The Bioeconomy: A Primer

August 19, 2021 – September 19, 2022 R46881

The Bioeconomy: A Primer
September 19, 2022
The term bioeconomy refers to the share of the economy based on products, services, and
processes derived from biological resources (e.g., plants and microorganisms). The bioeconomy
Marcy E. Gallo
is crosscutting, encompassing multiple sectors, in whole or in part (e.g., agriculture, textiles,
Analyst in Science and
chemicals, and energy). Many predict that the bioeconomy will be a key component of the future
Technology Policy
economy. Specifically, many view the development of and transition to predominantly a

bioeconomy as a means to address grand challenges such as climate change, food security,
energy independence, and environmental sustainability. Advancing the bioeconomy is also

viewed as an opportunity to create new jobs and industries, improve human health through the
development of new drugs and diagnostics, and boost rural development. Some experts estimate the direct economic impact
of bio-based products, services, and processes at up to $4 trillion per year globally over the next 10 years.
U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the future global bioeconomy is uncertain. In 2012, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) released a comprehensive vision for the U.S. bioeconomy. Progress on the goals and objectives
outlined in the report remains unclear. Since 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy have
led federal efforts on development of the U.S. bioeconomy. However, according to the International Advisory Council on
Global Bioeconomy, such agencies have a “more agricultural and bioresources-based vision” than the crosscutting and
comprehensive vision proposed by OSTP in 2012 (e.g., biomedicine, health, and biodefense are not emphasized).
Organizations, including the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, have recommended that the
federal government develop and regularly update a comprehensive bioeconomy strategy to sustain and grow the U.S.
bioeconomy. On September 12, 2022, the Biden Administration issued an executive order creating the National
Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative with the goal of accelerating biotechnology innovation and growing the U.S
bioeconomy across multiple sectors. Other countries are adopting and implementing comprehensive policies and strategies to
advance their bioeconomies. Such efforts have the potential to challenge U.S. leadership in biotechnology and other
bioeconomy-related sectors that many view as critical to national security and economic competitiveness.
Congress may consider a number of issues regarding advancement of the U.S. bioeconomy, including the development and
implementation of a national bioeconomy strategy, federal investments in bioeconomy-related research and development,
expanding the bioeconomy workforce, promoting and furthering the development of regional bioeconomies, increasing both
the market for bio-based products and services, as well as public awareness and acceptance of bio-based products and
services.
Conversely, Congress may decide there is no need to restructure federal activities and policies, including some long-standing
efforts (e.g., bio-based fuels or agricultural biotechnology), under a bioeconomy framework. Congress may decide to pursue
bioeconomy-related policies through new or existing sector-specific efforts, or it may decide current policies and activities
are sufficient.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 28 The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Introduction
The bioeconomy is the portion of the economy based on products, services, and processes derived
from biological resources (e.g., plants and microorganisms). Some predict that the future
economy will be primarily a bioeconomy. According to the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), “as
much as 60 percent of the physical inputs to the global economy could, in principle, be produced
biologically.”1 Such predictions are based, in part, on the advancement of our knowledge and
understanding of the biological sciences. For example, humans have long bred plants and animals
for desirable traits (e.g., higher yields, resistance to pests); however, we now understand the
genetic basis for some of these traits and how information can be transmitted within cells and
between generations. Not only can researchers read an organism’s genetic code, they can edit it
with a high-level of precision and create organisms with synthetic genomes.
Many view a bioeconomy as a means to address societal challenges such as climate change, food
security, energy independence, and environmental sustainability. Potential benefits of a transition
to a bioeconomy include the following:
 The substitution of renewable biomass or bio-based raw materials for fossil fuels
in the production of energy, chemicals, and materials.
 An increase in crop and livestock production.
 Increased efficiency in the use of biomass and a reduction in waste.
 New drugs and diagnostics to improve human health.
 The creation of new jobs and industries.
 Boosting rural development.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the
potential benefits “will not become reality without attentive and active support from governments
and the public at large.”2 Potential challenges associated with a transition to a bioeconomy and
the successful development and commercialization of bioeconomy-related products and services
include
 ensuring policy coherence and alignment amongst the array of sectors involved;
 overcoming the “lock-in” or rigidness of existing production systems;
 ensuring equal access to bioeconomy-related products and services; and
 prompting consumer acceptance and demand.
Given concerns about U.S. competitiveness and national security associated with
biotechnology—the use of cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and
processes—congressional interest in the bioeconomy and the potential it holds may grow. This
report provides an overview of the bioeconomy, details the efforts of the United States and other
selected nations pertaining to the bioeconomy (see Appendix), and offers policy considerations
for strengthening the role of the United States in the global bioeconomy. The report does not
examine the policies and programs of individual sectors that contribute to the bioeconomy (e.g.,

1 Michael Chui, Matthias Evers, and James Manyika, et al., The Bio Revolution: Innovations Transforming Economies,
Societies, and Our Lives, McKinsey Global Institute, May 2020, p. vi.
2 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda,
OECD Publishing, Paris, 2009, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

biofuels, biomanufacturing, pharmaceuticals, or agriculture), but instead discusses the
bioeconomy from a macro level perspective.3
Variability in the Scope of the Bioeconomy
There is no standard definition of the bioeconomy. The scope, emphasis, and definition of a
nation’s bioeconomy vary based on the country’s technological capacity, natural resource base,
and economic and trade policies. However, all nations with a definition of the bioeconomy view it
as crosscutting, encompassing multiple sectors, in whole or in part (e.g., agriculture, textiles,
chemicals, energy, and pharmaceuticals). The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine (NASEM) groups the variability observed in how a nation scopes or defines its
bioeconomy into three categories or visions: (1) a biotechnology vision, (2) a bioresource vision,
and (3) a bioecology vision. According to NASEM
Under the biotechnology vision, activities in the bioeconomy center around generating
scientific knowledge enabled by the purposeful manipulation of DNA, with production
processes operating at the molecular level, the commercialization of such processes, and
the development of new commercial products through biomanufacturing.
The bioresource vision involves the conversion of biomass and biological materials (e.g.,
crops, trees) into sources of power and/or new products, such as bio-plastics or biofuels.
The bioecology vision “highlights the importance of ecological processes that optimize the
use of energy and nutrients, promote biodiversity, and avoid monocultures and soil
degradation.4
These categories or visions, however, are not mutually exclusive. The box titled “Examples of
Bioeconomy Definitions” presents definitions of the bioeconomy used by various countries and
international organizations.
Examples of Bioeconomy Definitions
Brazil
The term bioeconomy refers to “the generation of innovative products and services based on the country’s
natural resources and ecosystem services.”5

European Union
“The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources (animals, plants, micro-
organisms and derived biomass, including organic waste), their functions and principles. It includes and interlinks:
land and marine ecosystems and the services they provide; all primary production sectors that use and produce

3 More information on individual sectors that contribute to the bioeconomy can be found in other CRS reports. For
example, see CRS Report R46737, Agricultural Biotechnology: Overview, Regulation, and Selected Policy Issues, by
Genevieve K. Croft; CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview, by Kelsi Bracmort;
CRS Report R40529, Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation, by Kelsi Bracmort; and CRS Report R46427,
Development and Regulation of Medical Countermeasures for COVID-19 (Vaccines, Diagnostics, and Treatments):
Frequently Asked Questions, by Agata Bodie et al.
4 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC, 2020, pp. 45, 48, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25525/safeguarding-the-bioeconomy.
5 German Bioeconomy Council, Bioeconomy Policy (Part III): Update Report of National Strategies around the World,
2018, p. 32.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 25 The Bioeconomy: A Primer

biological resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); and all economic and industrial sectors that
use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based products, energy and services.”6

Germany
The Federal Government of Germany defines the bioeconomy as “the production, exploitation and use of
biological resources, processes and systems to provide products, processes and services across all economic
sectors within the framework of a future-oriented economy.”7

Italy
The bioeconomy encompasses the integration of “the sustainable production of renewable biological resources
and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value-added products such as food, feed, bio-based
products and bioenergy.”8

Japan
The bioeconomy is a “concept that expands a sustainable and renewable circular economy and society by using
biotechnology and renewable biological resources.”9 See “Sustainability and Creating a Circular Economy” below
for further discussion.

