Neither have we, but as seeds are the foundation of global food security, we think it’s an important day to raise awareness. Seed Swap Day is dedicated to preserving genetic diversity and promoting sustainable agricultural practices. The aim of the event is to exchange seeds, protect regional varieties and share scientific knowledge about plants and their adaptability.

Seeds, also known as seed grains or seed fruits, are dry, dormant reproductive organs such as seeds and fruits. They contain the complete embryo of the plant and can remain viable for years if stored in a dry and cool environment. After harvest, seeds often go into a dormant state, which is broken down enzymatically to allow seasonal germination.

Seed size and weight vary considerably: Thousand seed weight (TSW) ranges from 1.75 grams for red clover to 700 grams for fava beans. Seeds are often calibrated or coated to improve handling in agriculture. Key quality characteristics include health, varietal purity and germination. Seed treatments help protect against fungi and pests.

The sale and use of seed is regulated by seed trade laws. International organisations such as UPOV and ISTA promote global seed exchange and quality assurance. Gene banks, including the famous Svalbard Global Seed Vault, preserve genetic diversity for future generations and contribute to global food security.

Seeds are essential to biodiversity. In particular, old or ‘heirloom’ varieties play a crucial role as they provide genetic resources adapted to specific environmental conditions. These varieties are often resistant to disease and pests and have unique flavour characteristics. In contrast, the increasing use of hybrid seeds leads to a loss of genetic diversity, which can reduce the adaptability of agricultural systems in the long term.

Seed Swap Day provides a platform for the sharing and distribution of this valuable cultural asset. Participants are encouraged to bring surplus seeds in good condition – dry and pest-free. Labelling seeds with their botanical name, origin and cultivation instructions helps to ensure scientific exchange and maintain the quality of information.

Local exchange markets and workshops organised by communities, environmental organisations and scientific institutions create spaces for discussion on sustainable agriculture and biodiversity. In addition, online platforms enable seed exchange across regional networks and support global initiatives to conserve plant diversity.

The day serves as a reminder of the importance of genetic diversity in adapting to climate change and ensuring food security. By participating, everyone can help conserve resources and share knowledge. Mark your calendar for 26 January 2025 and be part of a movement that connects science, practice and community!

A fundamental ruling in the Netherlands has now also made it binding at EU level that plant protection products must always be tested in the context of authorisation procedures taking into account the relevant and reliable scientific or technical knowledge available at the time of testing.

Agriculture is developing rapidly and new findings and techniques are readily adopted. But tried and tested methods and experience also count for a lot if they have proven themselves in constant testing. The smaller, older tractor is then often better for some purposes in terms of energy consumption, costs and soil compaction.

If you also take previously unknown aspects into account, you will avoid many irreversible mistakes at an early stage and create future security. So that the grandchildren can still farm well – living provision for the future.

The state of scientific knowledge on side effects and risks is comprehensively reviewed by the EU prior to the initial authorisation of active substances. However, in the case of subsequent new authorisations or re-authorisations of individual products containing the active substance in the individual countries, the state of scientific knowledge did not have to be examined further – even if the basic authorisation of the active substance was granted a long time ago.   This meant that even serious new findings did not have to be taken into account. This created uncertainty and risks, because even every single tractor and every crop protection sprayer has to undergo regular MOT inspections.

Following a series of legal disputes concerning individual products in the EU and in individual member states, the Dutch Administrative Court has now issued a fundamental judgement for the implementation of legal practice.

Zitat:  „…, dass die zuständige Behörde eines Mitgliedstaats, die einen Antrag auf Zulassung eines Pflanzenschutzmittels zu prüfen hat, bei der Prüfung dieses Antrags die unerwünschten Wirkungen berücksichtigen muss, …, und zwar unter Berücksichtigung der zum Zeitpunkt dieser Prüfung verfügbaren einschlägigen und zuverlässigen wissenschaftlichen oder technischen Kenntnisse,… .“

Qote: “… meaning that the competent authority of a Member State charged with the task of assessing an application for authorisation to place a plant protection market on the market is required, as part of the examination of that application, …, having regard to the relevant and reliable scientific or technical knowledge available at the time of that examination … .”

