The Biden administration has released an updated security memorandum, which outlines the threats to the American agricultural system, as well as ways to address them. “To achieve this, the Federal Government will identify and assess threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts from these high-consequence and catastrophic incidents – including but not limited to those presented by CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear) threats, climate change, and cybersecurity – and will prioritize resources to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk”, reads the document released last month.

The White House touches on an important topic by addressing the unique threats that face the farming sector, and to what extent the American food production system might be threatened by domestic or foreign actions. It addresses for instance, the impacts of toxic industrial chemicals, from a standpoint not only of the effects on humans, but also on the biological realm, which might impact the productivity of farms.

The memorandum comes at a time when supply chain disruptions have shown to consumers just to what extent a food system can destabilize the inner-workings of a country. Case in point, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a military conflict that plays out on the battlefield – it is also a war of food, in which the Russian war machine holds Ukrainian grain exports hostage through its strategic vantage points. Continuous grain deals in the Black Sea have stood on rocky grounds, despite the vital importance for the Ukrainian economy. This war underlines how civilian infrastructure quickly becomes a military target, and how guaranteeing security is not merely about anti-aircraft missiles, but also about protecting strategic industrial elements.

For that reason it is not just laudable that the administration addresses these risks, but also that USDA has been at the forefront of arguing for food security through innovation. The USDA’s Agriculture Innovation Agenda (AIA) advances the notion that more innovation, through public and private research and investment, makes the food system more efficient and sustainable. Compared to the European Union’s approach – which seeks to reduce farm land use and livestock, to the detriment of the European food sector – the AIA takes a forward-looking approach.

The White House touches on an important topic by addressing the unique threats that face the farming sector, and to what extent the American food production system might be threatened by domestic or foreign actions. It addresses for instance, the impacts of toxic industrial chemicals, from a standpoint not only of the effects on humans, but also on the biological realm, which might impact the productivity of farms.

The memorandum comes at a time when supply chain disruptions have shown to consumers just to what extent a food system can destabilize the inner-workings of a country. Case in point, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a military conflict that plays out on the battlefield – it is also a war of food, in which the Russian war machine holds Ukrainian grain exports hostage through its strategic vantage points. Continuous grain deals in the Black Sea have stood on rocky grounds, despite the vital importance for the Ukrainian economy. This war underlines how civilian infrastructure quickly becomes a military target, and how guaranteeing security is not merely about anti-aircraft missiles, but also about protecting strategic industrial elements.

For that reason it is not just laudable that the administration addresses these risks, but also that USDA has been at the forefront of arguing for food security through innovation. The USDA’s Agriculture Innovation Agenda (AIA) advances the notion that more innovation, through public and private research and investment, makes the food system more efficient and sustainable. Compared to the European Union’s approach – which seeks to reduce farm land use and livestock, to the detriment of the European food sector – the AIA takes a forward-looking approach.

Originally published here

One of the more notable misconceptions of many Americans is that people in the United States are worse off than their European counterparts. If we were to only look at income, Americans are wealthier than Europeans on multiple data points: the U.S. outperforms GDP per capita for most of the European Union. The American middle class also outperforms the European one, all while challenging what even counts as the middle class in the first place. 

Adding to that, primary needs goods are cheaper for most consumers. As I’ve previously written, Americans spend 5 percent of their disposable income on groceries, compared to 8.7 percent in Ireland (the lowest in the EU), 10.8 percent in Germany, 12 percent in Sweden, 17 percent in Hungary and 25 percent in Romania. However, some critics claim the American food system prioritizes efficiency over sustainability, which in turn hurts the environment. Here is where the analysis gets very interesting.

Toward the end of the 1980s, the divergence between Europe and the United States in terms of agricultural output became noticeable. While Europe has retained a steady agricultural production level since about 1985, the United States doubled its productivity between 1960 and the year 2000 and is on route to breaking the 150 percent productivity gain in the near future. Meanwhile, American agricultural inputs are slowly retracting to the levels of the 1960s, meaning the U.S is producing a much larger amount of food with fewer resources. For instance, in maize production, this means that the United States produces 70 bushels per hectare, while European countries make less than 50. 

An interesting mix of regulatory action and inaction has led to this divergence. A large contributor started in the 1970s, when Germany introduced the “Vorsorgeprinzip,” now commonly known as the precautionary principle. This policy is a preventative public safety regulation that inverts the burden of proof for the regulatory approval process: For example, a new crop protection chemical can only be approved if it is shown to have no adverse effects on human health or biodiversity. The precautionary principle does not only rely on mere toxicity but extrapolates to a comprehensive and difficult-to-establish level of proof that a product could never represent any harm. This elongated approval processes for new chemicals significantly as the EU enshrined it into its treaties — with the ironic effect that older pesticides remained on the market while newer products could not get approval. 

