Food for Thought

Plant research remains grossly underfunded, despite the demand for increased crop production to support a growing population.

By | June 1, 2012

stock.xchng, bosela

In 1969 the world watched Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin fulfill President John F. Kennedy’s promise to put a human on the Moon, ending a decade-long, $24 billion space race ($150 billion in today’s dollars). We need investment on a similar scale to fund research that addresses the biggest challenge facing the United States in the next 30 years: food and energy security.

Today, we face growing and economically empowered nations, energy-intensive global economies, and major shifts in global climate that together constitute the perfect storm for agriculture. Yet plant-science research has been underfunded for decades—and funding is projected to shrink.

In 2012 the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that some 920 million people—one-eighth of the world’s population—do not have enough food to meet their daily caloric intake target, and the world’s population continues to expand. Last year world population passed the 7 billion mark, and the FAO predicts by 2050 there will be 9 billion people on our planet. In that year, the FAO estimates that food production will have to rise 70 percent. And we will have to accomplish this incredible feat with fewer resources like fresh water and arable land.

Global maize, wheat, and rice reserves have hit near-all-time lows in recent years, pushing commodity prices to near-record highs.

With food supply failing to keep up with the booming population, we need to find innovative ways to boost food production, by reducing losses to pathogens and increasing yield. The next generation of innovations in agriculture can only be achieved by using the best science and tools available, be it conventional breeding, advanced breeding, or biotechnology. To do so, the United States must make a commitment to fund plant-science research in the same manner we funded our race to reach the Moon.

The global demand for food is further complicated by the emergence of new economic powers. The GDP of China is projected to equal that of the U.S. by 2020, and a growing Chinese middle class is already demanding greater access to high-input foods like meat. Indeed, US exports of pork to China are at record highs, and pork production there continues to grow.

China’s demand for meat is accompanied by increased demand for grain. Approximately 1,000 gallons of fresh water and 10–20 kilograms of grains and other plant material (as well as the much larger quantity of water needed to grow them) are required to produce 1 kilogram of meat. In 2008, the United States exported less than 1 million bushels of corn to China. Just 1 year later, 4 million bushels were exported, and in 2010, the U.S. sent more than 40 million.

A consequence of this increased demand for foodstuffs is shrinking grain reserves. Global maize, wheat, and rice reserves have hit near-all-time lows in recent years, pushing commodity prices to near-record highs.

The issue is further aggravated by the need to develop alternatives to oil as energy sources. Today, approximately 30 percent of the corn harvest is committed to biofuel (ethanol) production, increasing pressure on the price of grain crops. In developing countries, these price surges can quickly lead to social and political unrest, as witnessed in the Middle East and Northern Africa over the past 2 years. Indeed, wheat price increases were credited with sparking protests in Tunisia and Algeria and continue to have political consequences today. Food prices were a topic of the Occupy Wall Street protests in the United States, and will likely continue to drive social unrest in developing countries.

This tight supply also means that a major weather event such as a flood or drought has an almost immediate impact on grain prices. Global climate change associated with increased CO2 emissions, and increases in both the number and intensity of extreme weather events, are aggravating the food production situation dramatically. Major crop losses, such as those seen in France in 2003 and in Russia in 2010, are likely to become more common, dramatically affecting local and global availability of food and leading to steep increases in food prices around the world. Indeed, following the Russian droughts of 2010, corn and wheat prices almost doubled.

Here in the United States, policymakers rarely pay much attention to food prices, because at present the cost of food remains relatively low. But just in the past year, overall food prices rose by around 5 percent, with beef prices going up by 9 percent.

Plant-science research payoffs

Given the importance of the food supply to economic, social, and political stability, the rationale for strong investments in agricultural science are clear. Plant science has the potential to provide practical solutions by increasing crop yields; producing plants that are more energy efficient and thus require smaller quantities of energy-intensive fertilizers and water; and developing biofuels crops that do not impact the food market. Despite these clear risks and potential benefits, however, agricultural research in the United States remains unquestionably underfunded.

The US National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s commitment to food security amounts to only $19 million. While the National Science Foundation invested $440 million in plant-science research in 2010, and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service $300 million, the prospects for increased federal investments into plant science in the near future look bleak. This is in stark contrast to the massive increases in funding that Europe and China have funneled into plant-science research. To put these numbers into perspective, the value of the US corn crop in 2011 was nearly $80 billion dollars and the agricultural export market in 2010 was $100 billion. Thus, the USDA and NSF combined are investing less than 0.75 percent of the value of agricultural exports in basic or applied plant--science research.

If the United States could spend $150 billion to send men to the Moon as a demonstration that it could lead the world to new technological heights, we should consider a 10-year, $100 billion investment in plant science a small price to pay to keep the country at the forefront of plant science, remain the world’s strongest agricultural economy, and develop the next generation of agricultural products.

An investment of this scale would still be dwarfed by the country’s $30 billion annual commitment to medical research, a similarly important issue. The risks for failing to meet this challenge are great: in an overpopulated, food-limited world we will inevitably witness more social unrest and, potentially, food and climate wars. The U.S. must seize the opportunity now to build on its tremendous strength in agriculture and reverse the current path of reduced spending and investment. If we do nothing, we may return to our pre-1776 role as colonists who simply provide food to more strategically minded nations.

Tom Brutnell is the director of the Enterprise Rent-A-Car Institute for Renewable Fuels at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Wolf B. Frommer is the director of the Department of Plant Biology at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You



Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo


Avatar of: Lindy01


Posts: 2

June 1, 2012

The world population cannot continue to grow at this rate for multiple reasons, food being only one.  Unless we are putting that money into engineering contraceptives into the food source, I say put the money to stabilizing (and ultimately decreasing) the population by giving women the ability to control their own economic interests and reproductive status.

Avatar of: reese66


Posts: 4

June 2, 2012

if we dedicated as much to sustainable ag research as biotech many problems would be solved.  

Avatar of: Emma Locke

Emma Locke

Posts: 1

June 8, 2012

Of course the world population can't continue to grow at this rate indefinitely but how do you figure that plant science doesn't figure into this equation in the most prominent way?  All we really need to survive is food, shelter, clothing, and water.  Plants provide all of the first three and if we can produce plants more sustainably, water resources will be preserved.

Avatar of: H. Douglas Falls

H. Douglas Falls

Posts: 1457

June 11, 2012

Clearly this is the storming white elephant (in every room in the house, the closets, and the basement for decades now) that too many fail to acknowledge or willfully ignore due to archaic, and ultimately maladaptive, religious beliefs

Avatar of: Poupic


Posts: 2

June 12, 2012

With if's and maybe's if my grand mother had wheels she would have been a car.

Avatar of: Poupic


Posts: 2

June 12, 2012

I am 77 years old. When I was in grade school the world had 2 Billion people. It follows that since today it is 7 billion people your assertion that in 2050 it will be 9 Billion people is way off the wall. This a preamble to what I really want to say. Creating more food to feed this population explosion seem like it must be a good thing we must do. I submit to you that this insane! We must prevent the world population from increasing in the first place. What we really must do before finding way to increase food production to help this population explosion, we must enforce a world wide drastic family planning to reduce the world population while feeding it. We are fast running out of resources, food, clean air, clean water because we are like some yeast gone wild poisoning the earth.

Popular Now

  1. That Other CRISPR Patent Dispute
    Daily News That Other CRISPR Patent Dispute

    The Broad Institute and Rockefeller University disagree over which scientists should be named as inventors on certain patents involving the gene-editing technology.

  2. How Gaining and Losing Weight Affects the Body
    Daily News How Gaining and Losing Weight Affects the Body

    Millions of measurements from 23 people who consumed extra calories every day for a month reveal changes in proteins, metabolites, and gut microbiota that accompany shifts in body mass.

  3. DOE-Sponsored Oak Ridge National Laboratory to Cut 100 More Jobs
  4. Neurons Use Virus-Like Proteins to Transmit Information