June 28, 2001, Thursday
CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
COMMITTEE: SENATE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
2002 Farm Bill
TESTIMONY-BY: BARBARA GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
SCIENTIFIC LIAISON OF THE FEDERATION ANIMAL SCIENCE SOCIETIES
June 28, 2001
Statement By National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research
Before The Senate Agriculture Committee Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
By: Barbara Glenn Executive Vice President, Scientific Liaison of the Federation Animal Science Societies
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for inviting the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (National C-FAR) to testify. I am Dr. Barbara P. Glenn, Executive Vice President - Scientific Liaison of the Federation of Animal Science Societies (FASS) and Chairperson of the Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions (CoFARM). I am a member of the Board of Directors of the National C-FAR. Our Coalition looks forward to working with this Committee as we seek to double federal investments in food and agricultural research over the next 5 years.
We want to thank the members of this subcommittee for your support of food and agricultural research and education programs that have helped propel the world-renowned success of the U.S. food and agricultural sector. We want to keep the U.S. food and agriculture sector at the forefront. We are here to explain the crucial role that food and agricultural research plays in meeting that important goal. In the immortal words of George Washington, "there is no more important service than to improve agriculture."
In our testimony, we offer our perspective on four important questions:
The member organizations of our coalition are mindful of the pressing challenges facing U.S. food and agriculture. Several of our members have testified in recent weeks relative to the farm bill and related issues? However, members of National C-FAR believe it is important to address the promising opportunities ahead and the federal policies and programs needed to promote the long-term health and vitality of food and agriculture for the benefit of producers and consumers. We believe increased federal support for food and agricultural research and education should be a key component of this Committee's goal to develop sound food and agricultural policy.
National C-FAR
National C-FAR is a newly organized broad-based stakeholder coalition of some 90 food, agriculture, nutrition, conservation and natural resource organizations. (Membership list is attached.) We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan, stakeholder-driven, and consensus-based coalition focused on federal food and agricultural research funding. We are dedicated to fostering public confidence in food, agricultural, nutritional and natural resource research through public participation in planning and evaluating the process and impact of research activities. Our membership is open to those who support the objectives of (1) enhancing federal investments in U.S. food and agricultural research and extension and (2) expanding stakeholder participation in identifying funding needs and opportunities.
National C-FAR's goal is to double federal funding of food, nutrition, agriculture, natural resource, and fiber research, extension and education programs during the next five years. This is to be net additional funding on a continuing basis that complements, not competes with or displaces the existing portfolio of federal programs of research and education.
1) Why Should The Federal Government Invest In Food And Agricultural Research, Extension And Education?
Food and Agriculture are of Fundamental Importance
The food and agriculture sector is a major contributor to society. Food is a fundamental need of every person. Food not only maintains life, but it sustains life and provides the basic requirements for a healthy, productive, creative society.
Agriculture creates jobs and income. The food and agriculture sector and their related industries provide over 20 million jobs, about 17 percent of U.S. jobs, and account for nearly $1 trillion or 13 percent of GDP.
Agriculture reduces the trade deficit. Agricultural exports average more than $50 billion annually compared to $38 billion of imports, contributing some $12 billion to reducing the $350 billion trade deficit in the nonagricultural sector.
Agriculture contributes to the quality of life. Farmers provide many valuable and taken-for-granted aesthetic and environmental amenities to the public. The proximity to open space enhances the value of nearby residential property. Farmland is a natural wastewater treatment system. Unpaved land allows the recharge of the ground water that urban residents need. Farms are stopovers for migratory birds. Farmers are stewards for 65 percent of non-federal lands and provide habitat for 75 percent of wildlife.
Food and agriculture are strategic resources.
When food is scarce, peace and democracy are threatened. We have fed our allies during the great wars; we have aided the starving during famines, floods and strife; and we have provided assurances of food that have nurtured the rise of freedom following the collapse of communism.
Our abundant food supply bolsters our national security and eases world tension and turmoil. Science-based improvements in agriculture, which has drawn upon U.S. food and agricultural research, have saved over a billion people from starvation and countless millions more from the ravages of disease and malnutrition.
Federal Funding Needed Where Private Sector Lacks Incentive
Private firms undertake research if they expect that the funds invested will yield a positive net return to them. Private firms have an incentive to invest in research and development where the expected outcome can 1) be embodied in a product or service that has a market, 2) be protected by intellectual property rights and 3) generate a payback in the near term. In areas where these conditions are met, private research funding is likely to be adequate.
