HRI provides insight to USDA for research plan

The plan examines how to expand economic opportunity through innovation, promote sustainable ag production processes and protect U.S. natural resources.

From Joe Bischoff, ANLA's Director of Government Relations

Dr. Catherine Woteki, USDA Under Secretary and Chief Scientist, requested feedback from ANLA and HRI regarding a draft version of their Research, Education and Economics (REE) Action Plan. The Action Plan attempts to lay out the REE’s highest priority goals and the steps necessary to achieve those goals through four USDA agencies: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Economic Research Service (ERS), and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

The plan is meant to reflect a vision of how the REE can use the best available science to expand economic opportunity through innovation, promote sustainable agriculture production processes and protect U.S. natural resources. ANLA and HRI were largely supportive of the broad and bold plan envisioned in the draft. However, concerns about the over-emphasis on row crop agriculture and no direct reference to horticulture, nursery or greenhouse production were highlighted as significant shortcomings. Another problematic area was a lack of emphasis on industry and agency collaboration – failing to see where shared concerns could be addressed in a more efficient and effective manner.

References to pollinator health and the need to evaluate the impacts of pesticides were particularly concerning. A better understanding of the issues surrounding pollinator health are vital to agriculture and our environment, yet the topic must be studied with an open mind and allow the science to dictate the policy. A recent publication by the USDA points toward a complex of interacting factors that are likely contributing to pollinator decline. For the USDA, in their REE Action Plan, to suggest that pesticides are the dominant influencer in pollinator decline is not be consistent with their own research results and not reflective of the current scientific evidence.