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 Mark Titterington

Guest Commentary - A European perspective on the journey to a regenerative agriculture system…

Regenerative farming practices can lead to improved soil health and farm productivity and profitability, boosting crop quality and yields, improving the resilience of farms to extreme weather events and reducing the propensity for soil degradation and run-off, but most excitingly, creates the opportunity to actually draw down and store carbon from the atmosphere in agriculture soils.

| By Peter Carberry

Field Notes - Brokering Research Crucial for Climate-Proofing Drylands

9 out of 12 interventions identified for agriculture by the Global Commission on Adaptation involve research and development. For smallholder farmers in drylands, some of the most vulnerable to climate change, the role of innovation brokers may prove just as important as doing the science itself. 

| By Julius A. Nukpezah, Joseph T. Steensma, Nhuong Tran, Kelvin M. Shikuku

Field Notes - Reducing Post-Harvest Losses in Nigeria's Aquaculture Sector Contributes to Sustainable Development

While increasing fish production and productivity in the long term are practical strategies for addressing malnutrition in Nigeria, reducing post-harvest losses of fish is an economic and a rational strategy of increasing value of aquaculture businesses that lead to sustainable economic development.

| By Chelsea Reinberg

Guest Commentary - The Critical Role of Women in Transforming the Food System

Since its inception, HarvestPlus has identified and focused on women as key drivers who make nutrition -related decisions for their households and have important roles not only in the preparation and consumption of nutritious foods but also in production decisions on which varieties to grow.