August 8, 2019 | By Julia Whiting

Agricultural Innovation Can Feed the Planet, But It Needs Policy Support

This fall, Chicago will host a pitch competition and mentoring platform for agri-food startups. This choice reflects the city’s position in the agri-food startup world: not only a hub of US agriculture, from 2013-2018 Chicago startup venture capital funding increased 63 percent, and the city outperformed San Francisco and New York City in returns on VC investment. While Chicago is particularly successful, the world of agri-food tech is booming everywhere. Investments in the field are on the rise and have been for several years. New innovations are coming to market, and they range from improved seed varieties to ever-increasing animal protein alternatives. As innovation offers novel food security solutions, it is necessary to ask if policies are keeping up.

Milk, Meat, and Genomes

Many companies and researchers are working to develop the future of food. Some of the results seem to verge on the unimaginable, while others feel like variations on a familiar theme. Many could become a breakthrough for food security. One company has found a way to create “animal-free dairy milk” using fermented flora. Cultured (cell-based) meat is getting closer to market viability. Either could signal a break through in the way that protein is produced, saving precious land and water resources, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As countries’ incomes increase, so does demand for meat. Developing more resource-efficient methods of producing animal protein could help meet that demand without increasing the burden to the planet.

The public and private sectors alike have made advancements in improved seed varieties. Some improvements are reached using the still relatively new gene-editing method called CRISPR-Cas9. This technique can silence, edit, or insert genes into a plant’s DNA, producing inheritable changes in a plant’s genetics that are almost impossible to trace. CRISPR, as it is commonly referred to, is being used to create tomato plants with that bear more fruit, mushrooms that do not brown, more productive rice, and citrus that is resistant to citrus greening disease.

Are policies as savvy as the technology?

As technology expands what is possible in our food system, policies must keep pace. When countries or even states have different approaches to agri-food tech advances, inefficiencies can arise, and it is difficult for policy to change as rapidly as our technology does. The EU and several US states have decided to prevent plant-based foods from using words associated with animal products, like “burger” or “milk.” This decision may force companies to invest in different labeling depending on where they are selling a product, or to simply not sell in an area at all. It also raises questions about how policymakers will approach cultured meat, or animal-free dairy—both seen as environmentally friendly foods of the future. How will lab-grown meat be defined? If a plant-based milk naturally contains whey and casein, two proteins found in dairy milk, can it be called milk? How will disparate policies affect commerce?

Divergent policy around genetic engineering has been a source of confusion that will likely continue. USDA Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue issued a statement in 2018 which clarified the agency’s position on gene editing. Viewing the process as not substantively different from traditional selective breeding, the USDA does not subject genetically edited to the same regulatory oversight required for transgenic modification. The European Union took the opposite approach when its Court of Justice ruled that gene edited crops were subject to its stringent regulations on genetically modified organisms. Some gene edits are nearly indistinguishable from natural mutations in a DNA, making detection and enforcement of restrictions difficult.

The gene-editing policies that are adopted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) will have broad trade and food security ramifications.Staple crops that can be improved by gene-editing can help vulnerable nations build food security resilience to climate change. Argentina and Brazil both have adopted policies that allow for flexible, case-by-case regulation of gene-edited crops, which have been seen as potential regulatory models for other nations. The Ugandan Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation has looked to Brazil’s policy as one inspiration for how they will approach new gene-edited products. This could have a bearing on Ugandan researchers’ work developing a disease-resistance cassava, which is cultivated in 40 of the 53 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, predominantly on small farms.

LMIC hoping to develop and grow gene-edited plants will be making implicit decisions about which agricultural products they can trade, and with whom. There are strong trade relationships between the EU and Africa and some experts fear that navigating regulations could hinder biotechnology development on the continent. After Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency released a study finding that the country’s climate would be unsuitable for growing cacao by 2080, researchers got to work using CRISPR-Cas9 to develop a climate resistant cacao variety. If Ghana invests in these seeds, that could have far reaching implications--Ghana is the world’s second largest producer of cocoa, and the EU consumes over half of the world’s cocoa beans.

Collaboration and Coordination can Point the Way Forward

Achieving zero hunger will require a global effort, utilizing the latest scientific advances across sectors and international borders. While some aspects of new technologies are still ambiguous, the solution is increased research, discussion, and inquiry—not less. As the Council has recommended in several publications, now is the time for more international, cross-sector coordination and collaboration. More research is needed to determine the full range of benefits and challenges that new agri-food technologies can pose. An increase in communication and partnership between universities, established companies and VC startups, and research institutions around the world will allow for faster dissemination of agri-food tech, best practices, and evidence-based policy recommendations. Chicago may be a leader of agri-food startups, but we can’t solve the world’s food insecurity alone.


The Global Food and Agriculture Program aims to inform the development of US policy on global agricultural development and food security by raising awareness and providing resources, information, and policy analysis to the US Administration, Congress, and interested experts and organizations.

The Global Food and Agriculture Program is housed within the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. The Council on Global Affairs convenes leading global voices and conducts independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

Support for the Global Food and Agriculture Program is generously provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


1,000 Days Blog, 1,000 Days

Africa Can End Poverty, World Bank

Agrilinks Blog

Bread Blog, Bread for the World

Can We Feed the World Blog, Agriculture for Impact

Concern Blogs, Concern Worldwide

Institute Insights, Bread for the World Institute

End Poverty in South Asia, World Bank

Global Development Blog, Center for Global Development

The Global Food Banking Network

Harvest 2050, Global Harvest Initiative

The Hunger and Undernutrition Blog, Humanitas Global Development

International Food Policy Research Institute News, IFPRI

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center Blog, CIMMYT

ONE Blog, ONE Campaign

One Acre Fund Blog, One Acre Fund

Overseas Development Institute Blog, Overseas Development Institute

Oxfam America Blog, Oxfam America

Preventing Postharvest Loss, ADM Institute

Sense & Sustainability Blog, Sense & Sustainability

WFP USA Blog, World Food Program USA


| By Julie Borlaug

Featured Commentary - Hope Through Agriculture: Now More than Ever

In our latest collaboration with Agri-Pulse, Julie Borlaug writes that now is the time for everyone in agriculture to demonstrate how their passion and dedication have found solutions to the major threats we face as a collective human species: food and nutrition security, environmental stability and sustainability.

| By Lisa Moon

Guest Commentary - Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Feed Millions

Studies show that one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted, enough to feed 1.9 billion people-almost the same amount as are experiencing food insecurity. Food banks are uniquely positioned to address the paradox of global hunger and food loss and waste. 

| By Colin Christensen, Eva Koehler

Guest Commentary - The Plague You’ve Never Heard About Could be as Destructive as COVID-19: How the Threat from Desert Locusts Shows the Need for Innovations in how Organizations Scale

The international community needs to mobilize to combat the plague of locusts devouring East Africa. At the same time however, we should also consider the long-term investments we must make to build lasting resilience to climate change among smallholder populations.

| By Sarah Bingaman Schwartz, Maria Jones

Guest Commentary - Reducing Food Loss and Waste by Improving Smallholder Storage

Reducing postharvest losses by half would result in enough food to feed a billion people, increase smallholder income levels and minimize pressure on natural resources. The ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss works with smallholders in Bihar to improve storage and reduce loss.