Here's the premise of the article:

Continuing population and consumption growth will mean that the global demand for food will increase for at least another 40 years. Growing competition for land, water and energy, in addition to the overexploitation of fisheries, will affect our ability to produce food as will the urgent requirement to reduce the impact of the food system on the environment. The effects of climate change are a further threat. But the world can produce more food and can ensure that it is used more efficiently and equitably. A multifaceted and linked global strategy is needed to ensure sustainable and equitable food security, different components of which are explored here.

In discussing closing the yield gap and increasing production limits, the authors do an excellent job in laying out important factors that can both serve and expedite those efforts. Consider this excerpt explaining the "yield gap":

The yield gap is not static. Maintaining, let alone increasing, productivity depends on continued innovation to control weeds, diseases, insects, and other pests as they evolve resistance to different control measures, or as new species emerge or are dispersed to new regions. Innovation involves both traditional and advanced crop and livestock breeding, as well as the continuing development of better chemical, agronomic, and agro-ecological control measures.

On the topic of increasing production limits, the authors weigh in on the touchy subject of biotechnology, urging reasonably that "genetic modification should neither be privileged nor automatically dismissed" as a useful tool to increase crop production. Consider this passage:

The issue of trust and public acceptance of biotechnology has been highlighted by the debate over the acceptance of GM technologies. Because genetic modification involves germline modification of an organism and its introduction to the environment and food chain, a number of particular environmental and food safety issues need to be assessed. Despite the introduction of rigorous science-based risk assessment, this discussion has become highly politicized and polarized in some countries, particularly Europe. Our view is that genetic modification is a potentially valuable technology whose advantages and disadvantages need to be considered rigorously on an evidential, inclusive, case-by-case basis...

The article concludes:

There is no simple solution to sustainably feeding 9 billion people, especially as many become increasingly better off and converge on rich-country consumption patterns. A broad range of options, including those we have discussed here, needs to be pursued simultaneously. We are hopeful about scientific and technological innovation in the food system, but not as an excuse to delay difficult decisions today.

Any optimism must be tempered by the enormous challenges of making food production sustainable while controlling greenhouse gas emission and conserving dwindling water supplies, as well as meeting the Millennium Development Goal of ending hunger. Moreover, we must avoid the temptation to further sacrifice Earth's already hugely depleted biodiversity for easy gains in food production, not only because biodiversity provides many of the public goods on which mankind relies but also because we do not have the right to deprive future generations of its economic and cultural benefits. Together, these challenges amount to a perfect storm.

Navigating the storm will require a revolution in the social and natural sciences concerned with food production, as well as a breaking down of barriers between fields. The goal is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more complex landscape of production, environmental, and social justice outcomes.

In other words, there are no easy answers to how we feed the world. However, the one thing that we can all agree on is that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work. That's why cooperation is a must as we work towards our goal for feeding a global population.

The United States has an "innovation deficit". Of course, for those of us in agriculture, this is not exactly a startling revelation. But it bears repeating that we can't shortchange funding for agricultural research, which already is woefully behind funding in other areas, if the United States is going to lead in closing the productivity gap - the difference between the historic rate of productivity growth and the pace required to meet needs in 2050 when the global population is expected to exceed 9 billion.

But I digress to make the point that our "innovation deficit" is not lost on others. Eric Schmidt, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Google, writing in a Washington Post op-ed last week mused that:

Schmidt's real concern about the United States losing ground to other countries was echoed in a speech given last month by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke to President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Among other salient points, Locke noted that:

The Commerce Secretary is not going to get any argument or disagreement from this corner. The $429 million in President Obama's FY 2011 budget is a good start as it is an increase of $166.4 million over last year's budget, and the highest funding level ever - for competitive grants through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.

Yes, while better, it's a drop in the bucket when compared to research dollars allocated in other areas. It's this kind of shortchanging of agriculture research that last year caused a coalition consisting of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and 70 university presidents, deans of agriculture and veterinary medicine and others, to write letters pointing out that "...for every $120 appropriated for the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. invests only $1 for food and agriculture competitive research."

Moreover, the group also noted that the "Agriculture and Food Research Initiative was one of the few federal science programs to receive no investment in the American Recovery Act of 2009... and that agriculture and food sciences receives only about 1 percent of total federal investment in research and development."

As one of the group leaders urged:

Enhanced investment in agricultural research is critical not only to American famers, but global economic and environmental sustainability relies upon better knowledge and innovative answers.

Eric Schmidt is absolutely on mark in saying we "can't afford" to cede our innovation edge to other countries. I would echo that, and add that we can't lose our innovation edge in any sector, particularly the agriculture community where we continue to lead in innovation, despite an all too obvious "funding deficit". 

Ignoring this looming productivity challenge or not acting quickly enough has perilous risks that should not be underestimated. At its most basic, it means additional human suffering through hunger and malnutrition. Beyond that, it means widespread social turmoil and unrest that undermine the political stability of large parts of the world -- not to mention eroding our own national security.

I don't believe any who are close to this issue would disagree with David's assessment, particularly when he frames the discussion around "the looming productivity challenge". Yes, we know it's hard to consider 2050 when we're just entered 2010. But consider David's concluding words:

Just as some of your great grandfathers made the giant leap from horses to tractors - just as John　Deere abandoned the trusty 2-cylinder Johnny Popper after 40 years, in favor of the "New Generation of Power" four- and six-cylinder tractors, we must all embrace change in nearly everything we do, in order to ensure a sustainable future for production agriculture.

Much can, and will change in 40 years. We only hope the "business as usual" mindset changes quicker. The consequences of inertia are too costly.

