CIAO DATE: 10/02

Sustaining a Revolution: A Policy Strategy for Crop Engineering

C Ford Runge and David G Victor

Council on Foreign Relations

March 2002

Foreward

The United States and the European Union (EU) are edging ever closer to an outright trade dispute over genetically modified foods. Farmers in the United States and several other countries are devoting an increasing fraction of their fields to these crops because they are less costly to grow than conventional varieties. At the same time, however, many European governments have branded genetically modified foods unsafe for humans and dangerous to the environment–despite scientific analysis, though still incomplete, which strongly suggests that these fears are vastly overblown. Meanwhile, the World Trade Organization prohibits governments–which rarely rely solely on scientists when making policy–from barring imports of novel food products without a sound scientific justification for their actions.What is to be done? Two highly respected authors–David G.Victor and C. Ford Runge–offer a long-term strategy of political and economic steps that is workable. If their plan or something like it is not followed, the next set of choices for Europeans and Americans will be far more drastic.

Their report is their own responsibility, but it was based on cogent and careful deliberations of a Council on Foreign Relations Study Group. That group was chaired by David L. Aaron, whose experience in business and government and tough-mindedness made him an ideal discussion leader. The Victor-Runge report argues that the dispute over access to the European food market must be seen in a larger context. It is an early skirmish in a revolution that is transforming agriculture. Genetic engineering is not the only important innovation in agriculture today: fertilizer, pesticides, and mechanization are still making significant contributions to the business of farming. But crop engineering opens avenues unavailable with traditional crop breeding techniques. In so doing, it promises to make agriculture more precise and productive.

Dr.Victor and Dr.Runge offer a long-term strategy to ensure that the early skirmishes do not derail this important technological innovation. Prosecuting a formal trade dispute against the European Union, they argue, would only backfire on the United States: the EU is unlikely to change politically popular regulations just because they run afoul of international trade laws, and the acrimony and hype surrounding such a dispute would just make it harder for consumers to understand the real benefits and costs of crop engineering. A better approach, Victor and Runge argue, would sustain the current transatlantic dialogue on these issues. The United States should focus pressure on the few egregious aspects of EU policy–such as proposed labeling requirements for meat produced with engineered feeds–that are particularly harmful to U.S. exports and completely divorced from any sound scientific basis. At the same time, the EU-U.S. dialogue should concentrate on the need for EU government policies that will increase public confidence in food-safety regulation. Europeans' wariness about genetically modified food stems largely from a long history of regulatory failures by their own governments that have made consumers skeptical about ingestible innovations. A long-term approach is needed. The first generation of engineered food crops that farmers are planting today barely reveals the technology's ultimate potential. Subsequent generations, already developing in laboratories and field trials, will make it possible to grow foods that are more nutritious and have a smaller impact on the environment as compared to traditional crops. Consumers in the advanced industrialized nations are likely to embrace these new foods. But their benefits could be even more significant in rural areas of developing countries, where local populations often suffer from malnutrition and subsistence farmers struggle to get ahead.

The long-term strategy outlined here urges governments to reinvigorate their commitment to public agricultural research as well as practical "extension" activities that help farmers apply innovations in the field. Although the private sector in advanced industrialized countries is already investing in crop engineering, the rural poor in developing countries are not attractive prospects for private investors. A stronger public role is therefore needed. Inauspiciously, budgets for both international agricultural research and many national agricultural research centers in developing countries have shrunk in recent years. Crop engineering could help researchers and extension workers do more with less, but that promise will not be realized unless governments make a new commitment to public agricultural research and extension by investing heavily in the crop engineering methods that will benefit the world's poorest peoples. In addition to inadequate public investment,Victor and Runge explore other factors slowing the application of crop engineering for the benefit of low-income farmers and consumers. Today's system of intellectual property, for example, offers ever-stronger patent protections on agricultural innovations.The authors argue that this system has created a congested web of conflicting and complicated patent rights that is impeding innovation and access to the ideas and tools needed to create crops for the world's poorest peoples. So far, intellectual-property owners have kept the crisis at bay by making liberal donations to philanthropic causes. A voluntary approach, however, is not sustainable. Victor and Runge explore several mechanisms that could offer more durable solutions. I thank the authors, the Study Group members, and Mr. Aaron for their hard work and their commitment to finding facts and solving problems. These are extremely complicated issues. I hope this lucid and scholarly report will help policymakers identify and pursue a sensible long-term strategy.

Full Text (PDF Format)