South Africa
The South African bioeconomy definition refers to “activities that make use of bio-innovations, based on biological
sources, materials and processes to generate sustainable economic, social and environmental development.”10

United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
FAO uses the definition of the bioeconomy adopted at the 2018 Global Bioeconomy Summit. “Bioeconomy is the
production, utilization and conservation of biological resources, including related knowledge, science, technology,
and innovation, to provide information, products, processes and services across all economic sectors aiming
toward a sustainable economy.”11

United States
A 2019 White House “Summit on America’s Bioeconomy” stated “the bioeconomy represents the infrastructure,
innovation, products, technology, and data derived from biologically-related processes and science that drive
economic growth, improve public health, agricultural, and security benefits.”12
The Bioeconomy of the United States
The lack of an officially accepted definition for the U.S. bioeconomy complicates its analysis and
decisionmaking. The characteristics of the U.S. bioeconomy consist of an emphasis on

6 European Commission, A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the Connection Between Economy,
Society and the Environment, 2018, p. 4.
7 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, p. 102.
8 Ibid., p. 116.
9 Ibid., p. 54.
10 Ibid., p. 25.
11 Marta Gomez San Juan, Anne Bogdanski and Olivier Dubois, Towards Sustainable Bioeconomy: Lessons Learned
from Case Studies, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, 2019, p. ix.
12 Office of Science and Technology Policy, Summary of the 2019 White House Summit on America’s Bioeconomy,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2019, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 9 The Bioeconomy: A Primer

biotechnology and innovation, the inclusion of biomedicine and health, and the application of the
bioeconomy to defense and national security purposes (e.g., protecting against biological
threats).13
In 2020, the NASEM proposed the following definition for the U.S. bioeconomy:
The U.S. bioeconomy is economic activity that is driven by research and innovation in the
life sciences and biotechnology, and that is enabled by technological advances in
engineering and in computing and information sciences.14
As estimated by the NASEM, the U.S. bioeconomy accounted for more than 5% of U.S. gross
domestic product or $959.2 billion in 2016.15 The NASEM groups U.S. bioeconomy activities
into three primary domains—agricultural, biomedical, and bioindustrial—in addition to “a cross-
cutting category of tools, kits, and services” that advance biotechnology research and
development (R&D) (see Figure 1).16 The 2020 report also detailed industry sectors excluded
from or included, wholly or in part, in NASEM’s proposed definition (e.g., crop production and
pharmaceuticals, see Table 1).
As indicated by NASEM, one of the principal differences between the scope of the U.S.
bioeconomy and the bioeconomy of countries within the European Union (EU) and Japan is the
treatment of primary sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. In general, EU countries
and Japan include these sectors wholly within their definition of the bioeconomy, while the
United States includes only selected parts (e.g., genetically modified crops and crops produced
for energy).17 This difference reflects the U.S. view that biotechnology is a key driver of the
bioeconomy. For example, the NASEM established biotechnology-focused criteria for inclusion
of agricultural activities within the scope of its definition, including the use of genetic
engineering when creating a strain or seed, among others (see Figure 1).18 Additionally, the EU
explicitly excludes health and medicine from the scope of the EU bioeconomy, while the United
States and Japan include such sectors.19
NASEM indicates that there are advantages and disadvantages in adopting a broad versus narrow
definition or scope of the bioeconomy. According to NASEM,
If one adopts a broad, highly inclusive definition, the bioeconomy is dominated by mature
economic activities (e.g., manufacturing of wood furniture) that (as yet) involve neither
applications of biological research or biotechnology nor the substitution of biological for
petrochemical resources. Adopting a broader definition has the advantage of including the
totality of such sectors as agriculture, forestry, wood manufacturing, and food processing.
These sectors are already characterized and defined in national income accounts and
recorded regularly in government statistics. This facilitates measurement, but measures of
the bioeconomy heavily weighted toward such mature sectors may indicate that the
bioeconomy is a shrinking share of economic activity, incomes, and wages over time.

13 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, p. 31.
14 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, pp. 58-66.
15 Ibid., p. 73.
16 Ibid., p. 6.
17 Ibid., pp. 53-58.
18 Ibid., p. 61.
19 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, p. 153.
Congressional Research Service

4

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

In contrast, a narrower definition, based more on biological innovations, may be better
equipped to track innovation and dynamism within mature sectors. For example, under a
narrower definition of the bioeconomy, forestry may not be included. Yet, as adoption of
future biotechnology applications progresses, activities within the forestry sector would
increasingly be included in the bioeconomy. Likewise, innovations in cellular agriculture
could bring more activities within livestock production or food processing under the
umbrella of the bioeconomy.20

20 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, p. 56.
Congressional Research Service

5

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Figure 1. Definition and Primary Domains of U.S. Bioeconomy
As proposed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine

Source: Adapted from Figure 2-2, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the
Bioeconomy, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, p. 60.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Table 1. Industries Included in or Excluded from the U.S. Bioeconomy
As proposed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Wholly Included Partially
Industries with Emerging
Excluded Industries
Industries
Included
Activities That May Be
Industries
Included in the Future
Pharmaceuticals
Crop Production
Livestock Production
Beverages and Tobacco
Biotechnology
Electricity
Fisheries/Aquaculture
Leather and Products
Research and
Generation
Forestry
Wood Manufacturing
Development
Processed Food
Mining (bioleaching)
Paper Products
Medical
Chemicals
Diagnostics
Textiles
Furniture Manufacturing
Plastics and
Apparel
Rubber
Health Care
Other Physical,
Engineering and
Druggists’ Goods (wholesalers)
Life Sciences
Agriculture Supplies (wholesale)
Research and
Construction
Development
Water Treatment and Supply
Nature Tourism, Hunting, Fishing
Source: Adapted from Table 2-1, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the
Bioeconomy, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, pp. 54-55.
Notes: The category “Industries with Emerging Activities That May Be Included in the Future” represents
industries in which some, not all, activities are anticipated to be included.
Federal Activity in the U.S. Bioeconomy
The following sections provide an overview and background on current and past federal activities
associated with the bioeconomy. The sections are limited to activities that explicitly reference the
term “bioeconomy” and are intended to be illustrative of executive branch and legislative actions
in this area, without necessarily being comprehensive.
Executive Branch
In 2010, the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) included bioeconomy R&D among the Obama Administration’s science and
technology priorities for formulating the FY2012 budget. The OMB and OSTP memorandum
stated that federal agencies should “support research to establish the foundations for a 21st century
‘bio-economy.’ Advances in biotechnology and improvements in our ability to design biological
systems have the potential to address critical national needs in agriculture, energy, health, and the
environment.”21
In 2012, the Obama Administration released the National Bioeconomy Blueprint with the stated
purpose of “lay[ing] out strategic objectives that will help realize the full potential of the U.S.
bioeconomy.”22 According to the bioeconomy blueprint, “a bioeconomy is one based on the use

21 Peter R. Orszag and John P. Holdren, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
Subject: Science and Technology Priorities for the FY2012 Budget,” Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC, July 21, 2010, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/fy12-budget-guidance-memo.pdf.
22 White House, National Bioeconomy Blueprint, Washington, DC, April 2012, p. 2,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
Congressional Research Service

7

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

of research and innovation in the biological sciences to create economic activity and public
benefit.”23 The bioeconomy blueprint included the following strategic objectives:
 Support for R&D investments to provide the foundation for the future U.S.
bioeconomy.
 Facilitating the transition and commercialization of bio-inventions, including an
increased focus on translational and regulatory sciences.
 Developing and reforming regulations to reduce barriers, increase the speed and
predictability of regulatory processes, and reduce costs while protecting human
and environmental health.
 Updating training programs and aligning academic institution incentives to
address national workforce needs.
 Identifying and supporting the development of public-private partnerships and
precompetitive collaborations.24
While the 2015 update of the Obama Administration’s American Innovation Strategy highlighted
the need for R&D investments to advance the bioeconomy, including efforts to promote the
development of biotechnology tools and investments associated with bioenergy, the extent to
which the 2012 bioeconomy blueprint was implemented is unclear. The federal government has
not issued another government-wide strategy or vision for the bioeconomy since 2015.
As noted by the International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, since 2016, the direction
of the U.S. bioeconomy has been “marked by the more agricultural and bioresources-based vision
put forth by individual federal agencies.”25 In particular, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) have a long history of supporting R&D and
policies in areas associated with the bioeconomy.
In 2016, the Biomass R&D Board,26 an interagency group co-chaired by DOE and USDA and
also including the Departments of Transportation, the Interior, and Defense, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and OSTP, released a Federal Activities
Report on the Bioeconomy to “emphasize the significant potential for an even stronger U.S.
bioeconomy through the production and use of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower.” The report
outlined a vision for “expand[ing] the sustainable production and use of biomass,” proposed a
number of objectives for, and identified barriers to achieving such a vision. The report divided the
objectives into the following areas:
 Use an integrated systems approach.
 Provide the science and technology needed to drive innovation.