This is good news, because only by taking into account up-to-date, reliable information can risks be minimised and confidence in the authorisation procedures be ensured.

Furthermore, it will become clear in the future whether the ‘review of expertise’ will also include physical-technical alternatives to active substances, especially if the plant protection product is a candidate for substitution.

The last farmers who still ploughed on horseback are still alive. Today, there are agricultural machines with over 500 horsepower which, thanks to the latest technology, are once again able to work in a way that is soil-friendly. We need continuous, but also disruptive innovations from the field to the table and from technology to people’s consciousness. Only in this way will we be able to feed the world’s population better than before, maintain stable agricultural structures and promote climate protection and biodiversity in agriculture too. Suitability for grandchildren.

The upcoming changes are extensive, complex and require the involvement of many stakeholders. The change in authorisation procedures described above is just one of many building blocks, but they are all necessary. It will not work without targeted co-operation between farmers, associations of all interest groups, politicians, legislators, experts and consumers. And innovative agricultural technology will also make its contribution directly in the field.

This is also what crop.zone stands for with its electrophysical plant management.

Judgment of the European Court of Justice (DE)

Judgment of the European Court of Justice (EN)

Press release from PAN Europe

The development of glyphosate resistance in Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) is progressing statistically with the high use of chemical herbicides and has now also reached the UK .

The large number of herbicides still authorised in the USA, and even more so the significantly reduced range in Europe for good reasons, no longer offer any simple solutions. Therefore, the use of Italian ryegrass in green manure and arable grass must be reconsidered and innovative methods must be quickly included in the plant control toolbox.

In Kent, UK, an Italian ryegrass resistant to glyphosate was found for the first time in 2024. (Link)

This discovery shows that the number of resistances ultimately increases with statistical probability when very high levels of individual herbicides are used. Furthermore, the case shows how problematic the use of Italian ryegrass in the field, e.g. as a cover crop component, can become in the long term in Europe if it has to be controlled in many arable crops in all circumstances.

In the UK, 4 cases of resistance of Italian ryegrass to 4 other herbicide classes were already known prior to the discovery of glyphosate resistance (HRAC 1, 2, 5, 15). For comparison: In the entire EU, only 12 cases of resistance to 5 herbicide classes including glyphosate have been detected so far (HRAC 1, 2, 5, 9, 15). The freely accessible international database for herbicide-resistant plants also already documents 6 cases of multiple resistance to 2 herbicide classes each. (Link) Italy accounts for around half of all incidents in Italian ryegrass.

Compared to the USA with a total of 36 resistance events in Italian ryegrass, including 9 against glyphosate, the numbers in Europe are still low. However, this should not be a reason to sit back and relax, because once resistance is present, it will continue to spread needing continuously higher herbicide dosages if resistance management is limited.

Many resistance events have certainly not yet been discovered – but they still exist.

Italian ryegrass is a high-yielding grass that is valued as a green manure and also as a frequently mown arable grass. At the same time, however, it is also a massive weed, especially in wheat, where it can reduce yields by up to 50 %. All 3 areas of use are therefore also points of contact with glyphosate and other herbicides, which in turn leads to the development of resistance.

The risk of resistance development will certainly not be reduced by the further ban on particularly toxic or poorly degradable herbicides (e.g. PFAS herbicide flufenacet).

In Europe, a return to herbicide mixtures with glufosinate (no longer authorised in Europe since 2017), as is currently being discussed in the USA for Italian ryegrass (https://colab.ws/articles/10.1017/wsc.2024.93), can certainly be ruled out. The use of paraquat (banned in Europe since 2009 due to acute toxicity and Alzheimer’s risk) is also recommended there, although there is already resistance to this active ingredient in the USA.

For the control of resistant ryegrass, the electrophysical crop.zone method is an additional tool in the complex control process. Even with the many herbicides still authorised in the USA, this remains a multi-stage process and is becoming increasingly difficult as multiple resistance increases.

 In Europe, there will be an even greater reliance on non-chemical methods without soil movement, which can easily be applied multiple times. This applies in particular if ryegrass is also to be controlled on field margins and in clearance areas.

Good and rapid rooting of the soil with cover crops can also be achieved with phacelia, for example, especially in more complex mixtures that are beneficial for the soil and biodiversity. Increasingly, completely grass-free or at least low-grass green manure mixtures are also available on the market for various applications.

These mixtures are also even more suitable for the crop.zone electrophysical crop protection method. This means that the use of glyphosate can generally be further reduced or avoided. Among other things, this also further reduces the risk of resistance to glyphosate.

Neither lower application rates of herbicides nor spot spraying are suitable for controlling resistance in pre-sowing treatments.

In the field of arable grass, crop.zone is working on combination methods to minimise multiple soil movements when using glyphosate-free arable grass.

This is because soil health and a sustainable yield depend to a large extent on the soil only being moved when absolutely necessary. For all these challenges, crop.zone is an innovative and residue-free tool that opens up new perspectives.

A new study shows that glyphosate triggers Alzheimer’s-like neuroinflammation in mice, which is still visible after 6 months. The mice are not only affected as test animals and model organisms for humans, but also directly. This is because in the field (and not only) they eat the highly contaminated grains after siccation, which are not analysed for residues.

The fact that the long-term risks of glyphosate for mammals are clear in many areas of application was also established by the EFSA when glyphosate was re-authorised. (Link).

Die Frage, ob nur Glyphosatformulierungen, nicht aber Glyphosat selbst ein neurotoxisches Potenzial haben, musste offen bleiben, auch wenn dieser Unterschied für die Maus im Feld nicht relevant ist.

The question of whether only glyphosate formulations, but not glyphosate itself, have a neurotoxic potential had to remain open, even if this difference is not relevant for the mouse in the field.

However, a recent study now shows for the first time that neuroinflammation caused by glyphosate, similar to Alzheimer’s disease, is still detectable in the brains of mice even after 6 months. In addition to the inflammation itself, altered proteins, pathological changes and AMPA (glyphosate degradation product)  were also found in the brains of animals with the typical anxiety behaviour. (Link) / (Link).

The mouse is not only the model mammal here, which (in this case almost literally) takes the biscuit for all other animals and also for us humans in the laboratory. Mice also live in the very fields where large quantities of food contaminated with glyphosate can be found: in fields where desiccation has been used or cover crops have been destroyed.

During the siccation of cereals and pulses, which has only recently been banned in the EU but is still widely used internationally, the still very green grains in particular absorb a lot of glyphosate. They then dry out and are sieved back onto the field by the combine harvester as grains that are too small. The large, ripe grains with lower contamination are harvested and analysed, but not what the animals eat in the field with significantly higher contamination. Therefore, high doses in trials can be quite realistic.

With the best will in the world, it is therefore not enough to simply look at residues in food or to realise that humans do not eat cover crops. In addition to mice, there are enough vegetarians among the animals (including insects, whose intestinal flora is massively disrupted by glyphosate) that eat exactly what is left in the field without a maximum quantity limit. The regulations on waiting times and re-entry bans are also only read by humans.

The times when chemicals could be assessed and withdrawn from the market based on simple toxicological mechanisms are largely over, at least in the EU. Many substances that are obviously toxic have been withdrawn from the market or at least their release and exposure has been severely restricted. The complexity of research into causes is increasing, but the effects remain.

But we still have insect mortality, biodiversity loss, rising cancer rates and a growing number of neurodegenerative diseases that cannot be easily (or even yet) explained. Just because the effects are more complex, we must not downplay the ‘evidence’. The precautionary principle also tells us that we must act early and appropriately in suspected cases of possible major or irreversible damage. This is the only way to ensure that the future remains grandchild-friendly.

Banning everything may be disruptive, but it is hardly innovative in the long term. We need high-yield and stable agriculture with affordable labour and socially acceptable prices – but sustainably.

That is why we need to work together to recognise risks and damage and then take appropriate action. Taking action means finding better solutions. crop.zone makes its contribution to this with electrophysical plant control in the field, e.g. in siccation to reduce the use of glyphosate.

Last week, farmers in Belgium, Germany and other EU countries demonstrated against the finalization of the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and the South American Mercosur countries (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay).

The Mercosur agreement aims to create one of the world’s largest free trade areas by reducing tariffs and boosting trade, according to EU President Ursula von der Leyen. Negotiations began 25 years ago and a preliminary agreement was reached in 2019. However, opposition from EU countries such as France, the Netherlands and Poland led to years of renegotiation.

The agreement has now reached a political conclusion, but significant hurdles remain. After a formal legal review, the agreement must be translated into EU languages and approved by the European Council and Parliament. It will then need to be ratified by all EU national parliaments.

European farmers fear a surge in imports from South America, particularly beef, soya and sugar. With vast agricultural land and lower production costs, Mercosur countries could gain a competitive advantage. EU farmers, who have to meet strict environmental and social standards, may find it difficult to compete on price.

There are also environmental concerns. The EU prioritises sustainable agriculture and climate protection and imposes strict regulations on its farmers. Meanwhile, land clearing for agriculture in Mercosur countries, particularly in the Amazon, raises fears of increased deforestation.

On the other hand, the agreement could open up export opportunities for European farmers. Products such as wine, cheese and olive oil could gain easier access to Mercosur markets through tariff reductions, benefiting specialized producers of high-quality goods. However, the EU’s deforestation regulation could impose stricter requirements on Brazilian exports.

However, the EU’s deforestation regulation could impose stricter requirements on Brazilian exporters, potentially offsetting these benefits.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection (BMWK) has emphasized strict import regulations that only allow products that meet EU standards to enter the market. Bilateral safeguard clauses could be activated to address economic disadvantages caused by sudden import surges. Specific import quotas for sensitive products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol are also part of the deal.

Environmental protection measures are included, such as commitments to international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement, prevention of deforestation, sustainable agriculture and investment in renewable energy. Transparency mechanisms and civil society participation will ensure compliance. Both sides pledge not to lower environmental standards for economic gain.

Despite these measures, critics remain sceptical, particularly about the enforcement of deforestation controls in the Amazon. The effectiveness of environmental regulations depends heavily on consistent implementation and monitoring. For EU agriculture, maintaining strict environmental and social standards will be crucial, as will potential compensation mechanisms to protect farmers from unfair competition.

Innovation and sustainability will be key for European farmers to remain competitive in the global market as the final decision on the Mercosur agreement approaches.

In potato cultivation, targeted crop protection measures play a central role in securing yield and quality. In addition to combating diseases like late blight, weed and pest control are significant challenges.

Potatoes cover the soil relatively late, allowing weeds like white goosefoot, knotweed, or cleavers to compete with the crops for a long time. An effective treatment strategy combines pre-emergence and post-emergence measures. What does the current strategy look like?

Herbicides such as Bandur (active ingredient: aclonifen) and Centium 36 CS (active ingredient: clomazone) should be applied at least a week before potato shoots emerge. These products combat a wide variety of weeds but require moist soil to be effective.

The Colorado potato beetle is a significant pest. Monitoring begins in May. If larvae are visible, targeted control measures should be implemented. Biological insecticides like spinosad or azadirachtin are more environmentally friendly, while severe infestations may require chemical agents such as lambda-cyhalothrin or thiacloprid.

The Colorado potato beetle is a significant pest. Monitoring begins in May. If larvae are visible, targeted control measures should be implemented. Biological insecticides like spinosad or azadirachtin are more environmentally friendly, while severe infestations may require chemical agents such as lambda-cyhalothrin or thiacloprid.

