You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.4 Population and the Environment, and §3.2.5 Resource Security — strategies to increase food production and to make food production more sustainable; the role of technology, including the Green Revolution and genetic modification; sustainable food supplies; the environmental impact of food production strategies. This lesson evaluates the solutions to the food-security problem set out in the previous lesson, returning to the Boserup–Malthus debate of Lesson 3 in concrete, technological form. It links synoptically to §3.2.1 Global Systems (technology transfer and TNC control of seeds and inputs are global flows) and to §3.1.1 Water and Carbon Cycles (every production strategy has a water, land and carbon footprint that feeds back on the climate and water systems). Assessment objectives: AO1 — knowledge of intensive/extensive systems, GM, organic, vertical farming, aquaculture and sustainable intensification; AO2 — application to real strategies and places (Bt cotton in India, Scottish salmon, vertical farms in the UK); AO3 — evaluation of the costs, benefits and sustainability of each strategy to reach a substantiated judgement about how to feed a growing population sustainably.
This lesson evaluates the main strategies to increase food production and to make it more sustainable: intensive and extensive farming, the Green Revolution and its successors, genetically modified crops, organic agriculture, vertical farming, aquaculture, agro-ecology and sustainable intensification. You will assess the benefits, drawbacks and sustainability of each using case studies from the UK and globally.
Every strategy in this lesson is an attempt to resolve a single dilemma. The world must produce substantially more food — the FAO has estimated demand could rise by roughly 50–60% by 2050 as population grows towards ~10 billion and diets become richer in resource-intensive meat — while the food system is already a leading cause of climate change, water depletion, deforestation and biodiversity loss. The challenge is therefore not simply "more food" (Boserup's optimism) but "more food within environmental limits" (the neo-Malthusian constraint). This frames the evaluation of every strategy around three questions: does it raise output; does it improve sustainability; and who benefits and who bears the costs? A strategy that raises yields but wrecks the soil, drains the aquifer or entrenches inequality is, in the long run, no solution at all. Keep these three tests in mind throughout.
The fundamental distinction in agricultural systems is between intensive and extensive approaches:
| Feature | Intensive Farming | Extensive Farming |
|---|---|---|
| Inputs | High (fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation, machinery, labour) | Low (minimal chemical inputs, reliance on natural processes) |
| Yield per hectare | High | Low |
| Land area | Small to moderate | Large |
| Capital investment | High | Low |
| Environmental impact | Often negative (pollution, soil degradation, biodiversity loss) | Generally lower, but requires more land |
| Labour | Variable (mechanised = less labour; horticulture = more) | Low labour input per hectare |
| Examples | UK arable farming (East Anglia), Dutch greenhouses, battery farming | Australian sheep stations, Sahel pastoralism, hill farming in Wales |
A key point for evaluation is that neither approach is inherently "better" — each carries a distinct environmental trade-off. Intensive farming concentrates production on a small area, sparing land elsewhere for nature (the land-sparing benefit), but at the cost of intense local pollution, soil degradation and biodiversity loss on the farmed land. Extensive farming is gentler per hectare, but because its yields are low it requires far more land to produce the same output, which can drive deforestation and habitat conversion (much tropical forest is cleared for low-intensity cattle grazing). So the choice is not "intensive bad, extensive good" but a genuine dilemma between concentrated local harm and dispersed land-take — exactly the land-sparing-versus-land-sharing debate. The "right" answer depends on context: where biodiversity depends on large intact habitats, sparing (intensive + protected wild land) may win; where farmland itself hosts valued wildlife, sharing (extensive, wildlife-friendly) may be preferable.
East Anglia is Britain's most productive agricultural region:
Key Debate — Land Sparing vs Land Sharing: A central academic argument runs through the intensive/extensive distinction. Land sparing holds that we should farm a smaller area very intensively (high yields) so that more wild land can be left untouched for biodiversity. Land sharing holds that we should farm a larger area less intensively (wildlife-friendly, mixed) so that nature and farming coexist on the same land. The evidence is mixed and context-dependent: sparing may better protect specialist forest species (by leaving intact habitat), while sharing may suit generalist farmland species. The debate has no universal answer and is a superb evaluative hook, because it shows that even the basic choice of how to farm involves an irreducible trade-off between yield and nature.
Key Definition: Genetically modified (GM) crops are plants whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques to introduce desirable traits such as pest resistance, herbicide tolerance, or enhanced nutritional content.