.national_bioeconomy_blueprint_april_2012.pdf.
23 Ibid., p. 7.
24 Ibid., pp. 2-5.
25 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, pp. 40-41.
26 P.L. 106-224 established the Biomass Research and Development Board “to coordinate programs within and among
departments and agencies of the Federal Government for the purpose of promoting the use of bio-based industrial
products.” Per 7 U.S.C. §8108 the current duties of the Board include coordinating R&D activities related to biofuels
and bio-based products between USDA and DOE and with other federal departments and agencies. For more
information on the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, see CRS In Focus IF10288, Overview of the 2018
Farm Bill Energy Title Programs, by Kelsi Bracmort, and CRS Report R45943, The Farm Bill Energy Title: An
Overview and Funding History, by Kelsi Bracmort.
Congressional Research Service

8

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

 Create public and private collaborations to overcome barriers and accelerate
deployment.
 Develop a workforce for the future bioeconomy.
 Understand and inform policy.
The identified barriers included
 sustainably producing and accessing adequate, affordable feedstock;
 developing and applying innovative, cost-competitive conversion technologies;
 optimizing distribution infrastructure across the nation to allow movement of
biomass and subsequent derivatives across the entire supply chain; and
 educating the consumer.27
Also in 2016, DOE released an update to its Billion-Ton Bioeconomy report, which modeled and
detailed the availability of up to 1 billion tons of biomass resources per year in the United States.
In addition, the report examined concerns about climate change impacts, logistical operations,
environmental sustainability, and systems integration across the production, harvest, and
conversion of biomass.28 DOE’s Bioenergy Technology Office (BETO) also published the
Strategic Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable Bioeconomy in 2016. The strategic plan identified
the following key opportunity areas.
 Enhancing the value proposition of bioenergy.
 Mobilizing the nation’s biomass resources.
 Cultivating end use markets and customers.
 Expanding stakeholder engagement and collaboration.29
In 2019, the Biomass R&D Board—as a follow-on to the 2016 federal activities report—released
an implementation framework for the bioeconomy. As described in the report, the purpose of the
framework is to
serve as a guiding document for the BR&D Board member agencies to increase
government accountability and efficiency, maximize interagency coordination on
bioeconomy research and other activities, and accelerate innovative and sustainable
technologies that harness the nation’s biomass resources. The cutting-edge research and
development (R&D) described in this Framework can advance technologies to provide a
secure, reliable, affordable, and enduring supply of U.S. energy and products.
There has been great progress to date, but many opportunities remain to unlock the full
potential of the U.S. bioeconomy. This Framework lays out activities that will help
understand and mitigate technology uncertainty; leverage government, academic,

27 Biomass Research and Development Board, Federal Activities Report on the Bioeconomy, February 2016,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f30/farb_2_18_16.pdf.
28 U.S. Department of Energy, 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy,
Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks, Oak Ridge, TN, July 2016, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/
2016/12/f34/2016_billion_ton_report_12.2.16_0.pdf; and U.S. Department of Energy, 2016 Billion-Ton Report:
Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 2: Environmental Sustainability Effects of Select
Scenarios from Volume 1, Oak Ridge, TN, January 2017, https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/downloads/2016-
billion-ton-report-volume-2-environmental-sustainability-effects.
29 Bioenergy Technologies Office, Strategic Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable Bioeconomy, U.S. Department of
Energy, December 2016, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/
beto_strategic_plan_december_2016_0.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

9

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

industrial, and non-governmental resources and capabilities; stimulate public-private
partnerships and investment; and generate technical information that can inform decision-
makers and policymakers across complex value chains. No singular agency has the
expertise for all aspects of the bioeconomy supply chain; it is only by leveraging the
strengths of all BR&D Board agencies and external partners that technology challenges
can be addressed.30
Also in 2019, the Trump Administration hosted a White House summit to discuss U.S. leadership
in the bioeconomy and key opportunities and challenges. In remarks at the summit, Michael
Kratsios, Chief Technology Officer of the United States, stated
As we look to the future, this Administration is focusing in on three of the core issues that
will affect the future of the Bioeconomy: infrastructure, talent, and data.
First, infrastructure. We need to identify what the most critical infrastructure is in the
bioeconomy, what we do well, what we don’t do well enough, and where there are
bottlenecks that impede our innovation or put our security at risk.
Second is talent. We must not only train future innovators, but also determine how we can
most successfully support our great research institutions and talent producers so that they
have the resources and protection they need to thrive.
And third, we should explore how we can best protect our genetic and biological data while
safeguarding the freedom necessary for a robust and growing bioeconomy. As the
bioeconomy develops, we need to ensure it is rooted in American values and is always used
for the benefit of the American people.31
Furthermore, OSTP issued a request for information on the bioeconomy seeking to “inform
notable gaps, vulnerabilities, and areas to promote and protect in the U.S. Bioeconomy that may
benefit from Federal government attention.”32 The Trump Administration also identified the
bioeconomy as a key area of focus for federal R&D investments in both the FY2021 and FY2022
R&D budget priority memoranda issued by OMB and OSTP.33 According to STAT News, the
Trump Administration drafted, but never issued an executive order that would have directed
OSTP and the National Security Council to co-chair an interagency committee tasked with
creating a national bioeconomy strategy within 210 days, in addition to directing the Department
of Homeland Security with deciding if the bioeconomy should be designated as a critical
infrastructure sector.34

30 Biomass Research and Development Board, The Bioeconomy Initiative: Implementation Framework, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, March 5, 2019, p. vii, https://biomassboard.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/
Bioeconomy_Initiative_Implementation_Framework_FINAL.pdf.
31 Office of Science and Technology Policy, Summary of the 2019 White House Summit on America’s Bioeconomy,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2019, p. 7, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Summary-
of-White-House-Summit-on-Americas-Bioeconomy-October-2019.pdf.
32 Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Request for Information on the Bioeconomy,” Federal Register, vol. 84,
no. 175, p. 47561, September 10, 2019.
33 Russell T. Vought and Dr. Kelvin Droegemeir, “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, Subject: Fiscal Year 2021,” Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities Executive Office
of the President, Washington, DC, August, 30, 2019, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/
08/FY-21-RD-Budget-Priorities.pdf; and Russell T. Vought and Dr. Kelvin Droegemeir, “Memorandum for the Heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies, Subject: Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Administration Research and Development
Budget Priorities and Cross-Cutting Actions,” Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, August, 14, 2020,
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/M-20-29.pdf.
34 Nicholas Florko, “Abandoned Trump Order on the Bioeconomy Highlights a Path Forward for Biden—But with
Mixed Reviews,” STAT News, May 17, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

10

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

In 2020, USDA released a report that included the bioeconomy among the agency’s science
priorities through 2025. USDA’s objectives for the bioeconomy included the following:
 Promoting the development of enabling technologies for the sustainable,
efficient, and profitable production of bio-based products from renewable
agricultural and bioeconomic crops, including emerging supplemental and
alternative crops.
 Developing a bioeconomy research roadmap that sets near-, mid-, and long-term
goals and highlighting progress towards those goals annually.
 Developing knowledge and tools to design and optimize biorefining and
processing systems that leverage economies of scale to promote bio-based
product competition and market access.
 Generating, gathering, and synthesizing relevant data and scientific information
to quantify and inform the valuation of bioeconomic ecosystems as well as
societal and environmental costs, benefits, and services.35
Also in 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded $51 million to the
Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI) to establish “the nation’s first Foundry
for American Biotechnology.” ARMI is a nonprofit organization and a Manufacturing USA
Institute with the mission “to make practical the large-scale manufacturing of engineered tissues
and tissue-related technologies, to benefit existing industries and grow new ones.”36 According to
the press release, the foundry will “produce technological solutions that help the United States
protect against and respond to health security threats, enhance daily medical care, and add to the
U.S. bioeconomy.”37
The Department of Defense awarded $87 million in 2020 to establish the Bioindustrial
Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem (BioMADE), a Manufacturing USA Institute. According to
a press release, BioMADE
will examine and advance industry-wide standards, tools, and measurements; mature
foundational technologies; foster a resilient bioindustrial manufacturing ecosystem;
advance education and workforce development; and support the establishment and growth
of supply chain intermediaries that are essential for a robust U.S. bioeconomy. Other
important focus areas include challenges related to biosafety and security and ethical, legal,
and societal considerations.38
According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), “as the U.S. envisions an expanding
bioeconomy as a cornerstone of its industrial base, NSF is positioned to have a leading role in

35 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Science Blueprint: A Roadmap for USDA Science from 2020 to 2025,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2020, p. 26, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-science-
blueprint.pdf.
36 Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute, “Our Mission,” https://www.armiusa.org/about-us. For more
information on Manufacturing USA Institutes, see CRS Report R46703, Manufacturing USA: Advanced Manufacturing
Institutes and Network, by John F. Sargent Jr.
37 Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS Pioneers First Foundry for American Biotechnology,” press
release, February 10, 2020, https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/02/10/hhs-pioneers-first-foundry-for-american-
biotechnology.html.
38 Department of Defense, “DOD Approves $87 Million for Newest Bioindustrial Manufacturing Innovation Institute,”
press release, October 20, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2388087/dod-approves-
87-million-for-newest-bioindustrial-manufacturing-innovation-insti/.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

shaping that vision across the federal sector.”39 NSF invests $250 million annually in
biotechnology and bioeconomy activities, including through the agency’s Understanding the
Rules of Life Big Idea initiative that supports foundational research “to better understand and
predict, control, and ultimately design how living systems function.”40 NSF has also identified
biotechnology as one of its five “industries of the future.” NSF investments in biotechnology and
the bioeconomy are concentrated in four priority areas: foundational research, infrastructure,
workforce, and the translation of research results.
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the agency’s role in the
bioeconomy is to provide “the measurement science, validated data, and standards development
leadership to support the maturation of new biotechnologies into successful products.”41 A 2020
presentation by the agency to the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the agency’s
advisory council, indicates $30.5 million in support for bioeconomy R&D and other activities in
FY2020.42
On September 12, 2022, the Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14081, Advancing
Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American
Bioeconomy.43 The policies included in the executive order, collectively referred to as the
National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative, seek to grow domestic
biomanufacturing capacity; expand market opportunities for bio-based products; drive R&D to
address national challenges, streamline regulations for products of biotechnology; and advance
biosafety and biosecurity to reduce risk, among others.44
Congress
The following sections describe legislation and congressional hearings that explicitly reference
the term bioeconomy, as of the date of this report. The following should be considered illustrative
and not comprehensive.
Legislation
In 2005, Congress required the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants to regional bioeconomy
development associations, agricultural or energy trade associations, or land-grant universities to
support the growth and development of regional bioeconomies.45

39 National Science Foundation, “Advanced Biotechnology and Bioeconomy Research at NSF,” https://www.nsf.gov/
bio/bioeconomy.jsp.
40 National Science Foundation, “Fact Sheet: American Leadership in Biotechnology,” https://www.nsf.gov/news/
factsheets/Factsheet_BioTech_v04.pdf.
41 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “NIST’s Role in the Bioeconomy,” https://www.nist.gov/topics/
bioscience/nists-role-bioeconomy.
42 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Engineering Biology,” February 12, 2020, https://www.nist.gov/
system/files/documents/2020/02/11/
10.%20NIST%20VCAT%20Feb%202020%20EngBio%20Feb1120%20Updated.pdf.
43 Executive Order 14081, “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and
Secure American Bioeconomy,” vol. 87, no. 178 Federal Register 56849-56860, September 15, 2022.
44 White House, “Fact Sheet: President Biden to Launch a National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative,”
press release, September 12, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/12/fact-
sheet-president-biden-to-launch-a-national-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-initiative/.
45 42 U.S.C. §16254.
Congressional Research Service

12

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

In 2008, the conference report to the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-234,
the 2008 farm bill) stated
The Managers encourage the Secretary [of Agriculture] to continue to allow and support
efforts of regional consortiums of public institutions, including land grant universities and
State departments of agriculture, to jointly support the bio-economy through research,
extension and education activities.46
In 2017, P.L. 115-31, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, required the Director of
National Intelligence to brief the congressional intelligence committees on a proposed plan to
monitor advances in life sciences and biotechnology. Congress required the plan to include
An assessment of the current collection and analytical posture of the life sciences and
biotechnology portfolio as it relates to United States competitiveness and the global bio-
economy, the risks and threats evolving with advances in genetic editing technologies, and
the implications of such advances on future biodefense requirements.47
In 2018, the House report to H.R. 5952 (115th Congress), the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to
provide the appropriations committee with a briefing on biotechnologies and FBI efforts to
safeguard the bioeconomy.48
In the 116th Congress (2019-2020), some Members of Congress introduced a few pieces of
legislation related to the bioeconomy. S. 3734, the Bioeconomy Research and Development Act
of 2020, and a related bill, H.R. 4373, the Engineering Biology Research and Development Act of
2019, would have required OSTP to would establish a federal engineering biology research
initiative, develop a national strategy for federal agency investments, and create a framework for
interagency coordination. The legislation would also have required the National Science
Foundation to sponsor a review by NASEM of the ethical, legal, environmental, and security
issues related to engineering biology R&D, among other provisions.
H.R. 5685, the Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act of 2020, would
have required the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) within the Department
of Commerce to support engineering biology R&D by improving measurement science and the
development of standards for synthetic biology, in addition to developing and evaluating
predictive models associated with engineered biological systems.
In March 2021, Representative Lucas introduced H.R. 2153 (117th Congress), the Securing
American Leadership in Science and Technology Act of 2021 (identical to H.R. 5685 described
above). In April 2021, Senator Markey introduced S. 1418 (117th Congress), the Bioeconomy
Research and Development Act of 2021. S. 1418 is identical to S. 3734 (116th Congress)
described above. On June 8, 2021, the Senate passed the United States Innovation and
Competition Act of 2021 (S. 1260, 117th Congress) which included the Bioeconomy Research and
Development Act of 2021 as Section 2217. On February 4, 2022 the House passed the America
COMPETES Act of 2022 (H.R. 4521, 117th Congress), which included the Bioeconomy Research
and Development Act of 2021 as Division B, Title IV. On August 8, 2022, President Biden signed

46 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, conference report to
accompany H.R. 2419, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., May 13, 2008, H.Rept. 110-627, p. 923.
47 P.L. 115-31
48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, 2019, report to accompany H.R. 5952, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., May 24, 2018, H.Rept. 115-704
(Washington: GPO, 2018), p. 40.
Congressional Research Service

13

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

the CHIPS and Science Act into law (P.L. 117-80), which included the Bioeconomy Research and
Development Act of 2021 as Division B, Title IV.
Hearings
The bioeconomy has been the focus of or a significant part of several congressional hearings. For
example, in 2007, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a hearing
examining policy proposals related to energy and rural development for the 2008 farm bill.49 The
hearing included testimony from a representative of the North Central Bioeconomy Consortium, a
12-state collaborative effort that is no longer active, focused on policies that should be included in
the 2008 farm bill to support the development of the bioeconomy. In 2017, the House Committee
on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit, discussed the
bioeconomy as part of a series of hearings the committee held in preparation for the 2018 farm
bill.50 In 2019, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing to review
the opportunities and challenges associated with new and emerging biological innovations and
their application in agriculture, energy, and manufacturing; to examine the status of U.S.
leadership in engineering biology; and to receive testimony on the Engineering Biology Research
and Development Act.51 In addition, in 2019, the Senate Committee on Armed Services held a
hearing on biological threats to the United States that included testimony on the role of the
bioeconomy in national security.52 In 2020, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation held a hearing on “securing U.S. leadership in the bioeconomy.”53
Policy Considerations
The following sections describe issues for consideration regarding advancement of the U.S.
bioeconomy. Congress may pursue all, some, or none of the areas described below.
Development and Implementation of a National Strategy
Given the potential economic and societal opportunities provided by a robust U.S. bioeconomy,
NASEM and others have recommended that the federal government develop and regularly update
a national bioeconomy strategy.54 In addition, due to the complexity of the bioeconomy, NASEM
recommended that the federal government solicit input from industry, academia, and others
regarding the goals and objectives of such a strategy. Some have also called for the establishment
of a coordination body within the Executive Office of the President to oversee the development

49 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Farm Bill Proposals Relating to Farm and
Rural Energy Issues and Rural Development, 110th Cong., 1st sess., May 9, 2007, S. Hrg. 110-156 (Washington: GPO,
2007).
50 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, The Next Farm Bill, 115th Cong., 1st sess., March, 9, 2017, Serial
no. 115-3, Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 2018).
51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Engineering Our Way to a Sustainable Bioeconomy, 116th Cong., 1st sess., March 12, Serial no. 116-6 (Washington:
GPO, 2019).
52 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
Biological Threats to United States National Security, 116th Cong., 1st sess., November 20, 2019, S. Hrg. 116-259
(Washington: GPO, 2020).
53 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Oceans,
Fisheries, and Weather, Securing U.S. Leadership in the Bioeconomy, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., March 3, 2020.
54 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, pp. 347-351.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

and implementation of a national
Federal Departments and Agencies That
bioeconomy strategy. For example, a
Support Biological Research
policy proposal released by the Day One
Project, an initiative of the Federation of
Department of Agriculture
American Scientists, calls for the

Agricultural Research Service
creation of a National Bioeconomy

National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Coordination Office that is “a joint

Forest Service
mandate of the National Security Council
Department of Commerce
(NSC) and the White House Office of

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to

National Institute of Standards and Technology
work with federal agencies on bioeconomy
Department of Defense
priorities.” It also recommended each

federal agency with a role in the

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
bioeconomy appoint a senior leader to

Defense Science and Technology Program
assume responsibility for bioeconomy-

Office of Naval Research
related activities and efforts.55 As detailed

U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command
in the 2012 bioeconomy blueprint, at least
Department of Energy
25 federal departments and agencies

Office of Science
support biological R&D and have a

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
potential role in promoting the U.S.

