- Bipartisan Governance
- Bipartisan Index
- 114th Congress: Senate Scores
- 114th Congress: House Scores
- 2015 Senate Scores
- 2015 House Scores
- 113th Congress: Senate Scores
- 113th Congress: House Scores
- 103rd-112th Congresses: Senate Scores
- Lifetime Senate Scores
- State Rankings
- Bipartisan Representatives in Partisan Districts
- Oversight Boot Camps
- Global Food Security
- WMD Nonproliferation
- Foreign Aid Effectiveness
- Kokomo Tribune, May 4, 2017
- The Indianapolis Star, July 24, 2016
- The Hill, March 24, 2015
- Devex, January 20, 2015
- The Hill, December 29, 2014
- AgriNews, November 28, 2014
- The Indianapolis Star, November 17, 2014
- May 20, 2014
- June 12, 2013
Events & Speeches
- On the Release of the report, “The Challenge of Change: Harnessing University Engagement, Learning and Discovery to Achieve Food and Nutrition Security”Washington, D.C., May 16, 2017
- By Senator Richard G. Lugar (Ret.)Capitol Hill, September 13, 2016
- July 22, 2015
- Address to Purdue University: “Feeding the World – Overcoming Political Obstacles to Reach our Agricultural Potential”By Senator Richard G. Lugar (Ret.)Purdue University, November 11, 2014
- May 7, 2015
- The Hill, March 24, 2015
- March 24, 2015
- The Hill, December 29, 2014
- The Indianapolis Star, November 17, 2014
- May 1, 2013
Global Food Security
The 2050 Challenge
With the global population expected to top 9 billion people by 2050, and given the demands for more protein-rich diets by populations with increasing incomes, farmers around the world will be hard pressed to meet demand. Between 1970 and 1990, global aggregate farm yield rose by an average of 2 percent each year, largely due to the Green Revolution and focused investments in research and technology. Since 1990, aggregate farm yield growth has stagnated and even reversed course in some areas. The USDA projects that growth in global farm yields will continue to fall, threatening the welfare of a large share of the world's population.
Several agricultural conditions complicate this dilemma. Farming is an energy intensive business. Crops must be transported efficiently to market, and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides are widely used. Energy price spikes hurt farmers around the world and in the future are likely to hit with even greater ferocity than the spike in 2007 and 2008. Water scarcity will intensify because of population growth, urbanization, and land use pressures. According to a report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a half billion people currently live in countries with chronic water shortages, a figure that is expected to rise to 4 billion by 2050. Finally, climate change is challenging farmers on every continent to deal with altered weather patterns, novel agricultural pests, and new water conditions. These challenges will be felt most intensely by smallholders in some of the poorest regions of the world.
“Global Food Insecurity has global foreign policy and national security implications... Economic and political development in poor countries will continually be frustrated if populations are unable to feed themselves.”
Concurrent with these alarming trends, political and social factors have created obstacles to advances necessary to meet rising demand for food. Government investments in agriculture tumbled for several decades. By 2007, rich countries devoted a mere four percent of their foreign assistance to agriculture. In Africa, which has the most severe food problems, donor aid to the farm sector plunged from $4.1 billion in 1989 to just $1.9 billion in 2006. While these trends have improved since 2009, equally troubling are cutbacks in research into new technologies, farming techniques, and seed varieties that could increase yields, cope with changing climate conditions, battle new pests and diseases, and increase the nutritional value of staple foods.
Trade policy of both developed and developing countries has too often focused on protecting domestic farmers, rather than creating well-functioning global markets. In addition, many governments, especially in Europe and Africa, have rejected biotechnology advancements that are necessary to meet future demand for food. Opposition to safe genetically modified (GM) technology contributes to hunger in Africa in the short run and virtually ensures that much of the continent will lack the tools to adapt their agriculture to changing climatic conditions in the long run.
Global food insecurity has U.S. foreign policy and national security implications. Without sustained progress, recurring price volatility and food shortages will contribute to political instability as witnessed by food riots and related events since 2008. Malnutrition likely will lead to mass migration and intensifying health issues. Diplomatic efforts to maintain peace will be far more difficult wherever food shortages contribute to extremism and conflict. The hopes of the United States and other developed nations for economic development in poor countries will continually be frustrated if populations are unable to feed themselves.
The Center's Perspective.
The Lugar Center (TLC) works to keep the issue of food security at the forefront of foreign policy debates and to educate government leaders, students, and citizens on specific policies that should be pursued to enhance food security in the world. The Center seeks to create a better understanding of the overall food security challenge and foster a more productive and bipartisan debate among policymakers around the world.
The Center engages with a wide range of experts to develop cutting-edge proposals and bridge differing approaches to food security. Those divisions are frequently partisan, but they also encompass views on the role of foreign assistance, the value of business engagement, the role of GM and organic farming, and emphasis on large-scale farming enterprises versus smallholders and indigenous crops. The Center maintains a focus on increasing agricultural productivity globally while ensuring that smallholder farmers benefit from improved technologies, extension, market access, and better infrastructure. It works to protect global crop biodiversity with special emphasis on so-called orphan crops and to increase smallholder benefits from commodity exchanges.
The Lugar Center is well-positioned for this role. It brings to bear decades of political experience, deep expertise in crafting food security policy, a global network of contacts, associations with several major universities to advance the cause of bolstering global food security. This objective is especially important at a time when fiscal constraints and deep partisanship in the United States and elsewhere frequently divert attention from long-term goals related to changing ecological and demographic trends.
An International Science Agenda for The United States and The World
Senator Lugar and The Lugar Center (TLC) have a long history in working on global food security policy and related science issues. Going forward, our work focuses on building support and momentum for US leadership of a 21st Century Green Revolution with a defined list of priorities reflecting the current and anticipated state of global agriculture. To date, prioritizing science and scientific collaboration has been a weak component of existing global food security programs. With the start of a new administration and new Congress, and the commitment to take up a number of key legislative policy vehicles, we believe there are both challenges and opportunities that necessitate renewed advocacy of a global science agenda that benefits all farmers and consumers. We look forward to building a coalition of like-minded organizations committed to ending global hunger through science.
The Science Challenge
The first Green Revolution (1950-1970), led by the work of Norm Borlaug is credited with saving millions of lives with its concentration on raising crop productivity through scientific advances around improved inputs and farming techniques. The present-day global food and agriculture system will continue to be under enormous pressures that can only be ameliorated by greater investments in science. To feed a world population of nearly 10 billion by 2050 will require not just greater productivity, but smarter productivity that recognizes the environmental challenges of climate change, stresses on water and soil resources, the demands of a more urbanized global population and changing preferences for more protein-rich diets.
While not all areas of the world benefited equally from the first Green Revolution, it formed the basis for international scientific collaboration around a common agenda with benefits that lasted decades. Investments in agricultural research and development have been shown to pack a powerful punch for development. Studies have demonstrated a rate of return of nearly 10 percent with these types of investments. No other investments in any other topic area to date have been able to demonstrate these rates of return. A 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on 10 countries with varying levels of food insecurity found that those having a reasonably-resourced agriculture university have greater food security and less hunger.
In recent decades, public funding of agriculture sciences has stalled, and in some instances, declined. Despite recent US leadership on global agriculture that has motivated commitments from other international donors, public investments in international agricultural science and technology have lagged far behind. Even more distressing is the lack of commitment to international university collaborations that had been a hallmark of US programs in past decades. African universities are poorly resourced in both human and institutional capacity. According to Agriculture Science and Technology Indicators (ASTI), about half of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have had annual negative growth rates in the levels of public R&D devoted to agriculture. A 2014 ASTI report cited an inability to replace researchers, many US-trained, who will soon retire, as well as low salaries and donor dependency, as factors contributing to the decline in university and research capacity. Often, students come to the United States for advanced degrees in agriculture but then return to schools that are unable to support their research or train their own graduate students.
There are many benefits to having strong agriculture universities in developing countries. They set the stage for greater investments in local and orphan crops. The Ethiopian staple crop Tef, for example, may not be of much interest to researchers in the American Midwest, but its value in East Africa is well understood. Local botanical resources are important sources of food and pharmaceutical products that not only hold the potential of providing global benefits but also would receive greater attention from local scientists. University partnerships provide frameworks and working relationships to respond to plant and animal disease outbreaks that could threaten staple crops around the world. These benefits will not be realized without proper investments and stronger collaborations.
A 21st Century Green Revolution should focus on the following components:
Widen productivity gains of not just global staple crops, but of indigenous and orphan crops upon which millions rely for basic nutrition and income.
Build resilience to climate change for farmers of all sizes. Looming over all our hopes for eliminating hunger is the threat of climate change because it has the potential to alter the basic assumptions upon which both global and regional agriculture function.
Increase access to science, extension services and technologies so that farmers can make informed choices for what best suits their purposes, with a focus on smallholders, the majority of whom are women.
Advance health and nutrition of crops, animals, and people. Science has already shown us the benefits of bio-fortified foods. It can also do the same for plant pests and disease, animal health, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues.
Strengthen foreign universities working on agriculture. Increase the human and institutional capacity of universities in food insecure regions so they can partner globally in sharing knowledge with a focus on science related to local crops, the veterinary sciences and health sciences and the local conditions that affect them.
A 21st Century Green Revolution will have the greatest impact if it is characterized by inclusivity for all farmers, but with a special focus on smallholders and women who often get left behind. It should remain unbiased with regard to types of farming approaches. The often rancorous debate between genetic engineering and what some call non-GMO is unproductive and may soon be outdated as new gene editing processes come online.
Why TLC is Well Positioned on Science
The TLC approach to food security has always advocated for the elevation of science. As the former Chairman of both the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar holds political and policy credibility in calling for greater and more focused investments in international agricultural science agenda. TLC resources (GE FAQs and Resources for Researchers) have focused on science and climate change issues, biodiversity, genetic engineering, and orphan crops. Lugar is one of the few Republicans to take a public stand on the need to address climate change particularly as it applies to agriculture.
In 2009, Lugar authored the Global Food Security Act and commissioned a related staff study on the causes and consequences of food insecurity. That work, among others, informed the creation of President Obama’s Feed the Future Initiative. At the 2014 Feed the Future Global Forum, Senator Lugar called for Congress to authorize global food security legislation, which was subsequently passed and signed into law in 2016. The law represents a commitment between the legislative and executive branches of the US government for US leadership in global food security policy.
Opportunities of a Science Agenda
A Green Revolution for the 21st century will have enormous benefits for American agriculture, universities and the US economy. Even with President Trump’s advocacy of an America First approach, the new administration has not been more receptive to calls for a science agenda. Science research benefits American farmers in ways that increase productivity, conserve resources, and protect the environment. Increases in environmentally friendly agricultural productivity and growing economies in the developing world enable US farmers and agricultural product companies to export more. And collaboration among scientists prevents the outbreak and spread of plant and animal disease that can decimate crops, livestock and undermine whole economies. It will help us achieve a more peaceful and prosperous world in which no one goes to bed hungry.
About The Lugar Center. The Lugar Center mission is to identify solutions to global problems that will define the 21st century. The Center seeks to educate and motivate the public, policymakers, and future leaders on critical issues such as global food security, controlling weapons of mass destruction, foreign aid effectiveness, and bipartisan governance.
The Center works to keep global food security at the forefront of public policy debates and to educate government leaders, the foreign policy community, and the public on the need for U.S. leadership. TLC seeks to foster a better understanding of the overall food security and global agriculture challenge and to encourage a more productive and bipartisan debate on its related issues. TLC puts special emphasis on the role of science and evidence-based approaches that will alleviate global poverty and hunger and counter skepticism around the issues of science-driven solutions and climate change. It is informed by a commitment to foreign assistance effectiveness principles that can help to overcome political and budgetary resistance to foreign assistance that supports agricultural development and global food security.
The Lugar Center Introduces Global Food Security Resources for Researchers
The Lugar Center recognizes that global hunger and food insecurity are complex problems. Overcoming the challenges of feeding a world population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 with changing dietary preferences in the face of climate change, pressures on water and soil resources, and continuing urbanization requires that researchers and policymakers have access to the best data and analysis.
The latest addition to The Lugar Center website is a newly compiled bibliographical Resources for Researchers. This database is intended as a source for researchers, policymakers, students, and the public to become better informed of major recent analysis on global food security. Current research topics include Agroforestry, Biodiversity, Conflict and Lack of Governance, Food Price Volatility, Genetic Engineering, Land Tenure and Land Grabs, Orphan Crops, and Women in Agriculture. Included are different perspectives provided through a range of academic journals, government research, think tanks, popular press and opinion pieces, and scholarly reviews. This information has been collected from open sources and includes works that have been produced within the last decade.
We will regularly update the database as new works are published. Other topics will be added in the future. This is a collaborative project. If you think we’ve missed a major piece of work, please let us know.
We hope you will find these resources a useful starting point for a better understanding of these topics and the complexities of global hunger and food insecurity.
GMO: Frequently Asked Questions
The Basics of GMOs
What is genetic modification?
Genetic modification, also known as “genetic engineering,” is a technologically advanced way to select desirable traits in crops. While selective breeding has existed for thousands of years, modern biotechnology is more efficient and effective because seed developers are able to directly modify the genome of the crop.
Plants that are genetically engineered (GE) have been selectively bred and enhanced with genes to withstand common problems that confront farmers. These include strains of wheat that are more resistant to drought, maize that can survive pesticides, and cassava that is biofortified with additional nutrients.
In addition to resistance-based attributes and biofortification, some GM crops can produce higher yields from the same planted area. GM crops have the potential to strengthen farming and food security by granting more certainty against the unpredictable factors of nature. These resistances and higher yields hold great promise for the developing world and for global food security. Yet, controversy remains over access to this biotechnology, corporation patents on certain plant strains, and claims regarding the safety and quality of GM foods as compared to non-GM foods.
Why are seed developers genetically modifying organisms?
Genetic modification can protect crops against threats to strong yields, such as diseases, drought, pests, and herbicides used to control weeds, and therefore improve the efficiency of food production. While farmers have been selectively breeding plants for centuries, genetic engineering allows new traits to be developed much more quickly. Utilizing traditional selective breeding can take multiple growing seasons to develop and test a new variety. Genetic engineering is more precise than conventional hybridization and therefore is less likely to produce unexpected results. For example, mutagenic breeding is not considered genetic engineering yet it exposes plant material to radiation or chemicals to create varieties with new traits.
GMOs seem to be in the news a lot lately. Is the GMO process new?
GMOs are in the news a lot right now, but not because they are new. They have actually been in our food supply for nearly 20 years. Farmers have been using hybridization and mutation breeding of crops to improve their resistance to pests or environmental conditions for decades. But scientists began to sufficiently understand the genetic makeup of certain plants to be able to modify genes that would strengthen the plants’ ability to resist new pests or diseases and thus improve yields so that farmers began planting GMO crops in the mid-1990s.
GMOs and the Environment
What are the effects of genetic modification on the environment?
In order to feed a world population that is expected to top 9 billion by 2050 and to do so in ways that do not harm the environment, farmers will need to roughly double current production levels on about the same amount of land. Genetically modified crops are more efficient and therefore use less agricultural inputs to produce the same amount of food. From 1996-2012, without GM crops the world would have needed 123 million more hectares of land for equal crop production.[i] GM technology reduced pesticide use by 8.9% in the period from 1996- 2011.[ii] Because genetically modified crops require less ploughing and chemical usage, GM technology can reduce fossil fuel and CO2 emissions. Genetic engineering can therefore help to ameliorate the effects of agriculture on the environment. Farming accounted for 24 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 and 70 percent of freshwater use.[iii] Additionally, scientists are developing GM crops that are resistant to flood, drought, and cold, which improves agricultural resistance to climate change. GM crops also allow for greater use of no-till cultivation, which helps with carbon sequestration, soil erosion prevention, and better soil fertility.[iv]
GMOs and Human Health
How are GM crops related to nutrition and food security?
Genetic modification can improve the nutritional profile of food and therefore serves as a key element in reducing global rates of malnutrition. For instance, golden rice is enhanced with beta-carotene and therefore provides a dose of vitamin A, a nutrient lacking in many diets around the world. Vitamin A deficiency leads to the death of nearly 700,000 children each year, so golden rice is a crucial initiative in reducing malnutrition.[v] Additionally, in India, using Bt corn led to the consumption of more nutritious foods, including fruits, vegetables, and animal products because of increased incomes. Another study in India showed that each hectare of Bt cotton increased caloric intake by 74 calories per person per day and that 7.93% of households using Bt cotton were food insecure as opposed to 19.94% of those using non-GM cotton.[vi]
What is the scientific consensus of the impact of GM foods on humans?
From 2003-13, 1,783 studies showed no human or environmental dangers from genetically engineered crops, with a study concluding that “the scientific research conducted thus far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops.”[vii] The European Commission released a meta study of 50 research projects and found that “the use of biotechnology and of GE plants per se does not imply higher risks than classical breeding methods or production technologies.”[viii] One study in 2013 suggested that consumption of GM foods affected the health of lab animals, but the study’s publication was subsequently pulled and its findings undermined because of digressions from standard scientific research principles.[ix]
GMOs: Farmers and their Crops
Why use genetic engineering if other methods are just as effective at boosting productivity?
