The idea of using less productive or "marginal land" for energy crops is promoted as a way to overcome the previous land use controversies faced by biofuels. It is argued that marginal land use would not compete with food production, is widely available and would incur fewer environmental impacts. This term is notoriously vague however, as are the details of how marginal land use for energy crops would work in practice. This paper explores definitions of the term "marginal land" in academic, consultancy, NGO, government and industry documents in the UK. It identifies three separate definitions of the term: land unsuitable for food production; ambiguous lower quality land; and economically marginal land. It probes these definitions further by exploring the technical, normative and political assumptions embedded within them. It finds that the first two definitions are normatively motivated: this land should be used to overcome controversies and the latter definition is predictive: this land is likely to be used. It is important that the different advantages, disadvantages and implications of the definitions are spelled out so definitions are not conflated to create unrealistic expectations about the role of marginal land in overcoming biofuels land use controversies. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.