Over-reported stats and under-researched reports are doing UK farming more harm than good.

With thanks to the team at Farmers Guardian for supporting our efforts to achieve more robustness and representation in UK agriculture. Below is the full article, published 26th January 2026.

Following a turbulent 2025, pressure continues to build across the whole supply chain – and with that, no doubt, will come an explosion of ‘insight'. More pulse surveys. More sentiment snapshots. More headlines claiming to reveal what farmers think, feel and fear.

Some will be genuinely useful. But most of it won't.

A recent comms-led study suggested more than half of farmers had ‘considered leaving the industry'. It gained traction because it was dramatic and emotionally resonant. But when tested through verified, decision-grade research with clear intention screeners, the numbers simply didn't hold up. But it was too late, the horse had bolted and the damage to confidence was done.

In our experience, as a ‘research only' agency, we are part of more robust studies which show far lower attrition among farmers who expect to still be farming in three to five years' time – attrition in some sectors is only single-digit percentages, not the dramatic figures reported.

In times of uncertainty, insight has value – and, inevitably, so does the professional management of uncertainty. That can create a temptation to prioritise speed, impact and headlines over depth and accuracy. The result is research that looks authoritative, travels fast, and yet rests on fragile foundations, with little respect for context, understanding or framing.

Over the past 12 months, we have seen a rise in short surveys, unverified samples and loosely framed studies designed to spark conversation rather than inform decisions. None of this is inherently malicious. But when these outputs are treated as evidence rather than commentary, the consequences can be significant.

Complex landscape

At a time when the sector is under financial, emotional and structural strain, weak research risks doing more harm than good. It can amplify anxiety, misrepresent reality and muddy an already complex landscape. And when it is presented through confident charts and bold statistics, it can feel far more robust than it actually is. 

Especially if the agencies, or commissioners of the insights, aren't close enough to the sector to unpick the nuance, extract the realities and even know the shorthand in agriculture.

Why does this matter? Because narrative matters. Context matters. Data matters. Farmers are making decisions with long-term and often irreversible consequences – about investment, succession, land use and enterprise direction. Fragile insight doesn't just influence on-farm thinking; it also shapes how policymakers, retailers, lenders and investors view the future of agriculture.

There were no factual inaccuracies, but the method, sample, question and framing were wrong.

This distinction matters. Good research doesn't require academic jargon to understand. At its core, decision-grade insight does three things well. First, it starts with the decision it is designed to support, not just a general sense-check of opinion. Second, it represents the right people, reliably, using verified and relevant samples. Third, it is built to withstand scrutiny, with methods, analysis and claims that align – and with limitations clearly stated.

Not evidence

Marketing-led insight has its place. It can prompt discussion, raise awareness and surface emerging issues. But it should be understood as conversation, not evidence.

This isn't about gatekeeping. More voices and more questioning are healthy signs in any sector. But as farmers, advisers and decision-makers, you must apply the same scrutiny to the data we read as we would to any major on-farm decision.

Ask simple questions: Who does this really represent? Who was invited to take part and how were they invited? What decision is it designed to support? And how confident can we genuinely be in the numbers?

In a volatile moment for UK agriculture, clarity is a form of resilience. If we care about the future of farming, we all share a responsibility to ensure the insight shaping our decisions is strong enough to carry the weight we place on it.

Both conversation and evidence have value. But they are not the same thing.