By RACHEL LANE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Even with a $10 million increase to organic research, government spending on research and development (R&D) proposed in the House version of the 2018 farm bill remains below spending by the Chinese government.

What the U.S. and state governments spend on agriculture research has fluctuated since research programs were first funded in 1862. Sometimes the federal government would contribute more funds, but in years when the feds cut funding, state governments would often increase spending.

In the 1970s, when states decreased funding, the federal government tried to meet the demand for funds, but this year’s proposed $10 million for organic research is the first significant increase in funding, said  Elizabeth Stulberg, Science Policy manager at the Alliance of Crop, Soil and Environmental Societies.

“Other than agriculture research scientists, it's no one's priority,” she said. “It’s just been stagnant. We invest 12 times as much in health research, but many of the health problems are food- and diet-related.”

She said the USDA can only afford to fund about 20 percent of all the proposals that are approved as valid and useful: “We're leaving 80 percent of the good proposals on the table.”

For every dollar invested in agricultural R&D, there is a $20 economic return, Stulberg claimed – a return that's unseen in any other form of research. “They’ve gone so long with so little, they’ve gotten good at it … but think about how much farther they could go if they had more funding,” she said of researchers.

The private sector has increased funding in R&D, but when those programs are examined it’s found that most of the money is spent on manufacturing and marketing – outspending funding for R&D for crops, food animals, the environment, food safety, economics and community development combined, she said.

Stulberg said the government should be funding research in the other areas, but hasn't.

In U.S. higher education, federal grants make up 50-70 percent of funding for other biological and life sciences, but only about 30 percent in ag research funding. The grants ag researchers do receive tend to be smaller than what is awarded to other researchers, and the ag researchers are always applying for more grants, meaning they get less money and have less time to work, she said.

She noted ag commodity groups focus more funds on supporting farmers. They invest heavily in recovery efforts after a natural disaster when, she asserted, a modest investment in research might mean developing plants that are better able to withstand drought, flooding or recovery from fire.

The problem is that research is a long-term investment. It might take 10 years before investment in a research program shows results, Stulberg pointed out.

In 2009, China began outspending U.S. and state funding into agriculture R&D. By 2013, the nation spent more than $9 billion, twice as much as the United States.

“They're investing in this agriculture because they have the mouths to feed; I wish the U.S. had that forethought,” Stulberg said.

Appropriations for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) increased about 7 percent to $400 million, but she said it's still short about $300 million from what the House Agriculture Committee requested. She knows the agriculture committees in the House and Senate aren't in charge of appropriations – but at the same time, she said everyone in Congress is responsible for the fact that research funding has stagnated.

She also likes the Genome to Phenome Initiative and equipment grants being put in the farm bill. Right now, neither program has funding, but it does allow Congress to provide funding if it becomes available.

The Genome to Phenome Initiative could provide up to $30 million to researchers to discover what the different parts of a plant’s DNA mean. This information could help researchers make faster advances in make crops more resistant to disease, pests and weather.

The equipment grant line item would allow researchers to apply for grants specifically for pieces of equipment for a lab. Stulberg said right now a new laboratory might be outfitted with equipment, but replacement equipment or new equipment is more difficult to secure. When people awarding grants look at giving $500,000 for a piece of equipment or a program that will employ four research assistants, they seldom select the equipment need.

Additionally, she said the increase for organic research is heartening.

Patty Lovera, food and water policy director at Food and Water Watch and Food and Water Action, said organics research has been underfunded since it began, but has been the fastest-growing area of agriculture.

The Organic Farming Research Initiative (OREI) has been $20 million for more than 20 years. Lovera has been advocating for an increase to $50 million.

She said organic farmers have unique challenges – how do they treat certain diseases that traditional farmers treat with chemicals? – but some of the same problems, too. While traditional farming solutions may not work for organic farmers, the opposite is not true. Efforts such as cover crops and soil health research for organic farmers has benefited traditional farmers, as well.

Right now, no antibiotics are allowed to be used on organic livestock, but organic farmers of apples and pears can get an exception to treat for fire blight. Lovera said they have to keep getting waivers because there hasn't been an alternative option. It's a loophole many advocates of organic farming would like to close.

“We'll figure it out, but we'd figure it out faster if we had more money,” she said.

Some other areas of concern in organics regards drift of genetically modified materials from neighboring conventional farms. While it's a concern for all farmers, organic farmers have more on the line because their entire crop could be lost.

While she is happy about the increase to organic research funding, Lovera has other concerns about the farm bill version in the House.

There were cuts to the Organic Certification Cost share, for instance, a program that allows farmers interested in transitioning to organic farming to offset some of the costs to get certified. She said that assistance is sometimes the nudge that encourages producers to start organic farming.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has not released its version of the farm bill. Stulberg suggested anyone who would like to see more funding for research, or has concerns about the proposed farm bill, should contact their senators’ offices.

“The tie between the research and the farmers is direct. Researchers hash out new ideas, techniques, equipment, crops … it goes directly to the farmers,” she explained.