Viewpoint: Do US regulatory bodies pose a national threat to safe and productive agriculture?
Viewpoint: Do US regulatory bodies pose a national threat to safe and productive agriculture?


The White House touches on an important topic by addressing the unique threats that face the farming sector, and to what extent the American food production system might be threatened by domestic or foreign actions. It addresses for instance, the impacts of toxic industrial chemicals, from a standpoint not only of the effects on humans, but also on the biological realm, which might impact the productivity of farms.
The memorandum comes at a time when supply chain disruptions have shown to consumers just to what extent a food system can destabilize the inner-workings of a country. Case in point, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not just a military conflict that plays out on the battlefield – it is also a war of food, in which the Russian war machine holds Ukrainian grain exports hostage through its strategic vantage points. Continuous grain deals in the Black Sea have stood on rocky grounds, despite the vital importance for the Ukrainian economy. This war underlines how civilian infrastructure quickly becomes a military target, and how guaranteeing security is not merely about anti-aircraft missiles, but also about protecting strategic industrial elements.
For that reason it is not just laudable that the administration addresses these risks, but also that USDA has been at the forefront of arguing for food security through innovation. The USDA’s Agriculture Innovation Agenda (AIA) advances the notion that more innovation, through public and private research and investment, makes the food system more efficient and sustainable. Compared to the European Union’s approach – which seeks to reduce farm land use and livestock, to the detriment of the European food sector – the AIA takes a forward-looking approach.
While USDA’s regulatory roadmap looks promising, the White House’s previous decisions on agricultural regulation have been contradictory to those goals, as I’ve outlined in previous articles for the National Interest. A sustainable and resilient food system needs to give its farmers the toolboxes to fight diseases and pests, and also allow for diversity in the practices farmers use to optimize their output. There is no one-size-fits all solution, and it certainly isn’t an all-organic food model that the EU is slowly lurching toward.
The strength of American agriculture comes from the fact that it produces great products at competitive prices. While Europe has retained a steady agricultural production level since about 1985, the United States doubled its productivity between 1960 and the year 2000 and is on route to breaking the 150% productivity gain in the near future. To do so, politicians need to create the framework that allows for innovation in plant-breeding and farming technology, to make sure the latest products always get to the United States first. Also, this does not need to come at the cost of environmental protection, to the contrary. Modern farming technology reduces carbon dioxide emissions and reduces the need for inputs across the board.
The responsibility lies in political leaders to ensure that the American food system is safe from the threats of foreign interference, and the negative impacts of many of the domestic regulatory attempts to regress on technological innovation.
Bill Wirtz is senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center. Follow Bill on Twitter @wirtzbill
A version of this article was posted at Center Square and is used here with permission. Check out Center Square on Twitter @thecentersquare

![]() | Videos | More... |

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!
![]() | Bees & Pollinators | More... |

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’
![]() | Infographics | More... |

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer
![]() | GMO FAQs | More... |

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?
![]() | GLP Profiles | More... |

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’








Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health
Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains
Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics
Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?
California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining
30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus
The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs
‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta