Sustainable agriculture in the U.S. vs. the EU

These innovation clusters do not represent all the innovation required to reach the AIA goals—advancements in biological, chemical, and mechanical tools will all be essential components of the toolbox. But the clusters do represent the most transformative opportunities to truly impact sustainable agriculture in the future. And, while harnessing technology is most frequently associated with increasing production, the real gains come from improving productivity, seen as sustainable intensification. By unlocking productivity gains, the potential to enable production capability for true sustainability is unlimited.

Another feature of the AIA is the direct and sincere engagement of the U.S. agricultural community and public at large. Organizations involved in agriculture (producer and consumer) were engaged and solicited for input via a U.S. Federal Register “Request for Information” to identify the most significant opportunities and challenges for agriculture. Hundreds of inputs were submitted, and many groups proactively engaged with technical experts at USDA and U.S. universities to better understand the options and potential. This engagement, known by project leaders as the “voice of the customer,” provided invaluable insights to begin construction of a U.S. ag innovation strategy, leading to the most impactful discovery targets and solution concepts that will support the AIA goal. The public sector, including the USDA research agencies and the land grant university system, will be able to focus their research, knowing the solutions are aligned with the agricultural community as well as the larger society.

Moreover, USDA recently published the USDA Science Blueprint (https://bit.ly/3s0VALr), which complements the AIA directly, outlining the key themes for building scientific capabilities within the Department from 2020-2025. Similarly, the product goals for the private sector will be informed and formulated by their business development teams with confidence that they are solving the challenges that matter to their customers and in full alignment with the goals of sustainable agriculture. The AIA actively solicits engagement from the private sector along with public–private partnerships, ranging from small start-ups to large multi-national organizations.

In summary, the AIA outlines a challenging goal for sustainable agriculture in the U.S., embraces the need for relevant innovation as the engine leading the desired outcome, and defines the framework for adoption while establishing a scorecard to define progress. The agricultural community endorses the goals, and public- and private-sector research groups are engaged and focused within a broad agricultural innovation ecosystem.

The EC Farm to Fork Strategy

The Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy (https://bit.ly/3nltEyl) proposes a framework for a fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly food system and is cited as the heart of the European Green Deal. The F2F Strategy is described in the EC’s policy document as “a new comprehensive approach to how Europeans value food sustainability. It is an opportunity to improve lifestyles, health, and the environment. The creation of a favorable food environment that makes it easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets will benefit consumers’ health and quality of life and reduce health-related costs for society”.

The approach to achieve these goals is related to the notion that there is an “urgent need to reduce dependency on pesticides and antimicrobials, reduce excess fertilization, increase organic farming, improve animal welfare, and reverse biodiversity loss.” The EC believes the transition will represent a “huge economic opportunity” and essentially creates its brand for society and the world. Inclusive is the expectation to shift people’s diets to reduce obesity and associated food intake, which would further reduce the agricultural footprint.

Of significance to global trade, F2F that “it is also clear that we cannot make a change unless we take the rest of the world with us” and emphasizes that their effort includes policies to raise standards globally to avoid export of goods produced by unsustainable practices.

The stated goals are to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of the EU food system and strengthen its resilience, ensure food security in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss, and lead a global transition towards competitive sustainability from farm to fork and tapping into new opportunities.

The F2F Strategy further states that “all actors of the food chain must play their part in achieving the sustainability of food chain. Farmers, fishers, and aquaculture producers need to transform their production methods more quickly and make the best use of nature-based, technological, digital, and space-based solutions to deliver better climate and environmental results, increase climate resilience, and reduce and optimize the use of inputs (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers). These solutions require human and financial investment but also promise higher returns by creating added value and by reducing costs.”

As for targets and goals, the Strategy is focused on chemical pesticides because of their stated contribution to soil, water, and air pollution; biodiversity loss; and non-target impacts. The EC will reduce risk by 50% with elimination of the more hazardous pesticides by 50% by 2030. Farmers will be encouraged and/or incentivized to use mechanical, cultural, or natural control mechanisms. Similarly, nutrients are noted as another major source of air, soil, and water pollution and climate impacts that similarly has reduced biodiversity. The EC will reduce nutrient losses by at least 50% without loss of soil fertility. Integrated nutrient management action plans will be proposed along with provisions for advisory services and technologies. Noting that animal agriculture represents nearly 70% of the agriculture-related greenhouse gas emissions, the Strategy will foster EU-grown plant proteins and alternative feed materials such as insects and marine feed stocks/fish waste as alternatives to meat along with more sustainable meat production. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) concerns are leading the EC to reduce sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 50% by 2030. A special focus on animal welfare is also noted, including production-system labeling throughout the food chain.

As for innovation, the F2F Strategy suggests that new innovative techniques, including biotechnology and the development of bio-based products may play a role in increasing sustainability, provided that they are safe for consumers and the environment while bringing benefits for society as a whole. In addition, the Strategy calls for a rapid and expansive scale-up of organic agriculture, seeking to have at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. Substantial funding by member states to reach these goals is proposed to accelerate adoption of these so called “eco-schemes.”

The F2F Strategy also recognizes the need to shift current food consumption patterns to include both health and environmental viewpoints, seeking to reduce intakes of energy, red meat, sugars, salt, and fats. Moving to a more plant-based diet is noted as the goal. The EC will also determine the best way of setting minimum mandatory criteria for sustainable food procurement to ensure every public authority does its part to boost sustainable farming systems, such as organic farming.

Research, innovation, technology, and investments are noted to support the transition. The Horizon Europe (https://ec.europa.eu/info/horizon-europe_en) research program is cited as the mechanism with special focus on soil microbiome, food from oceans, urban food systems, and alternative protein sources (e.g., insect-, plant-, and microbial-based proteins). Investment via EU budget guarantees and other mechanisms are noted as mechanisms to de-risk investments by European companies along with facilitating funding access to small and mid-size companies under the auspices of the EU framework to facilitate sustainable investments.

The F2F Strategy proposes to support advisory services, data and knowledge sharing, and skill development for all stages in the food system to become sustainable. As part of this, the Strategy proposes to establish a Farm Sustainability Data Network to replace the Farm Accountancy Data Network. The intent is to benchmark each farm against regional and national standards as a means to locate and improve the sustainability of participating farmers.

Finally, the Strategy is heavily focused on ensuring the global transition to F2F standards outside the EU, leveraging the EU purchasing and import power with trading partners. This will extend to influence a broader set of objectives related to deforestation limits, import tolerances, animal welfare, and other topics on the periphery of the EU direct focus of member states.

In summary, the F2F Strategy establishes ambitious goals focused squarely on reducing the environmental impact of agriculture in the EU. Clear and direct reduction targets for pesticides, fertilizers, animal anti-microbials are noted along with the rapid expansion in organic farming and dietary shifts away from animal protein based on both health and environment arguments. The Strategy does recognize a role for innovation in supporting the transition and includes a special emphasis on trade and global standards. 

Comparison of the Two Approaches

As noted, the U.S. and EU both share common goals, especially regarding any deleterious impact to the environment or production capability of the soil. Yet, their respective approaches are vastly different along with different levels of emphasis on production and productivity. In addition, the F2F places an additional emphasis on nutrition as part of the overall strategy, whereas the U.S. incorporates this focus as part of other aligned initiatives, including the USDA Science Blueprint; this comparison will focus only on the production and production capability aspects that are common between the strategies.

One of the many key distinctions is the differing view regarding the future role of technology and innovation in agriculture. The F2F Strategy puts front and center reducing conventional tools used by farmers with no mention of a risk-assessment paradigm or provision on how to replace the role and value these tools provide—certainly not before the 2030 removal timeline. Moreover, there is no significant, accompanying initiative outlined as discovery goals to create new tools (e.g., gene-edited plants to reduce pesticide use or nitrogen use efficiency) or engage directly with the private sector to develop new solutions. The AIA, by stark contrast, embraces the technologies that farmers and ranchers rely upon, but challenges the research and innovation community to enhance current methods while developing better tools—ones that allow a continuous improvement or lasting change for environmental conservation and agricultural production.