In fact, a demonstration of the ill effects of the precautionary principle, and incidentally another reason why American farming is more effective, have become visible in the field of biotechnology. Genetically modified foods, commonly known as GMOs, as well as newer gene-editing technology, remains illegal in the European Union. Despite the fact that jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, Brazil and Israel, have been using these plant-breeding techniques for decades, the precautionary principle and Europe’s heavy-handed regulatory approach prevent it from being used. 

The European policies have, in fact, made farming less sustainable because Europe has neglected the innovation angle. Take the example of soil disruption. Agriculture is a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide is stored in the soil, and as farmers disrupt the soil through tillage, that CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The more you disrupt the soil, the more you emit. While in the United States, over 70 percent of farming functions on reduced tillage or no-till farming, Europe still produces over 65 percent of its food on conventional tilling. The reason: no-till farming requires a more considerable use of pesticides, which are frowned upon in Europe.

Without innovation, agriculture cannot become more sustainable. While the European Union intends to reduce farmland, cut synthetic pesticide use and keep novel biotech solutions illegal within its “Farm to Fork” strategy (known as F2F), the United States has opted for a different approach. The USDA’s Agriculture Innovation Agenda (AIA) advances the notion that more innovation, through public and private research and investment, makes the food system more efficient and sustainable. The AIA is the forward-looking approach, while F2F attempts to reduce the impacts of farming on the environment by cutting back on farmland use and reducing the toolboxes of farmers to fight pests and plant diseases.

That said, the American food system also faces challenges. American environmental campaigners and trial lawyers appear to want to introduce a European-style regulatory system through the courts — including by suing food companies. The highly litigious American system creates a perverse effect in which you have to convince a judge or jury of the ill effects of a crop protection tool, not a scientific agency staffed with experts in analyzing data. As a result, developing farming chemicals becomes a liability that only large companies can actually afford, leading to market concentration. This is problematic because in an age when we need agricultural efficiency and innovation more than ever, it is essential for competition to reign in the agrochemical and agro-tech sphere. Competition creates the baseline for scientists, industry professionals and farmers to get a variety of choices in the marketplace.

Ultimately, we should recognize the wonders of modern agriculture. The benefits of high-yield farming are apparent: We feed more people more sustainably, all while having to charge them less for it. For instance, we need 60 percent fewer cows yet produce twice as much milk as we did in the 1930s. We need to build on these types of successes to make our food system more efficient and sustainable.

Originally published here

Boosting agricultural efficiency can help us create a world of more abundant food

The United Nations recently confirmed that the world population has officially reached 8 billion. However, what should be a celebration of humanity’s ability to innovate and populate has many analysts worried about the future: How is the planet supposed to lodge, power and feed this large number of people? According to a recent Politico headline, for one, climate change poses “8 billion reasons to worry.”

But while feeding 8 billion souls and counting might have been an insurmountable challenge for humanity a century ago, we are at a point where we cannot only do that, but we can also achieve it while using fewer resources. It’s a testament to the fact that when we harness innovation, we can enjoy greater abundance—both in the quantity and quality of what we have.

Getting to Peak Farmland Use

Even though the beginnings of modern farming date back to the 1850s and the Industrial Revolution—with the rise of machinery—it was the mid-20th century that was the real kick-starter for higher productivity. My own grandfather, born in 1925, used to farm with horses and plows on a farm (one that has since been replaced with a small airport handling around 100 flights a day). With the money they made from selling acreage (a regrettable decision given today’s property prices), my family invested in farming machinery that sped up work during harvest season.

Were my grandfather alive today, he would have a hard time believing his eyes at the high-tech level to which we have evolved. Tractors used to be mere replacements for horses in their early conception. Today, they are equipped with computers that regulate and measure everything from soil health to crop protection dosage. The modern farmer looks at computer screens almost as much as I do as a white-collar worker.

The technological progress of the last few decades has culminated in incredible agricultural efficiency. Our World in Data visualizes three major analyses that use different methodologies based on UN Food and Agriculture Organization data from 1961 onward, and while there is a divergence among the researchers on exactly how much land is used globally for farming, all agree that humanity surpassed peak agricultural land use between 1990 and the year 2000. This means that since that time, even as the planet’s food needs have continued to increase, farmers have been able to feed more people with fewer resources.