Public financed research should complement private research by focusing in areas where the private sector does not have an incentive to invest. Information, one of the main drivers of our economy today, indeed the term used to name our present age, shares many characteristics with research which often necessitate some public support. Research, like information, is costly to produce but cheap to reproduce, so private markets for some types of research may be inefficient. Accordingly, public research is appropriate in areas where 1) the pay-off is over a long term, 2) the potential market is more speculative, 3) the effort is during the pre-technology stage; and 3) where the benefits are widely diffused and difficult for a private firm to embody in a product or service, protect its property rights and capture the benefits through the marketplace. Public research helps us measure long-term progress. It also acts as a means to catch problems in an early stage, thus saving American taxpayer dollars in remedial and corrective actions.
Examples of areas where private firms are not likely to have sufficient incentive and public support may be warranted include such areas as: 1) basic science and fundamental knowledge, 2) environmental quality, 3) food safety and security, 4) understanding agricultural systems, 5) economic opportunity and quality of life in farming and rural communities and 6) public health.
Chart 1 shows the hypothetical costs and benefits of food and agricultural research which can be used to illustrate the principles guiding the respective roles of private and federal funding. Research costs are normally incurred several years before the result is developed and adopted. In our example in Chart 4, the benefits that can be captured by a private firm are colored blue and have an annualized return (an internal rate of return) of 15% on the research costs. The 15% return may be insufficient incentive for the firm. But there may be substantial benefits that accrue to society at large in addition to the private benefits that can be captured by the firm. In our hypothetical case, the public plus private benefits generate a 25% annual return. In this case federal investment may be warranted.
One may also think of the blue benefits as those accruing to a state from a State Experiment Station Project, which is not justified by the benefits to the one state alone but may be justified when we consider all states and therefore the merits of multi-state collaboration or federal support. For example, the benefits of research conducted on animal diseases in one state are likely to "spill-over" and aid livestock producers in neighboring states or the entire nation.
The benefits of extension and education, in terms of Chart 1, can be visualized as accelerating or quickening the benefit stream. Extension education serves to speed adoption and use of research results and hence increases its payoff to society. Extension does more than accelerate adoption and use; it also helps identify the problem in the first place and provides timely feedback during the development and adoption phases.
2) What Have Been The Measurable Benefits Of Federal
Investments For American Farmers And Consumers? Agricultural Research and Education Have Benefited U.S. and World High Return on Investment: Many factors have contributed to the unparalleled success of American agriculture--the favorable soils and climate, hard work and dedication of farm families, democratic system, free enterprise, transportation, communication, diet and nutrition and government policy, but one factor of undeniable importance was the expansion of food production enabled in large part by science-based advances in food and agriculture. Hence, agricultural research and education have played a major role in making the U.S. food and agriculture sector the envy of the world and are essential to keeping it thus.
The contribution of publicly supported agricultural research to advances in food production and productivity and the resulting public benefits are well documented. A recent analysis by the International Food Policy Research Institute of 292 studies of the impacts of agricultural research and extension published since 1953 is summarized in Chart 2. In these nearly 300 studies, spanning a half century, and involving nearly 2,000 separate estimates, the average annual rate of return on public investments in agricultural research and extension was a whopping 81%--an extremely high rate of return by any benchmark. Clearly, hard and compelling facts prove beyond any doubt that investments in food and agricultural research have returned enormous benefits to the American people.
While of great importance to the farmer, improvements in agricultural productivity generated by agricultural research and education are broadly shared with society. Half or more of the benefits are redound to consumers in terms of an efficient production system competitive in the global environment; a safe and secure food and fiber system; a healthy; well-nourished population; greater harmony between agriculture and the environment; and a growing economy and improving quality of life. This tremendous pay-off of public investments in agricultural research and education over the past 50 years amount to $3,400 of annual savings on the food bill of the average American family.
Productivity in agriculture has more than doubled in the past 50 years. In fact, as Chart 3 shows, over the past 50 years, agriculture production has more than doubled, while the aggregate of all tangible inputs has actually declined by about 10%. In other words, all the increase in U.S. agriculture production for the past 50 years has been due to increased productivity, not due to more inputs. Research and education, both public and private, have been the prime driver of this phenomenal productivity growth.
Saving Land and the Environment: Advances in agricultural productivity have contributed to enhancing the environment and the quality of life. In his speech to the National C-FAR Inaugural meeting on January 30, 2001, Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient and one of the most distinguished agricultural scientists in the world, stated:
"American farmers and ranchers not only have been able to increase agricultural production many-fold through the application of science and technology, I contend that they have also been able to achieve these production feats in ways that have helped conserve the environment, not destroy it. For example, had the U.S. agricultural technology of 1940 ... still persisted today we would have needed an additional 575 million acres of agricultural lands--of the same quality--to equal the 1996-97 of 700 million tons for the 17 main food and fiber crops produced in the United States [Chart 4].
