Search Climate Insights Directory

The report highlights a critical shortage of holistic, AI-ready biological data in the US, which limits the potential of AI/ML in biotechnology and biodefense. It argues that the US government should transition from merely curating data to actively creating high-quality, standardized data sets. The authors emphasize that without rigorous benchmarks and standards to address biological variability, AI-driven discoveries face significant translational risks. The document also discusses the tension between open data sharing and the need to secure data to prevent the creation of enhanced bioweapons, calling for updated Dual Use of Research Concern (DURC) guidelines. Finally, it reviews recent US policy momentum, including the Genesis Mission and various cloud laboratory legislative efforts, as essential steps toward a secure bioeconomy.

Environmental organizations are calling for a review of CropLife's role in Canadian federal policy development following reports of a 'tiger team' that co-developed regulatory guidance on Plants with Novel Traits.

Friends of the Earth International and over 500 other organisations are boycotting the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS), describing it as a "thinly veiled attempt" by corporations and philanthro-capitalists to dominate food governance. The group argues that the UNFSS promotes "failed and unjust corporate proprietary technologies" and "Nature Positive Food" narratives to allow corporations to continue destructive activities through offsets. In response, they are organising a "Peoples Counter Summit" to advocate for agroecology, food sovereignty, binding corporate regulations, and the protection of the Right to Food.

Friends of the Earth International denounces the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) as a mechanism for large corporations, philanthropic capitalists, and Northern countries to dominate food governance. The organization argues that the UNFSS promotes failed patented technologies and 'nature-positive' narratives to protect corporate interests while excluding small-scale producers. In response, it advocates for a transformation based on agroecology, food sovereignty, and binding regulations on corporate power.

The author contends that the U.S. national security focus on CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) weapons as the sole definition of WMD fails to account for modern technological convergence and the trend of using these agents for targeted strategic impacts rather than mass casualties. To address this, the briefing introduces the concept of 'weapons of mass agility'—technologies that can cause mass effects but also operate at the lower end of the destruction spectrum for strategic gain. The proposed framework evaluates threats based on six criteria: potential for mass effects, malicious intent, significant second and third order effects, minimal target dependency, high density of effects, and a 'fear factor'. This approach aims to integrate cyber weapons, drone swarms, and the 'digitization of biology' into a cohesive threat assessment model to avoid a 'failure of imagination' in national security strategy.

The policy brief examines how 4IR technologies—specifically biotechnology, precision agriculture, and controlled-environment agriculture—can enhance water-smart farming in Southern Africa. It highlights the potential of CRISPR for drought-resistant crops, the use of remote sensing and AI for small-scale farmer decision-making, and the promise of vertical farming to bypass climatic limitations, while noting challenges related to energy efficiency and regulatory frameworks.

The report argues that the 'Sustainable Agriculture Initiative' (SAI), 'New Vision for Agriculture' (NVA), and 'Food and Land Use Coalition' (FOLU) promote a version of 'junk agroecology' (agroecología chatarra). This approach selectively adopts agroecological techniques to mitigate environmental damage while preserving the industrial, profit-driven corporate model. The authors contrast this with a transformative agroecology rooted in food sovereignty and social justice, which requires shifting power from corporations to small-scale producers.

The report critiques the 'corporate capture' of agroecology by three major global initiatives: the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Coalition for a New Economy of Food and Land Use (FOLU). It argues that these entities promote a restricted, 'junk' version of agroecology that focuses on productivity and technological innovation (such as precision agriculture and gene editing) rather than the social justice, redistribution of power, and food sovereignty central to genuine agroecology. The document concludes that these corporate-led models aim to 'change everything so that nothing changes,' preserving the dominance of transnational agribusiness while adopting a 'green' veneer.

The report critiques 'junk agroecology,' a corporate-led interpretation of agroecology promoted by initiatives like the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the New Food and Land Use Economy Coalition (FOLU). It argues that these entities use agroecological language to mask a commitment to 'productivism' and 'sustainable agricultural intensification,' focusing on increasing yields through technology and market inclusion rather than the redistribution of power and resources. The authors contrast this with a transformative vision of agroecology that emphasizes food sovereignty, social justice, and the rights of small-scale producers.

The report argues that big agrifood capital is developing 'junk agroecology'—a selective appropriation of agroecological techniques integrated into a productivist, market-driven framework. Through an analysis of three major initiatives—the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Food and Land Use Economy Coalition (FOLU)—the authors demonstrate how corporations use 'sustainable intensification' to greenwash the industrial food system. These initiatives prioritize technological determinism (such as gene editing and big data), the integration of smallholders into global value chains, and multi-stakeholder governance models that shift power from public institutions to private entities. The report concludes that a true agroecological transition requires participatory public policies rooted in food sovereignty and social justice, rather than corporate-led reforms.

The report argues that multinational corporations are promoting a 'fake agroecology' (agroécologie bidon) through initiatives like the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU). These initiatives are characterized as 'sustainable intensification' rather than true agroecology, as they prioritize technological productivism, market-driven value chains, and public-private governance over social justice and structural transformation. The authors contend that this approach allows industrial giants to 'greenwash' their image while maintaining the existing power structures of the global food system.

The report critiques the 'corporate capture' of agroecology by three major global initiatives: the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI), the New Vision for Agriculture (NVA), and the Coalition for Food, Land and Use (FOLU). It contends that these entities promote a version of 'junk agroecology' that focuses on 'sustainable intensification' and technological fixes—such as big data, blockchain, and genomic editing—rather than the holistic, social, and political transformation central to genuine agroecology. The authors argue that these initiatives aim to 'transform small farms into sustainable agro-industries' to integrate smallholders into global value chains controlled by multinationals, thereby maintaining systemic inequalities and the dominance of industrial agriculture.

The authors argue that the EU's current GMO legislation is fit for purpose and that attempts by the agrifood industry to deregulate 'new breeding techniques' undermine the precautionary principle. They contend that genetic engineering does not solve hunger or environmental crises, suggesting instead that resources should be redirected toward agroecology and the development of resilient, low-input conventional breeds.

The document assesses the multifaceted threats climate change poses to global food security, highlighting that while some high-latitude regions may see productivity gains, the global South—especially sub-Saharan Africa—faces severe risks of yield losses and increased hunger. It argues for a systemic approach to adaptation, moving beyond autonomous adjustments to planned strategies. Key priorities include increasing public investment in agricultural research, adopting Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), expanding irrigation, and improving the resilience of food value chains. The authors emphasize that adaptation must be balanced with greenhouse gas mitigation and social equity, particularly regarding gender and youth in agriculture.

The document argues that the global food system is experiencing unprecedented power concentration driven by mega-mergers and the financial sector, now further accelerated by Big Data technologies. This consolidation allows a small group of agri-food giants to control the value chain from seeds and chemicals to retail, squeezing small-scale farmers' incomes and reducing their autonomy. The author warns that the 'Big Data platform'—utilizing AI, sensors, and blockchain—shifts commercial advantages to those with the most data, potentially marginalizing peasant food webs. The briefing advocates for agroecology and the protection of small-scale producers' rights as a sustainable alternative to the industrial model.

The report details a workshop focused on the evolving biothreat, the convergence of biotechnology with AI and robotics, and the need for a multi-layered U.S. biodefense strategy. It emphasizes the importance of U.S. technical leadership, the development of rapid medical countermeasures, and the establishment of international norms to deter both state and non-state actors.