Combating fungal diseases is essential for maintaining healthy potato crops. In addition to late blight (Phytophthora infestans), other fungal infections such as Alternaria (early blight), Rhizoctonia solani (black scurf), and Colletotrichum coccodes (black dot) pose threats.

Fungicide treatments should be adapted to infection pressure and weather conditions. Rotating active ingredient classes early, for instance, from strobilurins to carboxamides, helps prevent resistance. Additionally, soil and plant-strengthening measures, such as adequate lime application, contribute to disease prevention.

Overusing specific active ingredients increases the risk of resistance development. Targeted active ingredient rotation and the integration of agronomic measures ensure long-term effective crop protection solutions.

Weed and pest control in potato cultivation requires precise adaptation of crop protection measures to site conditions and crop characteristics. With an integrated approach, yield and quality can be sustainably secured. Because…

The “return” to old (often outdated) solutions is often just a stopgap measure or no solution at all. This is especially true when previously very efficient methods or technologies, such as chemical crop protection, are no longer fully available. Therefore, entirely new solutions must be sought and tailored to the required applications.

With electrophysical plant control, crop.zone introduces a new mechanism for broad application. This approach can help address issues such as resistance problems or the strong weather dependency of other methods, offering a more reliable and sustainable solution.

Resistance management of weeds with chemicals alone is no longer possible. Instead of new mechanisms of action, new mechanisms of resistance to herbicides are constantly being found. Palmer amaranth not only promotes mass in terms of seeds and growth, it also simply produces so many more receptors that the plants become highly resistant to glyphosate.

The only known strategy against the spread of this crop-damaging plant seems to be integrated resistance management using mechanical and physical weed control methods. Both scientists and crop.zone are working on this from different angles.

Lynn M. Sosnoskie of Cornell University, together with other scientists, has been studying the resistance of Palmer amaranth to pesticides in the US state of New York. (Link)

Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth has been reported in more than 30 US states. It is one of the most important herbicide-resistant and crop-threatening weeds in the US and already has its own icon on the homepage of the world’s largest database of resistant weeds – where it is uprooted by hand (Link). However, the current work has revealed even more about the resistance mechanism.

While most resistance is based on mutation of a receptor for the herbicide, Palmer amaranth simply produces many more receptors. The herbicide cannot react with all the receptors. Using this relatively new mechanism, the plants became 42 to 67 times more resistant than control plants, continued to grow at a rate of 2.5 cm per day and produced millions of new seeds per female plant. It is feared that this resistance strategy could easily be transferred to other herbicides.

Further trials show that this process has already begun. Some other herbicides already work poorly. New herbicides are not on the horizon, and there is no guarantee that the mechanism will not work again. (Link)

Successful resistance management always involves a whole toolbox of measures from which the best ones must be selected. As the scientists working with Lynn M. Sosnoskie plan, an integrated weed management system needs to be developed that can (re)consider mechanical methods such as ploughing. However, tillage has significant side effects in terms of soil health, erosion and increased energy use. As there is no going back to the future, innovations such as electrophysical crop management should also be trialled and adapted to local needs. It remains to be seen whether large-scale application is a more effective solution than individual plant detection and treatment with electricity or lasers.

It is this integrated weed management that Cornell scientists are working on, as well as tools to help identify Palmer amaranth and strategies to reduce its spread by agricultural (Link). New strategies are therefore also challenging farmers, who have to deal even more intensively with individual weed species.

crop.zone makes its contribution by developing equipment that can be used over large areas for comprehensive electro-physical plant control without moving the soil.

Electric weed control is transforming the agricultural industry by providing a sustainable, non-chemical solution to weed management. This technology uses high-voltage electricity to target weeds at their roots, effectively killing them without the need for chemical herbicides. It is an ideal solution for farmers looking to adopt herbicide-free practices while maintaining effective weed control.

The benefits of electric weed control extend to both the environment and crop health. By reducing chemical inputs, farmers can improve soil quality and reduce the risk of chemical residues in food and water. Additionally, electric weed control is precise and can be used in combination with precision agriculture techniques to target specific weeds without damaging crops.

As the demand for sustainable farming solutions grows, electric weed control is emerging as a key technology in the shift toward more environmentally friendly agricultural practices.

The current Australian discussion about the toxicity of the herbicide paraquat is almost a repeat of the ban on this highly toxic substance in the EU around 15 years ago. Even then, EU courts were so critical of the link with Parkinson’s disease and the toxicity to humans and animals that the EU Commission had to withdraw the authorisation. The Australian authorities are currently severely restricting the quantities used and making paraquat worthless, for example in potato siccation, due to long waiting periods. Only the acceptance of scientific risk assessments and the early development of sustainable alternatives can maintain weed control and siccation.

There is currently an intense debate in Australia as to whether the non-selective herbicide paraquat is a cause of the increased incidence of Parkinson’s disease. Scientists assume that the causal link can be proven with certainty in animals. (Link)

In its latest report, the Australian Pesticide Management Authority (APVMA) still does not see these links as clearly. (Link)

However, it recommends stopping applications with high application rates if they pose a high risk to the environment or an acute risk of poisoning. (Link)

For those Australians who live or have lived in rural areas, and for those who currently have Parkinson’s disease, the situation remains uncertain and less than reassuring.

In a very extensive evaluation process that was reviewed by the EU courts, the EU Commission finally had to withdraw the previous authorisation of paraquat in 2010 following complaints from several countries because the data on which the authorisation was based did not correspond to the full state of scientific knowledge and its appropriate evaluation. The key points of the toxicological assessment at the time, which then led to the ban, were the sufficiently clear link between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease, life-threatening risks for users and excessive effects on animal health (rabbits, birds). (Link)

Paraquat is the most commonly used pesticide for suicide. Just 20 ml can be fatal. Even the addition of emetics has not significantly reduced the risk of death. (Link)

For these reasons, paraquat is now banned in 67 countries, but is still authorised in Australia and the USA, for example. In China, the owner of the world’s largest paraquat producer, but banned its use in the whole country in 2016. (Link)

Despite this, agricultural productivity in these countries has not fallen.(Link) However, this is not due to the ban without replacement, but to work on alternatives, as weed control and siccation cannot simply be dispensed with.

European agriculture is lagging far behind Australia when it comes to no-till and drought management. In the current wet year (in Germany), risks of drought are often overlooked, but climate change is here to stay. Weed control concepts with multiple cultivations, however shallow and precise they may be, can then cost the crucial leftover water for the next sowing and wind erosion the soil itself.

But perhaps Australia can learn from Europe when it comes to PPP risk management. Glufosinate, paraquat and diquat have been banned by the EU for years and decades on the basis of scientific risk assessments (also and especially with regard to Parkinson’s disease). The early ban has also led to the development of innovative agricultural technology. 

Paraquat is currently authorised in Australia for use 3-7 days before potato uprooting. Surprisingly, according to the latest APVMA report, there is no data to support safe use during this period. Even the available residue data for a 14-day waiting period showed unacceptable levels of paraquat intake for children. The new recommendation for further use is therefore ‘4-5 weeks before uprooting’). (Link)

This stricter recommendation shows that toxicity for humans has obviously been considerably underestimated without any scientific basis. At the same time, however, the example also shows that the new recommendation makes paraquat practically worthless for many farmers who, for a variety of reasons, cannot or do not want to leave their potatoes in the ground for so long.

Cultivation time means yield and money. In many regions of the world, the aim is to allow potatoes to grow actively for a defined period of time in order to achieve high quality and a high price (size, starch content, not too long a pest load in the soil, predictable weather conditions at harvest). Once potato growth is complete, the fields must be available for rapid replanting with a catch crop or the following crop. Even the current waiting period of 14 days is often a considerable difficulty for farmers. Particularly in years with later planting dates, every day of active growth, especially for industrial potatoes, is a significant economic gain. This is why more and more farmers are turning to modern non-chemical methods.

