- Author: Pamela Kan-Rice
Society gains $10 in benefits, on average, per $1 invested in international agricultural research and development, according to a new report released today (Oct. 14, 2020) by the Supporters of Agricultural Research (SoAR) Foundation.
“This report shows that international agricultural R&D, of the type that drove the Green Revolution, continues to generate a fantastic rate of return and that we have not been investing nearly enough in the types of agricultural R&D undertaken by the CGIAR,” said Julian M. Alston, distinguished professor of agricultural and resources economics at UC Davis and coauthor of “The Payoff to Investing in CGIAR Research.”
Formerly called the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, CGIAR is the world's largest global agricultural research network. The report found that CGIAR investments of roughly $60 billion in present value terms have generated a benefit-cost ratio of 10 to 1 over the past five decades.
“The same is true of agricultural R&D undertaken by U.S. land grant universities,” Alston said. “Not only does investing in this kind of R&D make great economic sense, with benefit-cost ratios of 10:1 and more, it saves lives and livelihoods for the poorest of the poor around the world, and reduces pressures on the natural resource base.
“In spite of this evidence, rather than ramping up funding, in the United States and the other high-income countries, we are seeing a decline in real funding support for public agricultural R&D and a decline in donor funding support for R&D undertaken by the CGIAR.”
It can take many years for the investment to pay off, from research and development to farmers applying new practices, planting new crop varieties and adopting new technology. Not investing in research will make it harder for farmers to produce the food needed while meeting the challenges posed by weather, pests, political strife, policy risk and market risk.
“Agricultural R&D is slow magic,” Alston said. “The costly consequences of today's policy mistakes may take some time to become apparent, but then we will have to live with them for a long time.”
Alston's coauthors on the report are Philip G. Pardey, professor of science and technology policy and director of global research strategy at the University of Minnesota, and Xudong Rao, assistant professor of agribusiness and applied economics at North Dakota State University. SoAR commissioned this work to examine the benefit-cost ratio of CGIAR investments.
“This work by esteemed economists exemplifies the continued need for increased investment in agricultural research across the globe,” said Thomas Grumbly, president of SoAR. “Farmers everywhere need new innovations to be able to adapt to the effects of climate change, while still feeding their communities and the world.”
Established in 1971, CGIAR comprises 15 research centers working under One CGIAR mandate to reduce poverty, enhance food and nutrition security, and improve natural resources. CGIAR's early work included developing high-yielding wheat and rice varieties, which is credited with spurring the Green Revolution and saving a billion lives primarily in Asia where many people were on the brink of starvation. Today, CGIAR focuses on ending hunger by 2030 through science to transform food, land and water systems in the climate crisis.
This report provides a strong economic investment case for funding partners as they consider future investments in international agriculture research and development. With a strong presence and long-term partnerships in developing countries, CGIAR is uniquely positioned to further create and develop needed innovations. Additional investments in CGIAR research would continue to yield dramatic returns on investment and benefits for poor communities, particularly in Africa and South Asia where smallholder farmers and local food systems are most vulnerable.
SoAR strongly encourages governments and foundations to accelerate their funding of CGIAR to strengthen smallholder agriculture and protect food systems for future generations.
To read the full report, visit https://supportagresearch.org/assets/pdf/Payoff_to_Investing_in_CGIAR_Research_final_October_2020.pdf. For key findings, visit https://supportagresearch.org/assets/pdf/soar_cgiar_key_findings_final.pdf.
- Author: Jeannette E. Warnert
If the proposition passes in November, the packaging of most foods with common ingredients like corn syrup, sugar, canola oil and soy-based emulsifiers will declare that they contain ingredients that have been genetically altered.
Biotech crops are so commonplace in the United States that about 90 percent of the nation's corn and soybeans are genetically engineered, the Bee reported. For that reason, Colin Carter, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, views the labeling debate as more about the business of food than its safety.
He predicts that more people would buy organic goods if comparable non-organic items carried labels saying they've been genetically engineered.
"This does not present a health risk," Carter said. "It's about money."
Christine Bruhn, UC Cooperative Extension specialist in the Department of Food Science and Technology at UC Davis, agrees that the term "genetically engineered" would scare away consumers. However, the article pointed out, such food labeling is already required in more than 40 countries.
University of California at Davis Reports Make Dubious Claims on Prop 37
Michele Simon, Huffington Post Blog
A public health lawyer called into question two studies by UC Davis researchers that predict the effects of labeling foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, as would be required if Proposition 37 passes in November. The studies are "California's Proposition 37: Effects of Mandatory Labeling of GM Food," co-authored by Carter; and "Proposition 37 - California Food Labeling Initiative: Economic Implications for Farmers and the Food Industry if the Proposed Initiative were Adopted," co-authored by Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner, professors in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis.
- Author: Jeannette E. Warnert
Proposition 37 would result in $1.2 billion in higher costs for farmers and food processors, higher prices for consumers and new regulations, according to an article published in Western Farm Press that refers to a new UC Davis study. The article is credited to the No on 37 campaign.
If passed, Proposition 37, which is on California's November ballot, would require labeling of genetically engineered food.
“The proposed regulations have no basis in science and impose rules that would have significant costs for food producers, processors and marketers, and ultimately for consumers, while providing misinformation and no demonstrable benefits,” the article quotes Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner, professors in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis.
An editorial in the Los Angeles Times notes that the work for the study was undertaken with partial funding support from No on 37.
"That doesn't mean the study is without interest for voters," wrote Karin Klein in the editorial.
- Author: Jeannette E. Warnert
Members of families that receive benefits from the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps) are more likely to be overweight or obese than people in families that don't receive the federal food assistance, according to a UC Davis study cited by ABC News. However, the research doesn't say its the food assistance that is making them fat.
The argument that excluding "unhealthy" items - like candy, soda and chips - from the supplemental nutrition program would make participants healthier "is not a lay-down hand at all," said Julian Alston, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis.
"You can restrict how people spend their stamps but not change their total consumption," he said. Also, manufacturers will tweak their products to try to get around the prohibition. "They will re-engineer the food," Alston said.
- Author: Jeannette E. Warnert
Together, growers can offer enough volume or range of crops to attract retailers, foodservice outlets or institutions that might be out of reach for each individual farm.
Stern included comments from a wide variety of experts in her article, including marketing professionals, small-scale farmers, a co-op manager and Shermain Hardesty, UC Cooperative Extension specialist at UC Davis with expertise in agricultural economics.
She told the reporter that someone — ideally one of the producers — needs to take charge of the collaborative marketing program, but finding someone with the time, aptitude and inclination may mean hiring a manager.
Do farm subsidies cause obesity?
Christopher Shea, Wall Street Journal
The link between agricultural subsidies and obesity is highly tenuous, according to a UC study that analyzed the effects of price supports on diet. The study, authored by Bradley Rickard, Abigail Okrent and Julian Alston, says if all subsidies were magically erased — including trade barriers — the typical American adult would actually respond by eating about 3,000 to 3,900 additional calories a year.
Alston is an agricultural economics professor at UC Davis, Richard is with Cornell, Okrent is a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis.