We are at the dawn of a revolution in how we grow food and many other products on this planet, a revolution that is pushing society into rethinking what we want out of agriculture. Biotechnology and other advances in plant and animal breeding and crop technology are already offering an unprecedented range of choices for how we use agricultural land, and how we produce fish and forests. Visions of the future for agricultural land vary between weedless and pestless 'green concrete' and visions of a new organic agriculture producing high-quality, high-yield crops yet protecting and nurturing biodiversity. Given the rapid pace of new developments in agricultural biotechnology and the culture of the research world, consumers, farmers, policymakers and regulators throughout the world are struggling to come to terms with these choices. Some consumers, especially those in Europe, are perplexed, anxious, and desperate for information about the potential effects of biotechnology on their food and their environment. The media have sensed that this issue is not going to go away from public consciousness in the foreseeable future, and are actively promoting widespread debate on how we should best use the profound discoveries emanating from the new genetics. This is perhaps the most important debate of the new millennium, because its outcomes will have global implications for food and raw material production for the rest of our history.I will explore some of the implications of us-ing the present outputs from the agricultural bio- technology industry, draw attention to the science which seems to be missing from the debate, and to look toward the future, when we may well turn to biotechnology to build a more sustainable agriculture. The views are mostly those of the UK statutory conservation bodies and inevitably Eurocentric, but I will try to pose some fundamental questions about the implications of agricultural biotechnology for developing countries. Statutory conservation advisors in the UK are not opposed to genetic modification as a technique for changing the characteristics of plants and animals. It is simply another, but very powerful, tool for plant and animal breeding. On the contrary, we see real promise in genetic modification for eventually producing more sustainable and environmentally friendly crops and farming.Biotechnology could give us a future where perennial crops have in-built resistance to pests and diseases, fix their own nitrogen, and give higher yields. We may eventually be able to produce entirely new plants, designed specifically to produce food, medicines, industrial chemicals and fuel. But let us not be blinded by such dreams; like all new technology, genetic modification is risky. European society is deeply concerned about the direction that research and development (R&D) in this technology appears to be going, and the statutory conservation agencies are trying hard to stimulate a debate, not on whether genetic modification should be used, but on how and where it might best be used.In Europe, where our landscape and wildlife are inextricably mixed with, and dependent upon, farming, we already have serious environmental problems with 'conventional' chemical-dependent agriculture. We have surface and ground-water pollution, soil degradation and erosion, and alarming declines in biodiversity. These are the costs of increasing yields, aimed at driving down costs of food to consumers and attempts to compete on world markets. We are still overproducing some commodities and the damage to our environment continues. These agricultural processes were enabled by the introduction of new plant varieties and more effective chemical regimes, including new generations of pesticides. In whatever way we measure the impacts of in-tensive agriculture, we must conclude that in its present form it is probably not sustainable. By this I mean that, although levels of production may be sustainable for perhaps decades, the social, environmental, and economic consequences of these processes may not be sustainable for that period of time.Biotechnology may offer a way out of this dependence on unsustainable agriculture by eventually producing crop plants that enable agriculture to sustain yields but minimize environ-mental impacts. But the perception in Europe is that some of the present generation of genetically modified (GM) crops, especially those developed for the US agricultural situation, which are herbicide- tolerant and insect-resistant, may present yet further risks to biodiversity in our present intensive agricultural system. I will explore some of the reasons why these GM systems are being proposed and I will argue that the advent of genetic modification has thrown into sharp focus the need for reappraisal of agricultural strategy in Europe. We need clear thinking, scientific information, and realistic views to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits, which I see not just in terms of yet more production and profit.Before exploring the potential benefits of genetic modification in agriculture, I would like to look more closely at some of the perceived risks associated with growing the present generation of GM crops in Europe. I believe that some of these have been understated by both the industry and by some regulatory authorities both in Europe and overseas. I believe there has been a laissez faire attitude toward the potential environ-mental effects of GI crops. This attitude toward such a powerful technology is potentially dam- aging not only to the industry but also to politicians, policymakers, and regulators. It is they who are faced with the task of convincing the public that GM crops will bring real benefits to the public and the environment, at minimal risk. It would not be unfair to suggest that up to now the European public are far from impressed by the arguments in favor of GM crops put forward by the biotechnology companies.