The effects of getting past peak farmland use are significant. Agriculture affects our environment by two factors. First, greenhouse gas emissions are caused by soil disruptions. And second, agriculture contributes to biodiversity loss. One of the major contributors to the reduction in forestland has not been the increase of habitation areas (humanity lives very densely given its size), but rather our need for farmland. Restoring the planet’s wildlands and wildlife can be achieved through increased agricultural efficiency: When we need less land to grow the same amount of food as we used to, that excess land can be reclaimed by nature.

The Promise—and Risks—of Agricultural Efficiency

How exactly were farmers able to achieve this upgrade in efficiency? One factor is crop protection. Up until the mainstream availability of chemical fungicides, insecticides and herbicides (all of which we know as pesticides), farmers were virtually powerless against the vast array of pests that destroyed their crops. For reference, there are 30,000 weed species, 3,000 species of nematodes and 10,000 species of plant-eating insects that farmers need to battle. Before we had chemicals to protect crops, our agriculture system was primarily dependent on luck to prevent significant losses, which explains why historically, religions across the globe have long focused prayers on good harvests and why harvest festivals are so common.

The Irish famine of 1845 killed 1 million people, which at the time represented 15% of the total population. Occurring about a century before the mainstream introduction of fungicides, the farming population had no ability to fight potato blight—leading to famines across Europe that caused civil unrest, even toppling the French July Monarchy in the Revolution of 1848.

Pesticides have offered a solution to farmers since the 1960s, significantly improving the chances of a good harvest, even if their use doesn’t fully guarantee that crops won’t be lost. However, with the use of pesticides came the risks associated with them. Inaccurate dosage and overuse not only posed environmental risks but also were costly for farms.

As farmers educated themselves on the appropriate deployment of chemicals, per-acre use declined by 40% over the last 60 years. Better guidance from manufacturers regarding dosage, as well as a more thorough understanding by farmers of exactly how much active ingredient was needed, also cut pesticide persistence (the degree to which a chemical is not broken down and remains in the soil) in half. The amount of active ingredients applied to crops fell by 95% over the same period of time. New technologies such as smart sprayers also cut pesticide use by precisely analyzing how much of a chemical was required for specific crops.

Last year, Sri Lanka inadvertently gave us a case study of the necessity of modern crop protection. In April 2021, the now-former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa banned all chemical fertilizers and pesticides in an effort to transition the country to an all-organic food model. The move steered the country into a food crisis: Domestic food production dropped by 50% and decimated the vital tea sector on which the country depends.

As the government scrambled to repeal the measure mere months after it was enacted, Sri Lankans became dependent on food aid from India and toppled the government after weeks of protests. Even with the law repealed by an interim government, 30% of the country faces acute food insecurity.

Innovation’s Many Benefits

One-size-fits-all solutions for the world’s farming challenges—from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to feeding more people efficiently—does not exist. Yet the experience of Sri Lanka shows that we cannot give up on the innovations of modern agriculture. We should also resist the conclusion that organic farming is manifestly the enemy of progress—it, too, can harness modern scientific miracles.

To date, organic agriculture has proven to be less efficient than conventional farming and has a larger carbon footprint—and that’s why not all in the organic sector preach a back-to-basics approach to their creed. Some argue that organic farming would benefit from new breeding techniques (NBTs), which use technologies such as CRISPR Cas-9 gene-editing for plant breeding. CRISPR is a technology that allows us to shut off undesirable genes in DNA, potentially even editing out genetic typos to improve both the resilience and health benefits of plants and to cure diseases.

While the organic community’s resistance to genetically modified crops may often be ideological, the advantages of genetic modification have become apparent in those jurisdictions where it can legally be deployed in food production. Gene-editing allows for crops to absorb 30% more carbon dioxide without ill effects on them, makes wheat safe for people suffering from celiac disease, creates allergy-free peanuts, and produces drought-resistant rice in India. Overall, gene-edited crops grow more efficiently with less resource use (such as water), thus accelerating the speed with which agricultural efficiency advances.

And the ability to selectively edit the genomic structure of crops has an application range that far surpasses what we believed to be previously feasible. In Japan, for example, a CRISPR-derived tomato that relieves hypertension has been approved for market use. The fruit produces higher levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which has been shown to reduce high blood pressure, a risk factor for heart disease and stroke. The opportunities presented by gene-editing include longer and healthier lives, and the ability to ease access to healthcare. If our food becomes our medicine at the same time, the prices of pharmaceuticals might even become less of a concern in the future.

The reason some places, such as Japan, Israel, the United States and Canada, have taken a more light-touch approach to the regulation of gene-edited crops is simple: Most of the crops we use today have had their genomes altered in a number of ways, either through selective cross-breeding or through nature- or human-caused gene mutations. Humans have long used ionizing radiation to create random mutations in crops—a technique that is less precise than gene-editing and is legal for use in organic agriculture, even in jurisdictions such as the European Union where NBTs are not currently permitted. Ionizing radiation is employed in plant-breeding to initiate heritable genetic changes, using techniques such as iron beam radiation, X-rays or UV lights. Despite its usefulness to create genetic variety, this technique is less reliable than modern gene-editing.

Some jurisdictions, most prominently the European Union, prohibit the use of gene-editing over unjustified precautionary rules, and they express skepticism over the import of food products derived from NBTs. Those jurisdictions that still ban gene-editing should adopt rules and regulations similar to those in the United States, Canada and Japan. New crop varieties can still be approved by regulatory agencies, without restricting the entire technology. Furthermore, regulators should allow for free food trade on an open marketplace, to make sure consumers get the maximum amount of choice.

The story of modern agriculture is impressive. It displays to what extent humanity is capable of overcoming the supposed limits to its own growth and development. Agricultural efficiency will continue to improve insofar as we allow for scientists, plant breeders and farmers to fully deploy their knowledge and skill in a way that benefits consumers and the environment alike.

Originally published here

According to the Biden administration, American agriculture faces unique national security threats, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased ransomware attacks, climate change, and the Avian influenza outbreak.

This comes at a time when the White House is adamant about its plans for “climate-smart commodities and rural projects,” through which it is investing $2.8 billion in 70 selected initiatives around the country.

The Biden administration’s climate-related agriculture programs aim to reduce emissions from the U.S. farm sector, which create more than 10% of the total greenhouse gas emissions.

In practice, these “climate-smart” projects attempt to regreen for the purpose of increasing biodiversity and also producing food commodities in a more sustainable way.

It focuses, for instance, on crop cover and reducing tillage, as well as carbon capture and swapping out the use of wet cow manure — the creation of which accounts for a large amount of a farm’s greenhouse gas emissions — for dry manure like composting.

The administration’s move echoes the investments made in Europe into sustainable farming, with a substantial difference that speaks in its favor: contrary to the European approach of reducing farmland, and even subsidizing farmers to give up livestock (which has led to major protests in the Netherlands), the “climate-smart” funding opportunities guide farmers to innovative solutions instead of paying them to essentially give up.

In this sense, the Biden administration does not copy-paste the mistakes that the Europeans are committing.

That said, the White House is not consistent —  many of the ambitions the climate-smart programs are supposed to achieve are incompatible with previous regulations.

Take the very important aspect of soil disruption.

Tillage is an important aspect of farming because it manages crop residues, controls weeds, and prepares the soil for planting.

However, tillage also disrupts soil organic carbon, releasing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and reducing soil productivity.

This is why some farmers have adopted no-till practices (sometimes known as conservation agriculture), which allow them to remain productive without tilling.

In organic farming, no-till is criticized because it requires the use of chemical herbicides to fight pests, something the organic farming sector rejects outright.

The Biden administration is cracking down on the available herbicides catalogue by restricting certain products through the EPA, as I’ve explained for Newsmax before.

It appears the executive wants to have its cake and eat it too, by both arguing for carbon storage, all while depriving farmers of the tools to guarantee that CO2 remains in the soil.

Even though no-till is technically possible in organic farming, its applications are very marginal and currently more experimental than practical use cases.

Conservation agriculture is an essential aspect of the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the farming sector.

Those opposed to the use of chemical pesticides are pushing an agenda that hurts the efforts of farmers to be carbon-efficient.

It is also important to point out that per-acre use of pesticides has declined by 40% and that new technologies also cut pesticide persistence in half, reducing the number of active ingredients by 95%.

The United States also uses a significantly lower amount of pesticides per acre compared to developed farming countries in Europe, as FAO stats reveal. 

The organic farming lobby has argued consistently for more federal funding for their industry. However, organic farming emits more carbon dioxide emissions and reduces biodiversity and wildlife by using considerably more farmland than conventional practices.

If Joe Biden wants to make true on his promises to make farming more eco-friendly, he needs to let go of Obama-era attempts to crack down on modern crop protection.

Originally published here