GM is, in effect, the latest chapter of the technological intensification that Boserup described — a way of raising output and resilience from existing land through innovation. Its defenders frame it as essential for feeding a growing population sustainably (drought- and pest-resistant crops that need fewer chemicals and less land); its critics frame it as a deepening of the corporate, input-dependent model that concentrates power in a few agribusiness TNCs. As with every strategy in this lesson, the same technology can serve either narrative depending on who controls it and how it is deployed — which is why GM is less a single "good or bad" question than a contest over the governance of agricultural technology.
| Arguments For | Arguments Against |
|---|---|
| Increased yields — Bt cotton in India increased yields by 24% and reduced pesticide use by 50% (Qaim & Kouser, 2013) | Biodiversity concerns — GM monocultures reduce genetic diversity |
| Drought-resistant varieties could enhance food security in water-stressed regions | Corporate control — Bayer-Monsanto controls ~25% of global seed market; farmers cannot save and replant patented GM seeds |
| Enhanced nutrition — Golden Rice contains beta-carotene to combat vitamin A deficiency | Uncertainty about long-term ecological effects — gene flow to wild relatives, impact on non-target organisms |
| Reduced chemical pesticide use (for pest-resistant varieties) | Consumer concerns about safety (though scientific consensus holds that approved GM crops are safe to eat) |
| Can tolerate saline or acidic soils, expanding cultivable land | Ethical and cultural objections to "playing God" with nature |
Exam Tip: The GM debate is one of the most contested in geography. Examiners reward nuanced analysis that acknowledges both scientific evidence and legitimate socio-economic and ethical concerns. Avoid simply listing pros and cons — evaluate which arguments are strongest and why.
The UK historically followed the EU's precautionary approach, which effectively restricted GM crop cultivation (only Bt maize MON810 is approved for cultivation in parts of the EU). Following Brexit, the UK passed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which relaxes regulations on gene-edited (but not transgenic) crops in England — a deliberate divergence from the EU intended to allow faster development of climate-resilient varieties.
A precise, high-value point is the difference between transgenic GM and gene editing (e.g. CRISPR). Transgenic GM inserts genes from another species (the Bt gene from a soil bacterium into cotton); gene editing makes precise changes to the organism's own DNA — switching genes on or off — without introducing foreign DNA, and could in principle have arisen through conventional breeding. This distinction is now central to regulation: the UK's 2023 Act treats gene-edited "precision-bred" organisms much more permissively than transgenic GMOs, on the argument that they are not meaningfully different from conventionally bred crops. The promise is faster development of drought-, heat- and disease-tolerant staples vital for climate adaptation; the concern, for critics, is that relaxed oversight may outrun public understanding and ecological caution.
Golden Rice is the most famous humanitarian GM crop: rice engineered to produce beta-carotene (a vitamin A precursor) to combat vitamin A deficiency, which causes preventable childhood blindness and death across parts of South and Southeast Asia. The Philippines became the first country to approve it for commercial cultivation in 2021. It illustrates GM's potential to address nutrition, not just yield. Yet it also illustrates the controversy: development took decades; critics (including some anti-GM campaigners) argue that vitamin A deficiency is better tackled through dietary diversity and supplementation, and that Golden Rice serves partly to legitimise GM more broadly. Supporters counter that opposition has delayed a cheap, life-saving tool. Golden Rice is therefore an ideal mini-case for an evaluative answer on whether GM's benefits justify the caution it attracts.
Key Definition: Organic farming is an agricultural system that avoids synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, and GM organisms, instead relying on crop rotation, composting, biological pest control, and natural soil management to maintain soil health and biodiversity.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Improved biodiversity — organic farms support on average 30% more species than conventional farms | Lower yields — typically 20–25% less than conventional farming |
| Better soil health — higher organic matter, better structure, improved water retention | Higher prices — organic food costs 20–50% more than conventional equivalents |
| Reduced chemical pollution of waterways and groundwater | Greater land area required to produce the same output |
| Animal welfare often higher (free-range, no routine antibiotics) | Not sufficient alone to feed a growing global population |
| Potential climate benefits — avoids energy-intensive fertiliser production | Labour-intensive, requiring more workers per hectare |
Key Definition: Vertical farming is the practice of growing crops in vertically stacked layers within controlled indoor environments, using technologies such as hydroponics, aeroponics, and LED lighting.
Exam Tip: Vertical farming is a favourite topic for "evaluate the potential" questions. Present it as a promising complementary technology for specific crops in urban settings, but be clear that it cannot replace conventional agriculture for staple food production.
Key Definition: Precision agriculture uses digital technology — GPS, satellite and drone imagery, soil sensors, AI and variable-rate machinery — to apply exactly the right amount of seed, water, fertiliser and pesticide to each part of a field, rather than treating the whole field uniformly.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.