“Though the US has historically been a global leader in agricultural biotechnology, we are falling behind,” says a new report from environmental think tank The Breakthrough Institute.
“US farm productivity is stagnating, the agricultural trade deficit is set to reach a record high, and geopolitical competitors such as China are outspending the US 2-to-1 on agricultural R&D,” adds the report, pitched as a “policy roadmap for American agricultural dominance.”
Notably, the US is being outpaced by China on patents, academic papers, and regulatory approvals of gene edited crops, and urgently needs “updated and streamlined biotechnology regulations,” says the report.
“At the same time, some policymakers are proposing to ban proven productivity-enhancing technologies and cut agricultural research funding.”
Asked what productivity-enhancing tech the report is referring to, co-author Daniel Blaustein-Rejto told AgFunderNews: “We are largely referring to proposals and statements from [the US Department of Human Health Services secretary] RFK Jr. to ban various pesticides. During his campaign, he vowed to ‘ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries’ and has openly discussed how he hopes to effectively ban glyphosate by helping generate evidence that lawyers could use.
“He has also pushed to pause bird flu vaccine production and administration. And while he hasn’t proposed banning GMOs or gene edited organisms, he has said (albeit before becoming health secretary) that they are ‘very very dangerous’ and that gene-edited microbes like Pivot Bio’s are an ‘urgent danger.'”
Simplifying and streamlining biotech regs
The Breakthrough Institute’s roadmap for a “science-based, pro-growth strategy” includes overhauling biotech regulations, safeguarding ag R&D funding, and reducing “counterproductive” subsidies for first-generation corn-based biofuels.
In the case of ag biotech regulations, it notes, firms sometimes have to deal with three different agencies—the USDA, EPA, and FDA—to secure approvals, and are “continually hampered by a lack of sufficient coordination between the agencies.”
To address these issues, it adds, Congress should pass the Agricultural Biotechnology Coordination Act and the Biotechnology Oversight Coordination Act, bipartisan bills that would reduce duplicative efforts between federal agencies and simplify the regulatory path, which is particularly challenging for startups that lack experience navigating the system.
Congress should also overturn the EPA’s rule on plant-incorporated protectants (which covers any plant that produces its own pest-protecting substance) or amend it through the next Farm Bill, more narrowly defining the term “plant regulator,” it says.
USDA should in turn create a “red flag” system that applies oversight only to genetically engineered organisms that pose significant risk, it suggests. This should apply not just to genetically engineered plants but also to genetically engineered microbes, “which can improve plant growth, increase resistance to pests and diseases, and reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides.”
FDA, meanwhile, should modernize animal feed regs to accommodate new classes of feed additives such as seaweed-based methane inhibitors by passing the Innovative Feed Enhancement and Economic Development Act, which would treat such products differently to animal drugs.
Joined up thinking required for ag across government
While the White House and USDA have released a “slew of action plans, strategies, and reports in their first six months in office,” a lack of joined up thinking in government is hampering progress, claims the roadmap.
As one example, it says, “In February, [ag secretary Brooke] Rollins released a five-part strategy to address highly pathogenic avian influenza and lower egg prices, which included modest funding for vaccine research and development. In the days that followed, [HHS secretary Robert F] Kennedy [Jr] questioned support for poultry vaccines and urged producers to allow the virus to instead ‘run wild.’”
Meanwhile, recent staff reduction and relocation plans at USDA undermine efforts to support US farmers and ag research, says the report.
“In addition to strengthening existing research efforts, USDA must launch the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AgARDA) which was authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill—signed by President Trump during his first term—but has yet to be stood up. The current administration has an opportunity to leverage AgARDA to advance high-risk, high-reward projects that are poorly suited for the private sector.”
While the private sector has an incentive to invest in productivity-enhancing research, public R&D fills many critical gaps in private funding, says The Breakthrough Institute. “Government programs support early-stage basic research; high-risk, high-reward efforts; projects that require coordination across many public and private actors; and projects that benefit smaller markets that the private sector poorly serves.”
Historically, it claims, public R&D investments have spurred innovations such as hybrid crops, pest-resistant plants, and more efficient irrigation methods—critical drivers of productivity growth. The Department of Defense pioneered work to support such high-risk, high-reward R&D in other fields, it observed in a recent report. “USDA should follow their lead.”
Rethinking subsidies
Finally, says the report, Congress should “repeal subsidies for first-generation crop-based biofuels and for farming practices that reduce yields such as cover crops and organic farming, reallocating funds to practices and programs that improve productivity.”
Asked to clarify the reference to cover crops, given that many regenerative farmers say the practice can over time increase yields and boost resilience in the face of climate change, Blaustein-Rejto explained:
“Planting legume cover crops can increase yields and reduce fertilizer needs. However, the vast majority of cover crops planted are non-legumes—mostly cereal rye and ryegrass—which tends to reduce yields and can immobilize soil nitrogen, prompting farmers to apply more fertilizer.”
He added: “It’s true that some meta-analyses have concluded that cover crops increase yields, but those are studies based on field trials that often use legume cover crops and otherwise under non-commercial conditions.
“The best evidence so far finds yield reductions: a 2023 satellite-based study of actual cover crop adoption found it is associated with a 5.5% reduction in corn yields and 3.5% reduction in soybean yields.”
