Can we feed the growing population of the planet with the help of a laboratory, a drone, and an application on the phone? Or are we simply replacing some dependencies with others - from the climate and nature to software, patents, and large corporations? The question sounds like a science fiction plot, but for farmers around the world, including in Bulgaria, it is already very real.
At the heart of the new agrarian revolution are three key technologies: gene editing with CRISPR, "smart" agriculture with sensors and the Internet of Things, as well as high-tech mechanization with GPS and precision management. CRISPR allows plants to be modified to withstand drought, heat and diseases, to yield higher or to be richer in vitamins and minerals, which makes it one of the most promising tools for food security.
To the ordinary person, CRISPR is often described as "genetic scissors": a system that can very accurately cut or repair a specific section of the plant's DNA. This precision is also the great promise of the technology - instead of introducing foreign genes, small changes are made to the existing genome, for example, to enhance the natural resistance to disease. In this way, crops can be created that provide more food on the same area and are less dependent on expensive preparations.
There are examples where, through CRISPR, the yield of key crops such as rice is significantly increased, the absorption of toxic metals from the soil is reduced, or the content of beneficial substances in the harvest is enriched. Such developments are considered as a tool against malnutrition and climate stress, which increasingly affects traditional varieties. For millions of people, this could mean more accessible and more complete food in the long term.
But every "genetic scissor" has another side. Non-governmental organizations and critics of the technology warn that even precise editing can lead to unexpected changes - new allergens, toxins or effects that appear after years. In addition to purely scientific issues, the patent framework is also of great concern: if the key CRISPR technologies and varieties are held by a small number of corporate players, the control over the food system can be concentrated in very few hands.
Ethical debates go even further. Bioethics experts note that gene editing can easily be used to support monocultures - growing vast areas with a single, "ideal" variety. This brings short-term economic benefits, but makes the system extremely vulnerable: if a new pest or disease appears, it can hit millions of hectares at once, and along with them, millions of people. Thus, a tool designed to enhance food security can undermine it if used unilaterally.
In parallel with the gene scissors, the field is filled with sensors. The Internet of Things has entered agriculture in the form of small devices that monitor soil moisture, temperature, nutrient levels, and even plant growth in real time. This data allows farmers to water exactly as much as needed, to fertilize in the right place and at the right time, to reduce spraying and to react to problems before they can be seen with the naked eye.
Precision agriculture already has its examples in Bulgaria. Companies are implementing GPS systems in tractors, automated platforms for machine control and software that synchronizes data on fields, navigation lines and treatments. Sensor weather stations next to the fields give hourly forecasts and measure real conditions, and drones fly over huge areas to photograph the condition of the soil and crops and prepare digital recommendations for fertilization and irrigation.
These technologies can save a lot of water, fuel and preparations, reduce losses and increase yields - something critically important in the conditions of climate crisis and limited resources. For a farmer with scattered fields, the data in the phone becomes a kind of "radar" for the fields - instead of going around everything, he can see exactly where there is a need for intervention and where not. In theory, this is a win-win for everyone: less expenses, less pressure on nature, more food.
Practice, however, shows that this does not always happen. Analyses of agrotechnological projects in other regions of the world suggest that relying too much on a single "magic solution" can lead to debts, degraded soils and even a rise in hunger. When the model is based on expensive seeds, chemical fertilizers and a strong dependence on external funding, small farmers often find themselves more vulnerable than before.
Critics of the so-called "Big Ag" - the big agro-corporations - remind that the control over seeds, preparations, machines and even the data on the fields is a powerful tool for influence on entire countries and regions. If the farmer is tied to a specific technology, a specific provider and complex licensing conditions, his freedom to choose what and how to grow is significantly reduced. In the end, the dependence can move from the whims of the weather to the whims of the market and software updates.
Supporters of the new technologies do not deny the risks, but insist that without scientific progress there is simply no way to cope with the scale of the challenge. The world is growing, the climate is changing, and traditional farming methods - no matter how valuable - can hardly provide enough food on their own, without destroying the ecosystems. According to them, the key is to apply the technologies with the local context in mind, to combine them with sustainable practices and to be managed transparently.
At the center of the dispute is not so much the question "technology - yes or no", but "who owns them and in whose interest are they used". Experts on food policy warn that if the regulations, patents and investments are written and driven mainly by corporate interests, the risk of a new wave of dependencies is huge. Conversely - if farmers, local communities and independent scientists have a real voice in the decisions, the chance of technologies serving society and not the other way around is significantly greater.
"Technology in itself neither saves nor enslaves. Everything depends on the way we use it," say researchers who are working on the link between gene editing, sustainable agriculture and farmers' rights. According to them, the real "science that feeds the world" is not only in the laboratories and drones above the fields, but also in honest policy, responsible financing and the preservation of the knowledge of the people who have been cultivating the land for generations.
Today, CRISPR cultures, smart agriculture and sensors in the fields seem like an inevitable part of the future of food. Whether they will turn into a salvation from hunger or a new dependence on technologies and corporations will depend not only on scientists and engineers, but also on the societies that decide what food they want - and at what price. Because behind every "smart" system stands a very human question: who holds the key to our bread.