The APVMA report contains a lengthy list of restrictions, from a ban on high application rates to longer waiting periods. For more than 10 crops and fallow land, this means that innovative solutions will have to be found if the restrictions are implemented. Resistance is strong. For example, legume growers in some regions fear very severe wind breakage if they are no longer allowed to apply paraquat early enough. (Link)

The winegrowing sector also sees paraquat as a tried-and-tested component in the herbicide toolbox. (Link)

The same applies to grain and cotton producers, who fear for their future if they can no longer control weeds and desiccate as before. (Link) (Link)

The historical development and current examples show that the general trend towards the use of chemical herbicides is the ever-increasing restriction due to scientifically recognised, unacceptable side effects. Ignoring toxicological studies is also never successful in the medium term in constitutional states. But there will be no going back to the hoe and plough.

So alternatives must be found through innovation. This takes time and must always be started proactively. Non-chemical innovations can be developed much faster than chemical active ingredients, for which the pipeline is also definitely empty. The last new mechanisms of action were discovered more than 30 years ago. Today, only the number of resistant weeds is increasing.

The crop.zone electrophysical process is one of the innovations that is driving progress and is being used in several areas. In Europe, for example, after the long-standing ban on paraquat and, for some years now, diquat, many farmers are happy that crop.zone has no waiting times. Unlike the herbicides that are still available, it does not need sunlight to develop its effect. This means that even in difficult climatic conditions, farmers can desiccate potato haulm and harvest as required for potato quality and logistics. This means that the potato harvest in Germany can continue into November and the following crop are sown immediately afterwards.

crop.zone is using its technology in a rising number of crops areas such as potatoes, cover crops, cereals and, in future, in pre-emergence treatment, legumes and more. This is because crop.zone makes the mode of action of electrophysical treatment usable for large-scale agriculture. This will help any progressive agriculture, whether organic, regenerative or ‘just’ future-orientated, forward-looking and responsible.

On June 17, 2024, the EU adopted the Nature Restoration Law, a comprehensive piece of legislation that promotes the protection and restoration of ecosystems across Europe while helping to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises. This law, the first of its kind in Europe, is a central component of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and sets binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems, particularly those that play a vital role in carbon sequestration and disaster mitigation.

Intact nature is the net that supports us all. The diversity of species and the services provided by ecosystems are essential for our livelihoods and well-being. However, the condition of Europe’s natural environment is alarming: more than 80% of habitats are in poor condition, and one-third of bee and butterfly species are at risk of extinction. Restoring wetlands, rivers, forests, grasslands, and marine ecosystems is crucial for increasing biodiversity and securing vital ecosystem services.

The law goes beyond environmental protection; it is an integral part of the EU’s climate adaptation strategy, as intact ecosystems help mitigate the impacts of climate change and enhance Europe’s resilience. They support the EU’s autonomy by preventing natural disasters and reducing risks to food security.

The law contains clear and binding targets to ensure the long-term recovery of nature in Europe. By 2030, at least 20% of the EU’s land and marine areas are to be restored, and by 2050, all ecosystems in need of restoration should be rehabilitated. The specific goals include:

EU member states are required to submit national restoration plans by 2026, detailing how they will achieve the law’s targets. Progress will be monitored through reports prepared by the European Environment Agency, which will be reviewed by the Commission and presented to the EU Parliament and the Council.

The Nature Restoration Law is a crucial step towards preserving intact nature in Europe, both on land and at sea. This regulation is an investment in our future, as only a healthy environment can provide the essential services that protect and sustain us—from clean water to climate adaptation. With its ambitious goals and commitment to restoring 20% of the EU’s land and marine areas by 2030, the law brings Europe closer to a green, sustainable future.

The Nature Restoration Law enhances the quality of life for citizens and strengthens resilience against future environmental crises. This legislation is a vital investment in the health of our planet and society—for the benefit of future generations.