TEA and agroecology
TEA and agroecology: why the comparison raises doubts
In recent times, an increasingly evident trend has been gaining traction in the debate on agricultural innovation: several documents, public initiatives, and scientific events propose including Assisted Evolution Techniques (AETs) within the agroecological paradigm. This convergence is often presented as a new perspective for making agriculture more resilient and sustainable. However, this combination raises significant questions, both scientifically and culturally and socially.
What are AETs?
AETs fall within the broader field of New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) and represent an evolution of genetic modification technologies. Through genome editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9, they allow targeted interventions on the DNA of living organisms.
Even when they do not involve the introduction of external genetic material, these techniques rely on a highly technological and direct approach that acts on specific genetic sequences. It is therefore a model that interprets biology in an interventionist and reductionist way, focusing on individual traits rather than the complex interactions between organisms and the environment.
The Agroecology Approach
Agroecology moves in a profoundly different direction. It is not simply a set of agricultural practices, but an approach that integrates ecological, social, and economic dimensions.
At its core is the idea that agricultural systems are complex ecosystems, in which plants, animals, humans, and the environment interact dynamically. Productivity and resilience derive from these relationships, from biodiversity and local adaptation, not from specific interventions on individual elements.
From this perspective, genetic diversity is not something to be artificially “corrected” or optimized, but the result of long evolutionary and cultural processes. Agricultural systems richer in biodiversity tend to be more stable, more energy efficient, and more resilient to change.
A conceptual crux: what does “assisted evolution” mean?
The term “assisted evolution” can be misleading. Biological evolution is a complex, nonlinear, and undirected process, while TEAs introduce precise and controlled modifications to specific genes.
This difference is not merely terminological: it reflects two different ways of conceiving nature. On the one hand, a complex system to be understood and managed; on the other, a mechanism to be corrected and optimized.
Socio-economic implications
Beyond the scientific aspects, there is a crucial socio-economic dimension. TEAs require advanced infrastructure and highly specialized expertise, often concentrated in large research centers and companies.
This can lead to greater centralization of control over genetic resources and agricultural supply chains, with possible repercussions on food sovereignty and farmer autonomy.
Agroecology, on the other hand, promotes the dissemination of knowledge, the collective management of resources, and the valorization of local knowledge. Diversification and participation are seen as key elements for building resilient agricultural systems.
An open question
Another point of caution concerns the availability of independent, long-term scientific studies. To date, there is still no consolidated consensus on the effects of TEAs on ecosystems, health, and socioeconomic systems.
In the absence of robust evidence, many believe it is necessary to apply the precautionary principle, avoiding considering these technologies as mature solutions.
Two visions difficult to reconcile
In light of these considerations, the growing tendency to include TEAs within agroecology appears problematic. The two perspectives are based on different paradigms: one focused on targeted technological intervention, the other on the management of ecological and social complexity.
Rather than representing a true integration, this juxtaposition risks generating conceptual confusion and weakening the very meaning of agroecology. The resilience of agricultural systems, according to the agroecological approach, does not derive from isolated technological solutions, but from strengthening the relationships between biological, environmental, and human components.
The debate remains open, but requires clarity: distinguishing between different models is the first step to consciously addressing the future of agriculture.
Guido Bissanti