An important step in limiting the development of antibiotic resistance is reducing use of antibiotics in animal husbandry. Much research in this area has focused on individual farmer behavior, aiming to better align actual use with medical recommendations. However, farmers' practices and reasoning around their antibiotic use do not reflect solely that farmer as an individual. Rather, practices and worldviews are guided by context (e.g., veterinary advice, peer pressure, regulation, and interactions with farm animals). Studies that jointly embrace farmer agency and the wider structures for this agency, however, remain scarce. This paper draws on theories of behavior as socially constructed, and in particular on the concept of the "good farmer," to interpret findings from a study of 7 Swedish dairy farms. The results show that all farmers have close daily contact with their animals, have strong emotional ties, and place emphasis on the importance of being able to judge animal health status by eye. Half of the farms use an automatic milking system, and for these farmers automation means better monitoring of animal health without losing contact with the cows. The local veterinarian is considered a positive and important authority whose advice is valued. Despite comparatively strict antibiotic use regulations in Sweden, the farmers do not report lack of access to antibiotics when needed. However, they report feeling disadvantaged in international trade and poorly treated by the Swedish government, which allows imports of cheaper meat and dairy products produced under less strict regulations. The farmers are well informed about how to prevent and treat common diseases. In cases where they do not follow recommendations, we found that economic and labor constraints are the reason rather than lack of knowledge. We concluded that structural limitations faced by farmers, rather than lack of information, impose constraints to further limiting antibiotic use in Sweden. Overall stricter and more uniform global regulations on antibiotic use in animal farming could be an effective measure for reducing antibiotic use.

Recent research indicates that sustainability assessment tools (SAT) for farms need to be contextually adapted to be acceptable and useful. Focusing specifically on social sustainability, this study sought to identify important aspects of relevance for Swedish (livestock) farmers’ social situation and compare these aspects with social indicators used in three existing SATs (RISE, SAFA, IDEA). A survey revealed that social issues of key importance for the self-reported overall life satisfaction of Swedish livestock farmers are: having a good financial situation, having a similar standard of living as others, not experiencing too much stress, having meaningful work, having decent working hours, and having a desirable family situation. Of the three SATs evaluated, RISE appears best equipped to capture the social situation of Swedish farmers but does not fully address the aspect of finding work meaningful. SAFA and IDEA both fail to capture many aspects of importance for describing the social situation of Swedish farmers. We present a novel method for testing the relevance of social indicators for farmers in a specific context. Applying this method before choosing, applying, and adapting SATs for farm-level sustainability assessments would increase the relevance of the social sustainability dimension, but deeper stakeholder engagement than offered by our survey is needed.

It has recently been argued that the fragmented knowledge on the social impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops is contributing to the polarised debate on the matter. This paper addresses this issue by systematically reviewing 99 peer-reviewed journal articles published since 2004 on the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture; summarising current knowledge, and identifying research gaps. Economic impact studies currently dominate the literature and mainly report that GM crops provide economic benefits for farmers. Other social impacts are less well studied, but present a more complex picture. Studies on access to and benefits of GM crops show that these vary significantly depending on the political and regulatory setting. Substantial evidence indicates that intellectual property rights (IPR) and the private industry’s dominance limit the access and utility of available GM crops to many farmers. Wellbeing is frequently discussed in the literature, but rarely investigated empirically. Existing evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Impact studies from the Global North are virtually non-existent. Moreover, two-thirds of publications are based on previously published empirical evidence, indicating a need for new empirical investigations into the social impacts of GM crops in agriculture.

The concept of a bioeconomy has been placed central in formation of a Swedish National Forest Program (NFP). Drawing on Hajer’s conceptual framework of storylines, we present a discourse analysis of the working group reports underlying the establishment of the NFP strategy. We ask what stories about Swedish forests come to dominate the NFP process, how well they reflect the commitment of balancing economic, social and environmental interests, and what role the concept of a bioeconomy, has on the formation of these stories. Storylines of Swedish forests in the bioeconomy unite wider European discourses on the bioeconomy and climate change with historical Swedish forest policy discourses, revitalizing a discourse coalition comprising the state and the industry. Particular to the Swedish discourse is the strong emphasis on creating consensus around a single story of the forest-based bioeconomy.

Genome editing — a plant‐breeding technology that facilitates the manipulation of genetic traits within living organisms — has captured the imagination of scholars and professionals working on agricultural development in Africa. Echoing the arrival of genetically modified (GM) crops decades ago, genome editing is being heralded as a technology with the potential to revolutionize breeding based on enhanced precision, reduced cost and increased speed. This article makes two interventions. First, it identifies the discursive continuity linking genome editing and the earlier technology of genetic modification. Second, it offers a suite of recommendations regarding how lessons learned from GM crops might be integrated into future breeding programmes focused on genome editing. Ultimately, the authors argue that donors, policy makers and scientists should move beyond the genome towards systems‐level thinking by prioritizing the co‐development of technologies with farmers; using plant material that is unencumbered by intellectual property restrictions and therefore accessible to resource‐poor farmers; and acknowledging that seeds are components of complex and dynamic agroecological production systems. If these lessons are not heeded, genome‐editing projects are in danger of repeating mistakes of the past.