Bovaer controversy shows the need to engage more with consumers
The controversy
In late November 2024, Arla Foods UK, a dairy co-operative which supplies all the main British supermarkets, announced that they would be trialling methane emission reduction feed supplement Bovaer, manufactured by Dutch firm DFS Firmenich, with 30 milk suppliers. The milk and dairy products from that milk would be stocked by all the main grocery retailers. This was a good news story: Bovaer has been shown, when fed in the appropriate dosage and manner to cattle, to reduce their methane emissions by up to 30% for dairy cows and up to 45% for beef cattle in certain production systems. It has also been shown to be safe to feed to animals, and as the supplement is fully metabolised, no residues are present in milk, meat or manure. Finally, the product presents no risk for humans consuming the milk or meat of treated animals. For Arla, this initiative was a statement of commitment to proactive sustainability, a major first step forward in reducing the carbon footprint of Arla milk.
It backfired spectacularly. Though the product was fully vetted and approved by the US FDA, the EU EFSA, the UK regulator, and commercially available in over 60 countries, public reaction to the announcement was a disaster.
What is this “additive” no-one had heard of it before? – while the manufacturer speaks of “supplement”, many of the reports, even those which reported objectively on the matter, repeatedly used the word “additive” associated in the public mind with undesirable “chemicals” in food. Is it safe? Is it not going to leave residue in the milk or meat of the animals?
Then came the conspiracy theories (weird, insane, but surprisingly well subscribed!). Could this product be part of a “depopulation plot” orchestrated by the Bill and Melinda Gate’s Foundation? If this sounds decidedly weird, the tenuous bits of truth behind it are that the said Foundation has supported a less advanced feed supplement research project aimed at reducing methane emissions, currently being developed by a company called Rumin8. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has no involvement with Bovaer. The same Foundation, which supports all manners of philanthropic projects, also supports family planning projects in developing countries. Add two and two, make six.
Organisations like the Soil Association, organic or other dairies distanced themselves from the use of Bovaer and identified themselves as non-users. There has also been ambivalence from some elements in the dairy industry, from farmers to some niche processors, who expressed discomfort or outright opposition through traditional and social media with the concept of supplementing cows’ diets with a “chemical”, rather than focussing on different carbon reducing strategies.
Finally, social media took fire: celebrity influencers calling for boycotts, accounts created like @BovaerFreeFarms on X, videos of people pouring Cravendale milk down the drain or throwing out Lurpak butter into the bin– both Arla brands; reproduction and embellishment of all possible conspiracy theories, and more.
Is it any wonder that uninformed consumers, in doubt and concern, may decide not to purchase Arla products? What should have been good news story affirming Arla’s green credentials has turned into a damaging marketing disaster.
From the point of view of a sector working hard on reducing its GHG emissions, and with a lot of work still to do, however, this is far more serious: we simply cannot afford not to have the feed supplement option in our toolbox. So, the question is, how do we need to approach the matter beyond the issue of safety to secure acceptability from consumers?
Disconnect
The Bovaer controversy has been made worse by the degree to which consumers are already disconnected from modern farming. Many in the sector have commented that Bovaer manufacturer DSM Firmenich, while clearly very successful in its engagement with regulators and the agribusiness sector, has failed in having any anticipatory engagement with the public and consumers. The Arla announcement came out of the blue for consumers, who were unprepared to receive positively an “additive” being fed to the cows whose milk they may consume, even if that meant a significant reduction in methane emissions.
The complexities of modern agriculture are a challenge to most members of the public who don’t have a connection to farming – and these days, that is the majority. There is a perception, relayed by some media commentators, that farming, to be “virtuous”, has to be small in scale, local, possibly even organic, etc. Modern, commercially and productively efficient, technologically advanced farming is viewed more suspiciously, even where the said technology helps reduce inputs (fertilisers, pesticides), reduce emissions, increase carbon sequestration, improve resource efficiency and animal welfare outcomes, and even make farms safer and better places to work for younger generations and employees alike.
Public perception of technology in agriculture: an under-researched topic
We have often spoken of the “public licence” to farm, and we now need to consider that this must include the “public licence” to use certain technologies. Prof John Gilliland published a thought provoking article on this very topic, also inspired by the Bovaer debacle, in the Farmers’ Journal last month.
Research on the public’s perception of technology in agriculture appears thin on the ground.
A German survey on the public acceptance of digital farming technologies (DFT), carried out in 2020 by Johanna Pfeiffer et al, found were that attitudes to DFT were mostly positive, as was the notion of providing subsidies to encourage adoption. However, those most likely to express this positive attitude already had a positive view of farming, and a strong trust in farmers. There were negative associations and general criticism of agricultural production, especially animal productions, where respondents were confronted with pictures showing DFT. The study concluded that DFT adoption was unlikely to improve the public acceptance of agriculture in Germany in light of the levels of criticism it currently faces from many groups.
Another study considered the public perception of Precision Agriculture Technologies (PAT) in the Netherlands. This is a Masters thesis published in 2024 by Romee Veld of Utrecht University, and is based on media reports on PAT in Dutch newspapers – a recognised methodology to study public perception. It found that, while the public was positively disposed towards PAT, this was not unconditional. In particular, while it confirmed previously identified societal implications of concern to the public (impact on employment opportunities, food traceability and more) it found that the public were also weary of investment costs, the lack of farmers’ skills, capability for mindset change necessary to adopt them, and not fully trusting of the effectiveness of precision technologies.
That said, most representations were positive, with positive impact on the environment, production cost reduction and farm work advantages at the top of the list of most common representations in newspapers.
Public perception was found to be essential in terms of policy development and crucial to secure political support for subsidies and promotion of technology adoption.
This study cites “pro-innovation bias” and “techno-optimism” as reasons why the sector may tend to ignore the possible drawbacks – for example, inequality of access, issues of data ownership and more – which may resonate negatively with the public.
Another German study in the acceptability of “crop robots”, published in Science Direct in November 2022 also concludes that the environmental benefits make technology acceptable to the public, rather than the economic advantages.
More to be learned from study of GM perception?
From a consumer perspective, it could be argued that precision agriculture technologies, digitisation or automation of farming are somewhat external to the food produced, and consumed. However, a feed supplement (or “additive”) or another fundamental modification of the animal or plant, such as from genetic modification, may feel closer to the bone, and therefore less readily acceptable for the consumer.
To find pointers to improve public perception of a bio-technological innovation like Bovaer, we should perhaps focus on how genetic modification has been received by the public. There are clearly mistakes to avoid and lessons to be learned from that experience, when we see just how, despite 30 years of GM developments, demonstrated to be safe, many of them positive for the environment, we still have deep, ideological disagreements on how to regulate, or even whether to permit the use of GM technology at all.
This study by Philip Mcnaghten et al of Wageningen University, published in 2020 considers the controversies around gene-editing of plants with a view to drawing lessons to improve future governance and regulation in that space, and is worth a read. It starts by identifying the issues which have poisoned (to this day!) the introduction and regulation of GMO in the arable sector.
Presenting GM in terms of absence of risks or harms and economic benefits never answered all the concerns of the public. Hence, GM crop species, especially those engineered for pesticide or pest resistance, were seen as prioritising economic benefits only making a difference to larger farmers and the agrifood industry. Meanwhile, NGOs, with support from some media commentators, were able to amplify the public’s concerns over the impact of GM on the livelihoods of small farmers, especially in developing countries, unable to afford the technology, the fear of cultural, varietal and other losses. GMs were criticised for over-promising and under-delivering on hunger alleviation, wrongly equating food security with quantities rather than access. Too little was done to communicate the environmental, health and social benefits of some forms of GM. All this contributed to erode trust between scientists, policy makers and the public.
Stakeholders, the public and their non-scientific – socio-economic, ethical – concerns have had only limited representation in the process to regulate GM crops.
Finally, differentiated approaches to regulation in the US and the EU played a huge part in keeping the controversy alive by bringing it into the WTO and bilateral trade deal negotiations. In effect this created a space for NGOs and the media to keep raising a broad array of concerns on behalf of the public beyond product safety, namely corporate control of food systems, loss of consumer choice, the “unnatural” aspect of the technology, that it would only benefit multinational food companies and large “industrial” farmers, and so on.
Public acceptance is crucial to support on-farm adoption
A few common points crop up in all the studies considered.
Safety guarantees and economic arguments are not sufficient to persuade the public of the goodness of a practice or technology.
Consumers learn from the media, including social media, and need to find arguments that resonate with their concerns – those are rarely scientific, but frequently include social, cultural considerations, as well as environmental and climate ones.
Consumers are most likely to be positively disposed to technology adoption on farms if they already have a positive image of farmers and agriculture.
Crucially, in democracies at least, policy makers are heavily influenced by public sentiment. This is expressed by NGOs and community groups, through media commentators, and through the lobbying of politicians.
The lack of acceptance by the public of particular types of agricultural technologies will make it far more difficult for the sector to obtain policy and financial supports, and will slow down the adoption of new technologies necessary to enable agriculture deliver on its environmental and climate obligations.
How can we foster social licence for modern agriculture?
Farmers and the agricultural sector need more, not fewer, safe, proven tools which will help them reduce their carbon and environmental footprints while matching levels of food production to a fast-growing global population.
Securing acceptance is not just about better communication, or educating an ignorant public. It must be about involving all stakeholders, NGOs and consumer communities in the national policy development, encouraging them to voice all their concerns, then seriously engaging with them. Their issues will include environmental, health, animal welfare and other societal considerations which the sector must understand are as relevant as the safety of those products or technologies, their proven ability to deliver on their promise, and their economic benefits.
Finally, I don’t think this is about obtaining acceptance technology by technology. It is about gaining recognition of the importance of agriculture in human society, and its need to transition to more modern and sustainable practices. These must include the use of digital, precision, biological and other technologies as required to meet the challenges of food security as well as economic, social and environmental sustainability. This must be part of the agenda for the food industry-funded Project Connect recently launched by Bord Bia.
Coincidentally, as I was finishing this article, with RTE Radio One Drive Time playing in the background, I heard Sarah McInerney interview Professor Mike Coffey of Scotland’s Rural College about Hilda, an IVF bred dairy heifer calf whose genetic makeup has been designed to include low methane emission traits, with a view to speeding up emission reductions by breeding those traits into the dairy herd. A text from a listener is read out by Sarah: “stop messing with nature and genetics, it’s a recipe for disaster”. To which Prof Coffey replies: “150 years ago, people lived to the ripe old age of about 40, and people were dying of preventable diseases, including starvation!”
We have our work cut out to bridge the gap!
© Catherine Lascurettes, Cúl Dara Consultancy