"Put another way, thanks to the agricultural productivity increases made possible through research and new technology development, an area slightly greater than all the land in 25 states east of the Mississippi River has been spared for other uses. Imagine the environmental disaster that would have occurred if hundreds of millions of environmentally fragile lands, not suited to farming, had been ploughed up and brought into production. Think of the soil erosion, loss of forests and grasslands, and biodiversity, and extinction of wildlife species that would have ensued!"
In addition to this benefit of added agricultural productivity, research focused directly on soil conservation and land preservation such as reducing soil erosion through conservation tillage, buffer strips, and cover crops and the development of "smart growth" policies have also made major contributions.
Minimizing Healthcare Costs through Disease Prevention:
Nutrition and diet-related research discoveries benefit everyone. New technologies are needed to reduce the likelihood of pathogen transmission by food, to improve the quality of processed foods, and to deliver greater nutritional value in foods. Additionally, the healthcare costs reduced by advances in nutrition research have saved the American taxpayer untold millions. As health costs continue to rise, it is imperative that our medical practices take a preventive approach. This requires a thorough understanding of the role of nutrients in foods in preventing chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
Research in food safety and human nutrition has paid-off with considerable benefits to society. It complements the funding of disease-related research by focusing on prevention through diet and nutrition. An important new area of nutrition research is to discover how foods and food components (not typically thought to be traditional nutrients) can prevent various diseases throughout the lifecycle. Research on the content, availability, and safety of the food supply is extremely useful to the consumer by achieving optimal health in using agricultural commodities as part of our diets. This investment in nutrition research increases knowledge that prevents diseases and ensures a healthy and productive society.
Examples of Real Life Impacts of Research and Education: In addition to these careful and comprehensive statistical measures and explanations of the benefits of the public's investment in food and agricultural research, there are literally hundreds of specific examples of success we could cite. We are preparing research and education success to "put a face on" food and agricultural research and education and provide some concrete examples of the impacts and benefits.
3) Why Should We Double Food And Agricultural Research?
We should double food and agricultural research in the next five years for three basic reasons: First, despite past progress and contributions, many challenges remain. Second, federal funding of food and agricultural research has been essentially flat for two decades, the scientific base upon which food and agriculture advances have been built is at risk. Third, there will be the opportunities lost or innovations that will not occur unless there is increased support. Research helps justify or minimize the risk of investment which produces the next generation of solutions.
Solve Pressing Problems
World food demand is escalating. World population and income growth are expanding the demand for food and improved diets. World food demand is projected to double in 25 years. Most of this growth will occur in the developing nations where yields are low, land is scarce, and diets are inadequate. Without a vigorous response the demand will only be met at a great global ecological cost.
Food-linked health costs are high. Some $100 billion of annual U.S. health costs are linked to poor diets and food borne pathogens.
Farm income is low. U.S. farmers are suffering from some of the lowest prices in over two decades. Emergency federal farm assistance programs are spending record sums to avert a catastrophic farm situation. Longer term approaches to the assist farmers add and retain value of their commodities. Indeed, there was much discussion during the 1996 farm bill that expanded food and agricultural research could enhance competitiveness and value-added opportunities and be an engine for growth. But the major commitment to expanded research has not yet materialized.
Food safety concerns and expectations are rising. Some of the new food products based upon genetically modified organisms are raising increased public awareness and concern about the safety of our food supply.
We can reduce the threats to our environment and improve sustainability by gaining a better understanding of the ecosystem and the development of more environmentally friendly practices.
Energy costs are escalating, our dependence on petroleum imports is growing and our concerns about greenhouse gases are rising. Agriculture provides the potential for renewable sources of energy and cleaner burning fuels that will reduce our dependence upon rising petroleum prices and imports.
We need improved bio-security and protection. The need for bio-security and bio-safety tools and policies to protect against bio-terrorism and dreaded problems such as foot-and-mouth and "mad cow" diseases and other exotic plant and animal pests, protection of range lands from invasive species, new ways of sustaining agricultural productivity and production growth, and solutions to the environmental issues related to global warming, limited water resources, competing demands for land and other agricultural resources, are major challenges for the research and education agenda.
Avert Risk of Losing Competitive Advantage
Federal funding of food and agricultural research has been flat for over 20 years. It has declined relative to all federal research and relative to agricultural research in the rest of the world.
Federal funding of food and agricultural research in the USDA, measured in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars is less than it was in 1978 (Chart 5). In 1978, in constant dollars, USDA food and agricultural research and education funding was $1.64 billion, in 2000 the funding was $1.6 billion.