When thinkers from all over the world gathered last week for the 40th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland to mull over the global state of the economy, the role of agriculture was not an afterthought.

During a compelling panel discussion Rethinking How to Feed the World, DuPont's Chair and CEO Ellen Kullman put agriculture in the center of the global economic discussion in stating that:

Agriculture is a game-changer that can mitigate multiple global issues - hunger, poverty, environmental degradation, poor nutrition and subsequent effects such as civil unrest.

Ellen is absolutely on mark in her assessment of the role agriculture plays not only in global economics, but in a humanitarian aspect. The World Economic Forum also understands our importance, and made agriculture a priority subject in 2008 when it formed the Global Agenda Council on Food Security. The goal of this initiative is to engage "global leaders in business, government, international organizations, civil society and academia" to:

• Define and leverage support for priority actions to improve global food security
• Serve as a "network of networks" of major global institutions and initiatives on hunger to expand partnerships and deepen synergies

Towards those ends, Ellen helped frame the discussion at this year's forum in saying:

Delivering on the potential for agriculture to address critical, global issues may be the greatest opportunity of our generation. It is possible, but it will take a radical new approach to collaboration.

Moreover, panelists were asked to consider what it would take to achieve food security, environmental sustainability and economic growth through agriculture, to which Kullman responded:

Global food security challenges are becoming more complex and interconnected. Collaborations among organizations will need to follow suit - becoming more interconnected to leverage the strengths of organizations across the public and private sectors.

Indeed, that is our goal; that is our mission. Thanks Ellen for your participation in the Davos discussion, and continuing to sound the drum of collaboration.

At the Global Harvest Initiative, the collective "we" are always thinking about and rethinking the way forward in our quest to close the global productivity gap by 2050. In that sense, on Monday I attended the Farm Credit Council's Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., where many in the agricultural industry and others, including U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., gathered to offer their views on the way forward.

While each of the speakers offered interesting thoughts about agriculture's mission, I thought Monsanto's Executive Vice President, Sustainability & Corporate Affairs and GHI Board Member

They are to:

1. Increase competitive agricultural research

2. Enhance food security through freer trade

3. Improve the effectiveness of U.S. foreign development assistance activities

4. Offer greater incentives for innovation and conservation throughout the agriculture value chain

5. Promote science-based approval of new technologies and

6. Invest in infrastructure to reduce waste and efficiently connect farmers with markets

He added that:

The biggest challenge facing GHI is to be mindful of programs or policies that pit one group against another. This is a critical time for agriculture. It's a time to be solution-oriented. Like Secretary Vilsack, we do not believe there is only one kind of agriculture. We believe that diversity and good neighbor based co-existence will lead to the greatest likelihood of accomplishing the goals of producing enough, maximizing people's access to it, and producing it by using precious resources judiciously.

We need a collective effort if we are to close the productivity gap; one that brings all of our resources to bear and partners private and public entities. We need scientists, policymakers, agribusiness, food industry, anti-hunger and environmental thought leaders to work together to critically evaluate ideas and meet the challenges. This isn't an either-or-proposition. We'll need to employ innovations at all levels to meet the challenge.

As we continue to consider the "way forward" Steiner's words should be heeded and embraced as a clarion call to action.

I'm talking about the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), which Congress established in the 2008 Farm Bill. Launched recently by Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack, he saw the promise of NIFA as rebuilding USDA's competitive grants program from the ground up to generate real results for the American people. It's a bold move. And, it's about time.

We'll need our best researchers and innovators to keep our own agriculture competitive while helping developing countries improve theirs and sustainably close the gap between the current rate of productivity growth and the much faster rate we'll need to meet demands by 2050.

Yet, agricultural research is woefully underfunded in the United States and poorly focused as it is heavily laden with parochial earmarks. We've neglected fundamental science for 30 years.

A study commissioned by the agricultural committees of Congress reported that the 1984 USDA research budget was only 21 percent the size of that of the National Institutes of Health. By 2004, the falling USDA research expenditures were only 7.4 percent of the NIH budget - $2 billion vs. $27 billion. Moreover, less than 10 percent of the $2 billion USDA research expenditures were for competitive, peer-reviewed projects, a mechanism that has been so successfully used by the NIH. In fact, the NIH spending for peer-reviewed grants was about $150 for every dollar spent by the USDA. Competitive USDA grants were smaller than those of the NIH and generally awarded for shorter durations, making them less attractive to scientists.

We sorely need NIFA, built on the NIH model, to work with industry, academia and the nonprofit sector to coordinate, prioritize and promote outcome-based research. NIFA won't do research; it will award federal funding based on scientific merit and national priorities.

Already USDA Undersecretary of Research, Education, and Economics Rajiv Shah has begun a systematic analysis of USDA research programs, with a goal of better matching resources to priority projects and bringer much greater focus. This is a critical first step.

The next step must be toward increasing fundamental research funding through NIFA. President Barack Obama has tapped plant scientist Roger Beachy to lead NIFA. Winner of the Wolf Prize in agriculture and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Beachy is known for developing virus-resistant plants through biotechnology. Furthermore, he has a track record of working with academia, business and the nonprofit sector. Those partnerships will serve NIFA well, combined with his vision for how science can help not only U.S. agriculture and the American people but also to close the global agricultural productivity gap.

We should all be heartened to see so many federal leaders who understand and support agricultural science. Tomorrow's innovations start today. Let's make sure it doesn't stop here with the launch of this promising new mechanism.

Gates' efforts are a testament to his forward thinking and I commend him and others who recognize the need for revival and push for change. Through continued and increased investments in research and technologies and the application of educational and agricultural resources across the globe, we can certainly work together to solve this problem. 2050 will be here before we know it and the sooner we start the better.