Outcomes Matter

Past results tend to forecast future performance. Although both the AIA and F2F policies are relatively new, both regions have effectively embraced their principles for decades. The U.S. public- and private-sector research groups have led the world with the discovery, development, and launch of bold, new technologies to support farmers and their objectives along with the eager adoption of discoveries outside the U.S. that also benefit the cause. The EU has very capable research organizations, but its work has been limited due to the regulatory philosophy and political will so clearly averse to agricultural technology. Indeed, private-sector biotechnology powerhouse companies have virtually no outlet in the EU for many of their investments even though they have been proven safe and effective in many other regions of the world where they are in extensive use. In addition, the EU has no recognizable equivalent to the public investment in agricultural research, teaching, and extension on par with the U.S. land grant university system. In short, there is no legacy of modern innovation and no political will to create a new path that centers around technology in agriculture.

Tools and technology are not the end, but the means to an end. When it comes to differing production and conservation approaches in various region, the data tell a compelling story. Maize, a crop that has benefited greatly from a range of transformative technologies, demonstrates the comparison of approaches clearly. Biotechnology for insect resistance was introduced in the U.S. during the mid-1990s and quickly demonstrated value with rapid adoption. By the turn of the century, the positive impact of these traits and herbicide tolerance traits on yield was clearly recognized as net productivity gains with reduced complexity in weed control such that, today, the yield gap between the U.S. and EU exceeds 13% with the use of technology (Figure 2).

Moreover, the adoption of the technology has reduced pesticide use dramatically in U.S. maize and enabled new cultivation practices such as no-till and reduced-till, which improve soil health, reduce fertilizer runoff, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and conserve water. The level of these conservation tillage practices has reached 72% in the U.S. vs. a comparative adoption of 23–33% in the EU. No doubt EU farmers would quickly adopt these practices, but effective weed control is virtually impossible without technologies like herbicide-tolerant crops that replace conventional tillage methods (Figure 3).

Thus, the technological advances impact both production (yield) and production capability (soil health) simultaneously, which is the essence of the AIA focus on sustainable intensification.

Overall, the two regions have a different story for output and inputs (Figure 4). Total agricultural output has been on a steep, upward slope in the U.S. with similar levels of input to 1961. Total production in the EU, while rising initially, has been flat since around 1981 as they have systematically reduced or rejected technology-based inputs.

For sure, these data of past performance foretell the likelihood of success with future implementation of the AIA and F2F Strategy. The AIA builds on a long history of advancing production sustainably with ever-improving technology, and the F2F Strategy will stymie or even reverse the gains made as key tools of production are removed or limited in use.

The AIA model is one of sustainable intensification, meaning that each parcel of land should endeavor to produce progressively more output, in perpetuity, with advanced technologies. This model is the only truly sustainable approach since it minimizes the amount of land dedicated to agriculture and “releases” or “conserves” land for forestry and other conservation purposes, which expands diversity, sequesters carbon, and increases resiliency of the soil. Sustainable intensification, driven through total factor productivity growth, also conserves other inputs per output and thereby supports the production needs required for a growing world population.

Despite the many cropping examples cited, technology-driven efficiency is even more relevant for animal agriculture. In dairy production, for example, the industry has significantly reduced the number of herds while simultaneously increasing total production and reducing related waste (https://bit.ly/35jd24g; see Figure 5). The technology has been based on genetics, feed/nutrition, and habitat along with efficiency in dairy collection, processing, packaging, and storage. The story is a picture of how to increase productivity while simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint; advanced genome design, digital tools, and systems approaches promise to write the next chapters.

Another critical outcome of agriculture is available and affordable food. In this category, the technology-driven approach of the AIA has resulted in the average U.S. citizen spending among the lowest percentage of their income on food in the world, almost half of EU spending. And with our responsibility to help feed the world, the U.S. system produces more than 300 more calories per capita with sustainably intense production systems (Figure 6). The U.S. does not seek to impose its technology-based approach on any nation, but only seeks to ensure that science and evidence is respected and used as the basis of fair and evidence-based trade policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. seeks to support the agricultural development systems of these trading partners to enhance their economy and for humanitarian reasons. In contrast, the EC proposes to essentially require trading partners to use their approach in the F2F Strategy as a condition of trade, completely avoiding the scientific evidence and arguments or even recognizing the special technological needs that their agricultural systems require. This has devastated the prospect of many countries to produce adequate food for their own citizens or create competitive trade enterprises. The F2F Strategy encompasses the ultimate expression of global elitism.