Federal funding of food and agricultural research has not kept pace with funding of all federal research. According to The National Science Foundation, total federal research funding during 1982 to 1998 increased in constant dollars, but funding of food and agricultural research decreased. The food and agriculture research share of the federal total has fallen from 4.2% to 2.5% (Chart 6).
We may be in danger of falling behind the national support of research in other countries. Public funding of agricultural research in the rest of the world outside the U.S. during 1971-1993 increased nearly 30% faster pace than in the U.S. (Chart 7). While we still have the leading public supported food and agricultural research and education program in the world, our edge is shrinking. In this Internet Age of global agriculture, the international transfer of technology across borders is accelerating, making it much more difficult to sustain our lead unless we increase our federal support. Currently, we only invest about $1 of federal funds of agricultural research per every $500 of consumer expenditures of food and fiber - a very low rate indeed (Chart 8)!
Capitalize Upon Expanding Opportunities
The third reason, but perhaps most important one, for doubling food and agricultural research is to capitalize upon the promising opportunities that advances in science and technology make possible. Advances in science and technology are opening the way to tremendous opportunities such as the sequencing of the human, plant, and animal genomes. Taking advantage of these unprecedented biotechnological advances will require significant increases in research funding. If we do not, the technological advantage the U.S. now enjoys in these areas will be lost. This loss or our scientific leadership will have a very adverse impact on our use of new technologies that will fuel our economy over the next decades.
4) How Should the Doubled Funds Be Spent?
Goals
We believe increased funding of food and agricultural research will result in:
Safer, more nutritious, higher quality, more convenient and affordable foods
More efficient and environmentally friendly food, fiber and forest production
Improved water quality, resource conservation and environment
More jobs and sustainable rural economic development
Less dependence on non-renewable sources of energy
New and improved products, expanded global competitiveness and improved balance of trade
Better protection for our agricultural and natural resources from new, emerging, and imported plant pests and animal diseases
National C-FAR does not have a list of specific research recommendations. However, our members and their association with other related coalitions, we are well aware of urgent research needs to address and opportunities to explore.
Authorization & Leveraging
Legislative authorization of food and agricultural research and education is in several major pieces of legislation including the Hatch Act of 1887, The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 and most recently the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Several key provisions of the 1998 Act expire in 2002. National C-FAR recommends that:
The current definition of "food and agricultural sciences" in Chapter 64-Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching, Section 7, Paragraph 3103 (8) is "basic, applied and developmental research, extension, and teaching activities in the food, agricultural, renewable natural resources, forestry, and physical and social sciences in the broadest sense of these terms." We support a broadening of this definition to include expanded international market opportunities, protection from plant and animal diseases and pests, and human nutrition and health. We also support a better identification of the various food and agricultural research programs throughout the federal government and improved the coordination of these programs. The challenges and opportunities of the food and agricultural sector require the interest, support, and participation of all federal agencies.
Building Capacity and a Balanced Portfolio
National C-FAR and its member organizations have identified several emerging needs and opportunities which we soon will explain, but we first want to emphasize the continuing need to build the capacity to do quality research and education, including human resources, competitive grants, infrastructure support, formula funds, and core programs.
Research and education is the foundation of knowledge upon which the food and agricultural sector depends. This foundation must be kept strong, lest it crumble and curtail the strength and expansion of this trillion dollar sector.
Even to maintain existing productivity, substantial maintenance research is necessary. Discovery is a continuous process that must be ongoing, not a one-time eureka moment.
It is important to maintain a balanced portfolio of federal research and education programs, including competitive grants, formula funds and intramural programs. Agriculture is a biologically based industry. Many of the problems and opportunities are site specific. Results must be adapted to fit local conditions. Hence, we need to maintain a diversified and decentralized research and education system.
Areas of Opportunity
Several coalitions, committees and scientific societies, including those listed below, have identified these needs and opportunities:
Coalition for Research on Plant Systems--CROPS '99
Food Animal Integrated Research for 2002--FAIR 2002
Institute of Food Technologists--Food for Health Research Needs
Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics--Economics and Research Priorities for an Efficient and Sustainable Food System
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board
American Dietetic Association
National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs (NAUFWP)
Members of our Research Committee have presented to our Board a compilation of these studies.
Major areas of research that have been commonly identified by most, if not all, of the related coalitions that are in need of additional funding include:
Our coalition arose from a shared concern about the capacity of our agricultural research system as a whole to meet the future demands and capitalize on emerging opportunities. We will need a research system that simultaneously satisfies needs for food quality and quantity, resource preservation, producer profitability and social acceptability. This coalition will be working on ways to help assure that these needs are met.
Conclusion
Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony