LINCOLN — Wars in Europe and the Middle East, increased demand and a changing climate are making food scarcer and costlier. American farmers say they can fill the gap with help from biotechnology, but to do so, they need help from Congress and federal regulators.
That was a key message from panelists in agriculture, business, government, law and academia during a summit this spring at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Clayton Yeutter Institute of International Trade and Finance, a new report says.
Panelists said politicians and bureaucrats need to speak more clearly during trade negotiations about the urgency and science behind the sales and safe eating of genetically engineered crops and meat. They said officials need to be more engaged in streamlining regulatory processes and decisions.
They want leaders to convey that the laboratory research into genetically engineered and modified food is not that different from the breeding processes used over the years by plant and animal scientists who have tried to boost certain traits over others.
The report offered the example of a lettuce resistant to a certain virus. It could be bred to boost this resistance or boosted through gene editing.
Biotech food vital to feeding world, report says
According to the report, growers also want policymakers and the public to understand that s biotechnological advances need to keep pace with a global population increasing by hundreds of millions yearly while the number of acres used to grow food flattens or declines.
Projections from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization say farmers will need to produce 60% more food to feed a global population of 9.3 billion in 2050, up from 8.1 billion today.
Jill O’Donnell, director of the Yeutter Institute, hosted the three-hour discussion in March. She said the meeting’s design encourages freer and fuller communication by keeping participants’ names private and sharing their thoughts in the October report.
She said those participating recognized the importance of speaking out more about the world’s future food needs and the importance of using biotech to meet them. Farmers must “feed a growing population among tougher growing conditions,” she said.
One potential change that could make a difference in Washington, D.C., is streamlining the number of federal agencies responsible for part of the biotech food regulatory process from three agencies with overlapping responsibilities to one, the report said.
Two identical heads of lettuce, for instance — one bred for traits traditionally and the other bred with gene editing — would face different regulatory paths through the USDA and EPA, the report explained.
“Too many agencies involved in different parts of the process,” she said. “Overlapping authorities. Streamlining who is responsible for what. Figuring out what needs to be looked at again. … The statutes have not been updated in decades.”
Labels and words matter
Growers also want government officials, regulators, food companies and food marketers to stop perpetuating the notion that “GMO-free” labeled food is somehow healthier and better for people than science-aided alternatives, the report said.
The UNL report, issued this month, said a top challenge that farmers and ranchers face is that food companies profit immensely from selling “non-GMO” labeled food at higher prices. Some market the idea that food without such labels is less safe.
The National Academy of Sciences and others have found no adverse health effects from eating genetically engineered food. Embracing plants and animals that are more resistant to drought and disease helps food producers keep up with population growth, the report says.
Several said the conversation has to refocus on getting people the nutrition they need in ways they can afford. International politicians need to understand the risks of continuing to protect domestic ag industries over making sure people get fed, it said.
Policies and trade deals play a role
Panelists found some hope in recent trade deals and compacts, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which was one of the first, if not the first, to include specific provisions for farm-grown food with roots in biotechnology.
European leaders and consumers have been particularly cautious about embracing genetically engineered and genetically modified foods. American food companies have been selling such foods for decades and want import and export rules based on science, the report says.
Some smaller-scale farmers abroad have argued that engineered seeds and stocks threaten their livelihoods. And some consumers just prefer buying food they believe has not been altered. Consumers often see marketing that raises questions.
But without a unified push to consider biotech food advances in future trade deals, regulations and negotiations, panelists said that “future global food security, sustainability and U.S. leadership in agriculture” could be put at risk.
“Innovation is essential for achieving food security and sustainability in the coming decades,” the report said. “Congress should consider holding hearings on the challenges and opportunities to unleash innovation in service of this goal.”
Credit: Source link
