’t be limited by ideology. A full toolbox—one that includes both natural and synthetic solutions—offers the best chance to meet global food demands. The goal isn’t to mimic nature but to learn from it while applying modern innovations to solve real-world challenges. 12/
comment in response to
post
Modern agriculture already follows this principle. With tools like crop rotation (unnatural) and herbicides (synthetic), farmers blend the best of both worlds to feed a growing population sustainably. 11/
comment in response to
post
Instead of clinging to "nature knows best," we should adopt a "whatever works" strategy. This means testing solutions—natural or synthetic—and keeping what’s effective, safe, and cost-efficient. 10/
comment in response to
post
Examples:
Arsenic and snake venom are natural but deadly.
Synthetic fertilizers and herbicides, when used responsibly, have revolutionized food production and safety.
What matters isn’t whether a solution is natural—it’s whether it works. 9/
comment in response to
post
At the heart lies the appeal-to-nature fallacy: the flawed belief that "natural" is inherently better. From bans on synthetic inputs in organic farming to bias against pesticides, this mindset ignores a simple truth: natural isn’t always good, and synthetic isn’t always bad. 8/
comment in response to
post
Regenerative agriculture often aims to restore soils to their pre-farming state. However, research shows that crop production naturally limits soil organic matter. Trying to match nature’s soil conditions would require reducing yields—a trade-off that’s neither practical nor sustainable. 7/
comment in response to
post
Managing complex biodiversity-based systems also adds labor and cost, making it impractical for most farmers. 6/