Genetic engineering research has focused on overcoming problems that affect productivity, such as disease, weeds, and pests. When crops can avoid disease, weeds, and pests, crop yield is enhanced. Genetic modification is only one of the tools that farmers can use to boost productivity, and it does not eliminate the need for other advances such as hybridization, agricultural chemicals, and farm machinery. Rather, genetic modification is a technologically advanced application of biotechnology that works in conjunction with other modern agricultural practices.
Are there examples of how genetic engineering has been able to strengthen plants in order to help them survive?
Yes. In the early 1990s, papayas in Hawaii were hit with Papaya Ring Spot Virus, devastating the crop with a 40 percent reduction in just five years. Scientists developed two varieties of papaya that were resistant to the virus, and today healthy papayas are now growing in Hawaii. [x]
How widely are GE seeds being accepted and used by farmers across the globe?
These statistics tell the story of the level of acceptance and use of GE seeds by farmers of plots large and small, in both the developed and developing world. According to the independent International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a not-for-profit organization, the global area of biotech crops for 2012 was 170.3 million hectares, grown by 17.3 million farmers in 28 countries, with an average annual growth in areas cultivated of approximately 6%. More than 90% of farmers growing biotech crops are resource-poor farmers in developing countries.[xi]
With both an increased cost to the farmer and the largest focus of GE crops mainly on staple crops, is the opportunity for using GE mostly limited to farmers in developed countries?
No. Interestingly, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agricultural Biotechnology Applications “of the 28 countries that plant transgenic crops, 20 are developing countries….(and) 90% of those who grew biotech crops – that is, more than 16 million – were resource-poor smallholder farmers in developing countries.”[xii]
How does the use of GM technology affect smallholder farmers in developing countries?
Genetic modification helps to eliminate some of the problems faced by smallholder farmers, such as droughts, pests, and crop disease. From 1996-2013, genetic modification added $116.9 billion to the agricultural sector, and more than 50% went to farmers in developing countries. In 2013, over 16 million smallholders in developing countries grew biotech crops. Fifteen million smallholder farmers in Burkina Faso, China, India, Pakistan, and a few other developing countries grow Bt cotton. In countries with weak or nonexistent extension services, farmers can face challenges in accessing GM seeds and in learning best practice growing techniques. Some countries ban the importation of seed while others exclude genetically modified seeds.
GMOs: Business and the Economy
What are the economic effects of GM crops?
Genetic modification prevents crop loss due to disease, insects, and herbicides used to control weeds, resulting in more efficient production and potentially lower food prices. According to the World Bank, agricultural sector growth is the most effective pathway for reducing poverty and increasing food access. Genetically modified crops increase farmers’ revenue by reducing some input costs, including for pesticides and water; reducing crop losses; and allowing farmers more time to pursue other labor activities. GM crops also reduce insurance costs for farmers by producing more consistent yields. For example, in India, smallholder farmers who planted Bt cotton earned 50% more with higher productivity per hectare and reduced pest damage.[xiii]
Why do companies that are selling GE seeds have such tight controls over them?
Because of tight government budgets, today much less research is being conducted in the public realm using tax dollars which would facilitate greater public access to that research.
Companies that are in the seed business are taking on the financial and research challenges to develop new seeds themselves. As a result of their substantial investments in time and money, these companies are filing patents on the seeds that they eventually bring to the farmer.
Doesn’t genetic engineering mainly benefit large agribusiness and the main global staple crops?
The large seed companies, of which most are American, are making investments in research and production of technologies that respond to the global marketplace. They are less likely to invest in the genetic engineering of indigenous crops that are not globally traded but are nonetheless important locally. This has led critics to claim that GM will undermine biodiversity. Supporters, on the other hand, believe that GM has many benefits for neglected crops, especially when funded by the public sector. As mentioned above, the papaya crop in Hawaii was being consumed by a virus, and the industry faced failure until the introduction of a transgenic papaya turned it around. Researchers in Uganda and Kenya are showing positive gains on a wilt that affects bananas, by transferring two genes from green peppers. Other crops that researchers are working on include eggplants, blackeyed peas, and cowpeas.[xiv] Researchers have also recently finished sequencing the genome of Tef, Ethiopia’s staple crop.[xv] Studies also show that small farmers in poor countries benefit from GM crops with increased incomes as a result of higher yields and lower input costs for fertilizers and pesticides.[xvi]
GMOs: Rules and Regulations
With companies then playing a significant role in developing new GE seeds, what are governments doing, if anything, to regulate these new biotechnologies?
Governments on the national level across the globe are actively reviewing and regulating for approval these new technologies. Each new technology goes through a comprehensive regulatory review that in the United States also includes the opportunity for public comments. In 1986 the U.S. government created the Coordinated Framework for the Coordination of Biotechnology, with three agencies having primary responsibility for its implementation, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [xvii]
What about the push to eat more “natural” foods? Aren’t GMOs unnatural?
There is actually no FDA regulation or specific definition of the term “natural” on food labels, so there is little merit to any label claiming that a food product is “natural.”[xviii] Typically, though, the term indicates that a food product is not highly processed and/or does not contain added colors or preservatives. Genetically modified crops are not “unnatural” under this definition.
What is the controversy about labeling foods that contain genetically modified ingredients?
There have been a number of state referendums that would require all foods to be labeled if they contain any genetically engineered ingredients. Proponents argue that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. Some studies have found that between 60-70 percent of food in the United States has some GM ingredients. Without any new state or federal laws, manufacturers of foods that do not contain GM may already label their products as GM-free if they choose.
Opponents suggest that this type of label would put a stigma on a farming technology that numerous studies show has no negative health implications. Additionally, labeling would require the adoption of significant changes in how crops are grown, stored, and processed that would result in increased food prices. One study by researchers at Cornell University estimated that the budget for a family of four could increase by an additional $500 to $800 a year under new labeling requirements. Different state rules for labeling would make it difficult for companies to comply.
What does the organic label mean and what is its relationship to genetic engineering? Does an organic label mean it is GMO free?
The National Organic Program was created by the Department of Agriculture in 2002 to regulate organic foods. Foods may only be labeled “organic” if grown by certified organic producers and processors. To obtain the organic certification, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides may not be used, nor can seeds that have been genetically engineered. Equally, food processors may not mix organic and nonorganic materials during processing. These products then are allowed to use the USDA Organic label.[xix]
[i] James, Clive, “TOP TEN FACTS About Biotech/GM Crops in 2013,” International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), March 5, 2014. http://www.igtcglobal.com/files/news/Top_Ten_2013_Biotech_Facts_5_March.pdf
[ii] ISAAA Brief 44-2012, Executive Summary, “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012,” http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/
[iii] Searchinger T. et al 2013. Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
[iv] Calestous Juma, “Societal Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology. Global Status and Outlook, Testimony before the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, July 9, 2014 http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/hearings/Juma140709.pdf
[v] The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “What We Do. Agricultural Development. Golden Rice.” http://www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do/global-development/agricultural-development/golden-rice
[vi] Qaim, Matin and Shahzad Kouser, “Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security,” June 5, 2013. PLoS ONE 8(6). http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064879
[vii] Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., and Rossellini, D. 2013. An Overview fo the Last 10 Years of Genertically Engineered Crop Safety Research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1).
[viii] European Commission, 2010, A Decade of EU-funded GMO Research. Brussels: European Commission p. 16.
[ix] “Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology,” Cambridge, MA, November, 28, 2013. http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology
[x] “What is Agricultural Biotechnology?”, Cornell University, Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II and Program for Biosafety Systems. http://absp2.cornell.edu/resources/briefs/documents/warp_briefs_eng_scr.pdf
[xi] Executive Summary, “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012,” http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/44/executivesummary/
[xiii] Calestous Juma, “Societal Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology. Global Status and Outlook, Testimony before the Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, July 9, 2014. http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/pdf/hearings/Juma140709.pdf
[xiv] Juma, 2014.
[xv] Cannarozzi, Gina et al, Genome and transcriptome sequencing identifies breeding targets in the orphan crop tef (Eragrostis tef). BMC Genomics 2014, 15:581. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/15/581
[xvi] Carpenter, J.E. 2013. The socio-economic impacts of currently commercialized genetically engineered crops. International Journal of Biotechnology 12(4). P. 249, Zilberman D., Sexton, S.E., Marra, M., and Fernando-Cornejo, J., 2010, p. 5.
[xvii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Biotechnology – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml
[xviii] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. What is the meaning of ‘natural’ on the label of food? http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm214868.htm
[xix] Paarlberg, Robert. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs To Know. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Learn more about food policy from these fact sheets:
- Global Food Security in Facts and Figures
- Hunger and Whole of Government
- The Obama Administration's Feed the Future Initiative (from Congressional Research Service)