Based on a new analysis of federal funding from the US Department of Agriculture, American researchers behind an award-winning article say there is an urgent need for increased investment in research and development aimed at making sustainable food production more effective. Their article published in Environmental Science & Policy was selected for the Elsevier Atlas Award in June 2016.

An estimated 25-35% of global greenhouse gases are produced from agriculture. Modern agriculture also contributes to declines in biological diversity, habitat loss, water pollution, degradation of soil quality, and loss of beneficial organisms including pollinators and animals that keep pests under control. It also poses more direct risks to human health through pesticide exposure and excess nitrogen in drinking water. Given these impacts, the researchers state that sustainable agriculture, including practices such as organic farming and crop rotation, has the potential to alleviate many environmental problems and health risks associated with the modern industrial agricultural system.

"Quite frankly, we have to make this transition to sustainable agriculture," said Liz Carlisle of the University of California, Berkeley and an author of the study. "The question is: can we be proactive about it so that our institutions and economy are prepared to make the transition in a more intentional way and can we be sure that all rural communities will have access [to sustainably produced goods]. We don't want another unjust system like we have now in which some people eat and farm organically and others are stuck with agricultural toxins in their water supply and fast food for dinner."

To assess the level of political and economic support for sustainable agriculture, Carlisle and her colleagues Albie Miles at the University of Hawai'i - West Oahu and Marcia DeLonge of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. identified USDA-funded projects beginning in 2014 and searched key sections of project reports for major components emphasizing sustainability in farming. Those components were grouped into four categories: improving system efficiency to reduce inputs including fertilisers and pesticides, substituting more sustainable inputs and practices into farming systems, redesigning agricultural systems based on ecological principles, or strengthening connections between producers and consumers.

The team searched 824 projects accounting for almost $300 million in funding or about 10% of the 2014 USDA Research, Extension, and Economics budget. In many cases, sustainable agriculture was included in projects but not as the primary focus. They therefore suggested that government funding could be recalibrate to deliver benefits for farmers, the public and the wider environment, and that significant improvements in sustainable farming could be made with additional investments and support.

They noted in particular an urgent need for additional public funding for research aimed to advance highly promising areas of biologically diversified farming and ranching systems.

"Prior to this, there was no clear accounting of how much funding had gone for agro-ecological research," DeLonge explained. "We knew anecdotally that there was a need for more funding, but we needed to understand the numbers better and to understand what research areas might hold the most untapped potential."

In the UK, a coalition of 84 civil society groups representing wildlife, anti-poverty, healthcare and farming interests called on the government to reframe policies around delivering benefits for public health and wellbeing and the environment, in the immediate aftermath of June’s Brexit vote.