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
bioeconomy (see box titled “Federal
Department of Homeland Security
Departments and Agencies that Support

Science and Technology Directorate
Biological Research”).
Department of the Interior
Mechanisms to improve the coordination

Fish and Wildlife Service
and governance of bioeconomy policies

U.S. Geological Survey
and activities across sectors are
Environmental Protection Agency
prominently featured in the bioeconomy
Department of Health and Human Services
strategies of other nations. In general, other

nations tasked inter-governmental

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
coordination groups with developing and

Food and Drug Administration
implementing their country’s bioeconomy

National Institutes of Health
strategy and ensuring policy coherence

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
(i.e., resolving conflicts between goals).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Some have also established advisory
National Science Foundation
bodies—composed of outside experts—
Veteran Affairs Department
tasked with evaluating bioeconomy
United States Agency for International
programs and policies and providing
Development
recommendations for improvement.
Smithsonian Institution
In 2012, OSTP released a comprehensive
Source: White House, National Bioeconomy Blueprint,
Washington, DC, April 2012, p. 18.
vision for the U.S. bioeconomy, but an
implementation plan was not developed,
and progress toward the goals and objectives outlined in the 2012 vision remains unclear. Since
2016, USDA and DOE, including through the Biomass R&D Board, have led federal efforts on
development of the U.S. bioeconomy. As described by the International Advisory Council on
Global Bioeconomy, such agencies have a “more agricultural and bioresources-based vision” than

55 Alexander Titus, A National Bioeconomy Manufacturing and Innovation Initiative, Day One Project, December
2020, p. 4, https://9381c384-0c59-41d7-bbdf-62bbf54449a6.filesusr.com/ugd/
14d834_f2dddb9288684d0591389d437284bfa8.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

15

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

the one proposed in 2012 (i.e., biomedicine, health, and biodefense are not emphasized). In 2019,
the agencies of the Biomass R&D Board, chaired by USDA and DOE, issued an implementation
framework for the development of biofuels, biopower, and bioproducts from renewable biomass
materials and waste.
On September 12, 2022, the Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14081 “to coordinate a
whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards
innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain
resilience, and national and economic security.” The policies and activities included in the
executive order would appear to respond to NASEM’s recommendation for a more
comprehensive vision and approach to advancing the U.S. bioeconomy.
Should Congress be interested in further supporting the U.S. bioeconomy, it may consider
codifying some of the efforts initiated under E.O. 14081 or establishing an alternative high-level
coordination body tasked with developing, implementing, and evaluating a comprehensive U.S.
bioeconomy strategy. It could also continue to support a more decentralized framework that
encourages sector specific programs and activities related to the bioeconomy. For example, it
could support the “bioresource vision” of the Biomass R&D Board, in addition to strengthening
bioeconomy objectives in biomedicine and health, and biodefense and national security through
separate strategies, programs, or initiatives. Congress could also consider the development of a
comprehensive bioeconomy strategy augmented by detailed sector specific implementation plans
or roadmaps. Existing interagency bodies (e.g., the Biomass R&D Board) could execute such
roadmaps or Congress could establish new interagency groups that focus on certain sectors or
aspects of the bioeconomy. Regardless of the approach, sustainment of bioeconomy policies and
programs across presidential Administrations and Congresses will likely be necessary for
maintaining U.S. leadership in the future bioeconomy. Ensuring long-term engagement, including
the provision of sufficient resources, is often challenging.
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 2019, Dr. Tara O’Toole,
Executive Vice President and Senior Fellow at In-Q-Tel and former Under Secretary for Science
and Technology at the Department of Homeland Security, emphasized the role of
biotechnology—generally considered a driver of the bioeconomy—in the future competitiveness
of the U.S., stating:
Biology will prove equally transformative—Americans just do not see it yet. This is a
problem because biotechnology is both a humanitarian and geopolitical necessity.
Biotechnology will dramatically and literally reshape our lives and our world. It will also
become a significant source of national power—economic, and in all likelihood military—
as it creates entirely new possibilities, materials, and products. The question is whether our
government can best position the United States to capitalize on this promise.56
NASEM and others have also recommended that the federal government improve its ability to
measure the bioeconomy.57 Relevant metrics are generally seen as critical to understanding the
value of the U.S. bioeconomy, in addition to tracking progress and assessing the impact of
policies. Metrics could also be useful in comparing the U.S. bioeconomy with other nations.
Standardizing such metrics would be challenging given differences among national definitions,
but they could still serve as useful benchmarks.

56 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
Biological Threats to United States National Security, 116th Cong., 1st sess., November 20, 2019, S. Hrg. 116-259
(Washington: GPO, 2020), p. 20.
57 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, pp. 341-346.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Investment in R&D
What Is Synthetic Biology?
Many experts call for increased federal
Synthetic biology is a component of biotechnology.
investment in R&D to maintain U.S.
Specifically, synthetic biology is a field of science that
leadership in the bioeconomy. In general,
involves redesigning organisms for useful purposes by
experts highlight the life sciences, computing
engineering them to have new abilities. Synthetic
biology focuses on the design and construction of core
and information sciences, engineering, and
components (parts of enzymes, genetic circuits,
biotechnology for increased support. Many
metabolic pathways, etc.) that can be modeled,
also emphasize the convergence of such
understood, and fine-tuned to meet specific
disciplines. In one example, the Engineering
performance criteria, in addition to being assembled
Biology Research Consortium (EBRC), a
into larger integrated systems to solve specific
problems.
nonprofit, public-private partnership, has

released a series of roadmaps that identify
Sources: National Human Genome Research Institute,
high-priority research areas in engineering or
“Synthetic Biology,” https://www.genome.gov/about-
synthetic biology (see box titled “What is
genomics/policy-issues/Synthetic-Biology and
Synthetic Biology?”). According to EBRC,
Engineering Biology Research Consortium, “What is
the aim of the effort is “to guide better-
Synthetic/Engineering Biology?,” https://ebrc.org/what-
coordinated efforts throughout the U.S.
is-synbio/.
government to fund and expand engineering
biology research, to engage new stakeholders, and to inform the research and scientific support
community about the challenges and potential of the engineering biology field.”58
According to the American Association of Universities,
Equally important to ensuring substantive federal investments to support the U.S.
bioeconomy is maintaining a mechanism that provides predictable, consistent, and
sustained funding. The Congressional appropriations process continues to labor to pass the
required annual appropriations measures by the end of each fiscal year.59
Beyond investments in basic and applied research in areas deemed critical to advancing the
bioeconomy, some are calling for improvements in bioeconomy-related R&D infrastructure,
including biomanufacturing platforms and pilot facilities.60 According to a report by the OECD,
support for translational R&D seems to be particularly important for advancing the adoption and
commercialization of health-related innovations.61 Additionally, given the growing importance of
“big data” to scientific discovery, a number of experts have recommended improvements in the
management of and access to biological data. For example, the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation recommends that Congress create “a National Health Research Data
Exchange to improve the collection and sharing of patient medical data for research purposes.”62

58 Engineering Biology Research Consortium, “Research Roadmapping,” https://ebrc.org/focus-areas/roadmapping/.
59 Mary Sue Coleman, President, Association of American Universities, Comments Submitted in Response to White
House Office of Science and Technology Request for Information on the Bioeconomy, October 22, 2019, p. 2,
https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Innovation-Competitiveness/AAU-response-OSTP-RFI-
Bioeconomy.pdf.
60 Martin Borowiecki and James Philp, Policy Initiatives for Health and the Bioeconomy, Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Policy Papers, No. 83, Paris, October 2019,
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/policy-initiatives-for-health-and-the-bioeconomy_9d98177b-en.
61 Ibid. According to the National Center for Advancing Translation Science, translation is the process of turning
observations in the laboratory, clinic and community into interventions that improve the health of individuals and the
public—from diagnostics and therapeutics to medical procedures and behavioral changes.
62 Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Comments by the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation, October 15, 2019, p. 7, http://www2.itif.org/2019-comments-ostp-bioeconomy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

17

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

A proposal by the Day One Project recommends the creation of a “National Biological Data
Collective…to provide a resource from which small- and medium-sized businesses applying the
tools of artificial intelligence can draw [on] to develop new products, therapies, and capabilities
for the bioeconomy.”63 The Trump Administration also highlighted the importance of biological
data, including consideration of data security and ethical use during its 2019 summit on the
bioeconomy.
As indicated in a 2017 report by the NASEM, “the profusion of biotechnology products over the
next 5–10 years has the potential to overwhelm the U.S. regulatory system, which may be
exacerbated by a disconnect between research in regulatory science and expected uses of future
biotechnology products.” To address this concern NASEM recommended
The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department
of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and other agencies that fund
biotechnology research with the potential to lead to new biotechnology products should
increase their investments in regulatory science and link research and education activities
to regulatory-science activities.64
Congress may find that a more holistic view of its investments in and oversight of biological
research, infrastructure, and data is necessary. As noted above, at least 25 federal agencies and
departments support biological research and development. The jurisdiction of such agencies spans
multiple congressional committees, which may make coordination, oversight, and coherence of
bioeconomy policies and investments more challenging.
Promotion of Regional Efforts
In order to have ready access to biological resources (e.g., crops, forests), implementation of
many aspects of the bioeconomy will occur at the regional scale and involve rural communities.
Policies to encourage the development of bioeconomy clusters and regions, including resources
for planning and the creation of networks that facilitate collaboration between diverse
stakeholders, including firms from divergent sectors and small businesses, are common.
More than 130 federal programs support economic development activities.65 The nature and scope
of such programs vary; however, a few programs may be of particular interest as they relate to the
bioeconomy and regional development. For example, the Build to Scale program (formerly
Regional Innovation Strategies) within the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development
Administration (EDA) awards grants to develop and support regional innovation initiatives and
the Small Business Administration (SBA) supports regional development efforts through its
Regional Innovation Clusters program. Congress appropriated $38 million to the Build to Scale
program and $6 million to the Regional Innovation Clusters program in FY2021.66 Both programs

63 Alexander Titus, A National Bioeconomy Manufacturing and Innovation Initiative, Day One Project, December
2020, p. 8.
64 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology, The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2017, pp. 13-14, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24605/preparing-for-future-
products-of-biotechnology.
65 For more information see, CRS Report R46683, Federal Resources for State and Local Economic Development, by
Julie M. Lawhorn.
66 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations
Regarding H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021),” Congressional Record, vol. 166, p. H7922 and “Explanatory Statement
Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations Regarding H.R. 133, Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division E—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2021),”
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 23 The Bioeconomy: A Primer

have awarded grants to regional efforts in areas that would fall under the bioeconomy. As it
relates to rural development, USDA’s Rural Business Development Grants program supports
technology-based economic development, feasibility studies and business plans, leadership and
entrepreneur training, and rural business incubators, among other activities.67 Congress
appropriated $37 million to the Rural Business Development Grants program in FY2021.68
It is unclear if existing programs and efforts to support regional innovation and technology-based
economic development, including in rural areas, are sufficient to advance the bioeconomy.
Congress may examine the size, scope, effectiveness, and synergy of existing programs, in
addition the possibility of creating new programs or modifying existing programs to promote
regional bioeconomy efforts.
Creating a Market for Bio-Based Products
According to an analysis by the OECD, bioeconomy-related policies focus primarily on supply-
side or technology push measures (i.e., support for R&D and demonstration efforts). The OECD
indicates that a shift to “a bio-based economy will likely require a balance of more demand-side
[or market pull] measures in order to help ensure a market for innovative products” (see Table
2).69
In particular, they emphasize the importance of public procurement in helping to create a market
for bio-based products. The OECD recognized the USDA’s BioPreferred Program as the most
advanced effort in this regard. The BioPreferred Program—initially established in the 2002 farm
bill and reauthorized and amended by Congress in the 2018 farm bill—requires federal agencies
and contractors to give purchasing preferences to bio-based products.70 Specifically, USDA is
required to identify eligible product categories and to specify the minimum bio-based content
required for each category. Currently, there are 139 product categories and approximately 14,000
bio-based products under the program. In addition to the federal purchasing requirements, the
BioPreferred Program also includes a voluntary labeling initiative in which a business can display
a “USDA Certified Biobased Product label” on a product that meets USDA criteria.71 Despite the
relative success of the program, the NASEM identified some areas for improvement. NASEM
stated
Although the Farm Bill mandates that federal agencies and contractors purchase biobased
products when doing so does not impose cost or performance penalties, no regular report
is available through which to understand the progress or scale of biobased procurement.
Updating the reporting mechanisms involved in the federal procurement of biobased
products, setting procurement targets, and increasing funding for the program to enable
increased awareness and standardized reporting—such as a realtime public-facing

Congressional Record, vol. 166, p. H8444.
67 For more information, see CRS Report R46235, Rural Development Provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-
334), by Alyssa R. Casey.
68 “Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mrs. Lowey, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Appropriations
Regarding H.R. 133, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division A—Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021),” Congressional Record, vol. 166, p. H7989.
69 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Innovation Ecosystems in the Bioeconomy, OECD
Science and Technology Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, September 2019.
70 For more information see, CRS Report R45943, The Farm Bill Energy Title: An Overview and Funding History, by
Kelsi Bracmort.
71 U.S. Department of Agriculture, “What is BioPreferred?,” https://www.biopreferred.gov/BioPreferred/faces/pages/
AboutBioPreferred.xhtml.
Congressional Research Service

19

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

dashboard to report federal progress in biobased procurement—would go a long way
toward stimulating the bioeconomy and supporting jobs in rural areas where many source
materials are concentrated.72
Table 2. OECD Identified Policy Measures for Creating a Bioeconomy
Innovation Ecosystem
Supply-Side/Technology Push
Demand-Side/Market Pull
Crosscutting
Local access to feedstocks
Targets and quotas
Standards and norms
International access to feedstocks
Mandates and bans
Certification
R&D subsidy
Public procurement
Skil s and education
Pilot and demonstrator support
Labels and raising awareness
Regional clusters
Flagship financial support
Direct financial support for bio-
Public acceptance
based products
Tax incentives for industrial R&D
Tax incentives for bio-based
Metrics, definitions, and
products
terminology
Improved investment conditions
Incentives related to greenhouse

gas emissions
Technology clusters
Taxes on fossil carbon

Governance and regulation
Removing fossil fuel subsidies

Source: Adapted from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Innovation Ecosystems in the
Bioeconomy, OECD Science and Technology Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, September 2019, p.
53.
Note: Italicized policy measures are those more frequently cited in the case studies examined by the OECD.
Developing a Bioeconomy Workforce
There is broad consensus that access to a skilled workforce is essential to advancing the
bioeconomy. Given the role that the convergence of disciplines—life sciences, engineering, and
computer sciences—has played in the progress of biological innovation, it is also clear that
bioeconomy education and training should be multidisciplinary in nature. However, as noted by
the OECD, “the long-standing conundrum of multidisciplinary education is the need for both
breadth and depth to graduate people with problem-solving abilities.”73 Additionally, according to
the OECD, the bioeconomy workforce needs more undergraduates than doctorates.
Many reports discuss the need to increase science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) literacy and the number of STEM graduates in the U.S. to meet 21st century workforce
needs, including the bioeconomy.74 For example, in 2018, the White House released Charting a
Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education, which “presents the Federal
Government’s five-year strategic plan for STEM education.”75

72 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, p. 351.
73 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Innovation Ecosystems in the Bioeconomy, OECD
Science and Technology Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, September 2019, p. 64.
74 For more information on STEM education, see CRS Report R45223, Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Overview, by Boris Granovskiy.
75 Committee on STEM Education, National Science and Technology Council, Charting a Course for Success:
Congressional Research Service

20

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

As it relates specifically to the bioeconomy, NASEM found that training and workforce
development efforts have occurred predominantly in the areas of synthetic biology and
biotechnology, with a few programs in bioprocessing, and that in contrast, there are a number of
European programs focused specifically on bioeconomy training at the masters and doctorate
levels. NASEM recommended that bioeconomy training and workforce development occur at all
levels and that it “should be a high priority for future public investment.”76
In addition, the Biomass R&D Board noted the need for improved analysis and modeling to
understand “workforce availability and development (both pertaining to geographic distribution
and having the prerequisite skills)” to support the expansion of the bioeconomy.77 Congress may
examine federal investments in bioeconomy training, education, and workforce development and
the progress of the federal government in attaining the goals outlined in its strategic plan on
STEM education.
Public Engagement and Acceptance
According to the McKinsey Global Institute
In the next decade, more than 50 percent of the total potential impact [of bio innovations]
could hinge on consumer, societal, and regulatory acceptance, rising to about 70 percent
over the next two decades. Effective mechanisms to govern use, such as societal norms or
regulations, will be needed to persuade society that innovations that bring benefits but may
be risky and cause discomfort are being pursued safely. Today, policies to govern use vary
significantly among countries with different value systems.78
Due to the significance of public acceptance, a number of countries are pursuing public
engagement and awareness activities and policies. For example, the European Commission has
supported more than 70 projects and initiatives to increase awareness and support for, in addition
to identifying challenges and opportunities associated with, transitioning to a bioeconomy79
In a 2017 study, the NASEM recommended that federal agencies invest in new methods of
understanding the ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI) of future biotechnology
products. NASEM noted that ELSI research associated with biotechnology represented less than
1% of the total investment in biotechnology research between 2008 and 2015.80 Congress may =
conduct additional oversight on federal efforts to enhance public awareness and acceptance of
bio-based products and services. Congress may also consider the level of resources allocated
toward ELSI-related research across federal agencies, in addition to the coordination of such
efforts.

America’s Strategy for STEM Education, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, December 2018,
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf.
76 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, pp. 205, 353.
77 Biomass Research and Development Board, The Bioeconomy Initiative: Implementation Framework, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, March 5, 2019, pp. 44-45.
78 Michael Chui, Matthias Evers, and James Manyika, et al., The Bio Revolution: Innovations Transforming Economies,
Societies, and Our Lives, McKinsey Global Institute, May 2020, pp. 22-23.
79 The European Bioeconomy Network, https://eubionet.eu/.
80 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology, The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2017, p. 185.
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 28 The Bioeconomy: A Primer

International Collaboration
Most bioeconomy-related policies and strategies focus at the national level with some exceptions
(e.g., the European Union). According to the International Advisory Council on Global
Bioeconomy, references to and promotion of international collaboration generally emphasize
cooperation between research institutions and the removal of trade barriers with “far less
discussion about issues relating to the global interconnectedness of the bioeconomy, biomass
resources, value-added chains, and technologies with international division of labor.”81
A recent study by researchers from the Stockholm Environment Institute explored the role some
international institutions and processes have taken on or could take on related to global
governance associated with the bioeconomy. The authors suggested a number of options for
international collaboration, including focusing collaboration on less controversial issues such as
research and innovation or standardization, monitoring, and verification of bio-based products.
Collaboration on such issues may level the playing field as it relates to international competition
in the bioeconomy.82
In the United States, some states have engaged in bilateral collaborations. For example, Maine
and Michigan both signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with the government of Finland
to develop joint efforts and cooperate in the forest bioeconomy.83 Michigan’s MOU also outlined
cooperation in the areas of battery technology, energy storage, and the automotive industry,
among others. Congress may examine the state of international collaboration on the bioeconomy
and the need for congressional direction in this regard.
Sustainability and Creating a Circular Economy
A number of nations, especially those in the European Union are increasingly connecting their
bioeconomy strategies and policies to action plans associated with creating a more sustainable
and circular economy (see Appendix). According to the European Parliamentary Research
Service,
Unlike the traditional linear economic model based on a ‘take-make-consume-throw away’
pattern, a circular economy is based on sharing, leasing, reuse, repair, refurbishment and
recycling, in an (almost) closed loop, where products and the materials they contain are
highly valued. In practice, it implies reducing waste to a minimum.84
Many countries see a connection between the bioeconomy and a circular economy as a means to
address a number of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In 2015, 193 countries,
including the United States, adopted the SDGs as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

81 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, pp. 161-162.
82 Stefan Bößner, Francis X. Johnson, and Zoha Shawoo, “Governing the Bioeconomy: What Role for International
Institutions?,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 1 (2021), https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/286/htm.
83 “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland and the
State of Michigan Concerning Cooperation on Clean Technologies,” https://www.michiganbusiness.org/4af068/
globalassets/documents/mous/mou-signing-between-state-of-michigan-and-finland-concerning-clean-technologies-
2020, and “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Cooperation in Forestry Between the Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry of Finland and Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry,” https://www.maine.gov/
governor/mills/sites/maine.gov.governor.mills/files/inline-files/Maine%20and%20Finland%20MOU.pdf.
84 Didier Bourguignon, Closing the Loop New Circular Economy Package, European Parliamentary Research Service,
January 2016, p. 1, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/573899/
EPRS_BRI(2016)573899_EN.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

22

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Development. The SDGs include ensuring sustainable consumption and production patterns,
taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, and ensuring access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all, among others.85 In 2021, the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) released a set of principles and criteria with the aim of
ensuring that the “bioeconomy, when implemented correctly, can benefit individual communities
and the global environment in ways that are in line with the SDGs.”86 FAO’s principles are that a
sustainable bioeconomy should
 support food security and nutrition at all levels;
 ensure that natural resources are conserved, protected, and enhanced;
 support competitive and inclusive economic growth;
 make communities healthier, more sustainable, and harness social and ecosystem
resilience;
 rely on improved efficiency in the use of resources and biomass;
 be underpinned by responsible and effective governance mechanisms;
 make good use of existing relevant knowledge and proven sound technologies
and good practices, and where appropriate, promote research and innovations;
 use and promote sustainable trade and market practices;
 address societal needs and encourage sustainable consumption; and
 promote cooperation, collaboration, and sharing between interested and
concerned stakeholders in all relevant domains and at all relevant levels.
Congress may consider the degree to which U.S. bioeconomy policies and activities can or should
be tied to and aligned with achieving the SDGs. Additionally, while the use of waste material as a
feedstock is central to a circular economy there are often challenges to its use. For example, a
2020 workshop hosted by DOE, titled “Advancing the Bioeconomy: From Waste to Conversion-
Ready Feedstocks,” found that the variability of municipal solid waste streams poses a significant
challenge for downstream conversion and detailed characterization and compositional data are
lacking to understand and manage such variability.87 Congress may examine any regulatory
impediments or other barriers to creating a circular economy.
Concluding Remarks
The crosscutting nature of the bioeconomy, in addition to the diversity of potential benefits
associated with its growth and advancement offer a number of reasons for increased
congressional interest in bioeconomy policies. Some may view support for and promotion of the

85 As described by the United Nations, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations
Member States in 2015, “provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into
the future. At its heart are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are an urgent call for action by all
countries—developed and developing—in a global partnership. They recognize that ending poverty and other
deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur
economic growth—all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests.” For more
information, see https://sdgs.un.org/goals and CRS In Focus IF10249, The Post-2015 Global Development Agenda, by
Marian L. Lawson.
86 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Aspirational Principles and Criteria for a Sustainable
Bioeconomy, Rome, 2021, p. 3.
87 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Advancing the Bioeconomy: From
Waste to Conversion-Ready Feedstocks Workshop Summary Report,” February 2020, p. 27, https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/beto-municipal-solid-waste-report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

23

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

bioeconomy as a way to accelerate post-COVID-19 economic recovery and advance public
health. Others may be more interested in the environmental benefits associated with a transition
away from fossil fuels. Still others may focus on the potential for rural development. The
crosscutting nature of the bioeconomy also poses potential challenges to effective policymaking,
including the harmonization of policies and coherent governance. Moreover, it likely means that
the growth and success of the U.S. bioeconomy will depend, in part, on effective public-private
partnerships in research, innovation, education, and workforce development. Transitioning to a
bio-based economy would take sustained commitment, including balancing short-term actions
and long-term planning, removing barriers to such a transition, and creating the opportunity for
radical innovation. As noted by the OECD,
Systemic change calls for policy making that allows both small and deep support. Vision
has to be complemented with a strategy that can be converted to action. It requires action
at multi-actor, multi-sector and multi-level, and geographically it is national, regional and
local in its approach.88
Congress may decide there is no need to reorganize or group together federal activities, including
some long-standing efforts, under a bioeconomy framework. It may decide to pursue
bioeconomy-related policies through new or existing sector-specific focused efforts, or it may
decide current policies and activities are sufficient. Regardless, other countries are adopting
policies and strategies to advance their bioeconomies. Such efforts have the potential to challenge
U.S. leadership in biotechnology and other bioeconomy-related sectors that many view as critical
to national security and economic competitiveness. According to NASEM, “Internationally, the
United States is the leader in the commercialization of advances in synthetic biology and
continues to hold an advantage in terms of the education of new Ph.D.s in the life sciences. This
position provides the basis for but no guarantee of future leadership in bioeconomy innovation.”89

88 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Innovation Ecosystems in the Bioeconomy, OECD
Science and Technology Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, September 2019, p. 8.
89 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Safeguarding the Bioeconomy, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2020, p. 151.
Congressional Research Service

24

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Appendix. Bioeconomy Efforts of Select Countries
Nearly 60 countries—spurred, in part, by the potential associated with growing the bioeconomy
portion of their national economy (e.g., environmental benefits and economic growth)—have
developed bioeconomy-related policies. The following sections provide high-level descriptions of
the bioeconomy efforts of select countries.90
China
In general, China does not use the term bioeconomy in its policy planning documents and
strategies. Instead, multiple policy documents and strategies, including Made in China 2025 and
the 13th Five-Year Plan for 2016 to 2020, refer to biotechnology, the biotech industry, or the
bioindustry as priority areas for development and growth. In general, the terms biotechnology,
biotech industry, and bioindustry describe activities within the areas of biomedicine, biomedical
engineering, agriculture biotechnology, bio-based manufacturing, bioenergy, bio-based
environmental protection, and biotechnology services—all areas that generally fall within the
scope of the term bioeconomy. According to one estimate, China’s bioeconomy amounted to
$700 billion in 2015.91
China first recognized the bioindustry as a priority area and contributor to the country’s economy
in 2006, this priority’s importance has grown over the years. For example, in 2017, through the
13th Five-Year Bioindustry Development Plan, China indicated that it wanted its bioindustry to
reach between $1.2 trillion and $1.6 trillion by 2020 and account for more than 4% of the
country’s gross domestic product (GDP).92 Additionally, China identified the biotech industry as
one of five strategic emerging industries that together would account for more than 15% of the
country’s GDP by 2020. Specifically, as described in the 13th Five-Year National Strategic
Emerging Industry Development Plan, China seeks to “accelerate the pace of innovation and
development of the biotech industry and foster new biotech economic drivers” by
 building a new biopharmaceutical system;
 enhancing the development level of biomedical engineering;
 accelerating the industrialization of biotech agriculture;
 promoting the scaled application of biotech manufacturing;
 cultivating new forms of biological services; and
 creating models for the development of bioenergy.93

90 For more information on the bioeconomy strategies of various countries see International Advisory Council on
Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of Bioeconomy Policy Development around the
World, November 2020, https://gbs2020.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GBS-2020_Global-Bioeconomy-Policy-
Report_IV_web.pdf.
91 Rob Carlson and Rik Wehbring, Two Worlds Two Bioeconomies: The Impacts of Decoupling US-China Trade and
Technology Transfer, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, 2020, p. 6, https://www.jhuapl.edu/Content/
documents/Carlson_Wehbring-Biotech.pdf.
92 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Innovation Ecosystems in the Bioeconomy, OECD
Science and Technology Policy Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, September 2019, p. 25, https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/deliver/e2e3d8a1-en.pdf?itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fpaper%2Fe2e3d8a1-en&mimeType=pdf.
93 People’s Republic of China State Council, Circular of the State Council on Issuing the National 13th Five-Year Plan
for the Development of Strategic translation by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology, November 2016, pp.
19-23, https://cset.georgetown.edu/research/national-13th-five-year-plan-for-the-development-of-strategic-emerging-
Congressional Research Service

25

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

More recently, biotechnology is included as a strategic area in the 14th Five-Year Plan, which
states China’s plans to increase R&D spending by 7% annually through 2025.94
According to a 2019 report prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission by Gryphon Scientific and the Rhodium Group
China’s biotech industry has grown rapidly over the past decade but still remains less than
a tenth the size of the US biotech industry in terms of market size. China’s biologics market
is estimated at 30 to 40 billion yuan ($4.7 to $6.2 billion) and their agricultural biotech
market is around $8.1 billion, while estimates places those US markets at $118 billion and
$110 billion, respectively. Overall, the US maintains a superior biotechnology innovation
capacity through world-class research training and strong governmental support of R&D,
but China is seeking to close that gap through its top-down government strategy and
coordination, talent recruitment programs, high R&D spending across the industry, and
capacity for high-tech R&D.95
European Union
The European Union (EU) issued its first bioeconomy strategy in 2012, stating,
In order to cope with an increasing global population, rapid depletion of many resources,
increasing environmental pressures and climate change, Europe needs to radically change
its approach to production, consumption, processing, storage, recycling and disposal of
biological resources. The Europe 2020 Strategy calls for a bioeconomy as a key element
for smart and green growth in Europe. Advancements in bioeconomy research and
innovation uptake will allow Europe to improve the management of its renewable
biological resources and to open new and diversified markets in food and bio-based
products. Establishing a bioeconomy in Europe holds a great potential: it can maintain and
create economic growth and jobs in rural, coastal and industrial areas, reduce fossil fuel
dependence and improve the economic and environmental sustainability of primary
production and processing industries.96
In 2018, the EU updated its bioeconomy strategy97 indicating that a renewed strategy will support
the transition to a sustainable and circular bioeconomy, address wider EU priorities and policies
(e.g., climate, innovation, food, and energy), and fulfill global commitments associated with the
United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development98 and the Paris Agreement.99

industries/.
94 People’s Republic of China, Outline of the People’s Republic of China 14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic
and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives for 2035, translation by the Center for Security and Emerging
Technology, May 12, 2021, pp. 8, 10, https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/
t0284_14th_Five_Year_Plan_EN.pdf.
95 Gryphon Scientific, LLC and Rhodium Group, LLC, China’s Biotechnology Development: The Role of US and
Other Foreign Engagement, A report prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission,
February 14, 2019, p. 2, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/US-China%20Biotech%20Report.pdf.
96 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A
Bioeconomy for Europe, February 13, 2013, p. 2, https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-
strategy_en.pdf.
97 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A Sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe:
Strengthening the Connection Between Economy, Society and the Environment, October 11, 2018, https://op.europa.eu/
en/publication-detail/-/publication/edace3e3-e189-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/.
98 For more information, see https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
99 As described by the United Nations, the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change,
Congressional Research Service

26

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

Specifically, the updated strategy included actions to address three priorities: (1) strengthening
and scaling up EU bio-based sectors and unlocking investments and markets; (2) deploying local
bioeconomies rapidly across the whole of Europe; and (3) understanding the ecological
boundaries of the bioeconomy. According to the EU, it invested approximately $4.5 billion in the
bioeconomy from 2014 to 2020 and plans to invest nearly $12 billion between 2021 and 2027.100
Germany
The German bioeconomy—estimated at about $500 billion—is the largest in Europe.101 Germany
considers itself a leader in the bioeconomy, developing a national research strategy for the
bioeconomy in 2010 and a policy strategy for the bioeconomy in 2013. In 2020, Germany
published a comprehensive national strategy, combining research and policy goals from various
documents into a single “coherent framework” that “lays the foundations for Germany to
strengthen its role as a bioeconomy leader and to create the technology and jobs of tomorrow.”102
Germany’s 2020 bioeconomy strategy, as with other European nations, aligns with the
bioeconomy goals and priorities of the European Union (EU) (discussed above). Similar to the
2018 EU Bioeconomy Strategy, the German strategy emphasizes sustainability and resilience.
The German government defines the bioeconomy as “the production, exploitation and use of
biological resources, processes and systems to provide products, processes and services across all
economic sectors within the framework of a future-oriented economy.”103
The German national strategy outlines two guidelines and six strategic goals. The guidelines are
 harnessing biological knowledge and responsible innovation for sustainable,
climate-neutral development; and
 using biogenic raw materials for a sustainable, circular economy.
The strategic goals are
 develop bioeconomy solutions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development;
 recognize and harness the potential of the bioeconomy within ecological
boundaries;
 enhance and apply biological knowledge;
 establish a sustainable raw material base for industry;
 promote Germany as the leading location for innovation in the bioeconomy; and

adopted by 196 countries on December 12, 2015, with the goal to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius,
compared to pre-industrial levels. For more information, see https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-
agreement/the-paris-agreement and CRS Report R46204, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement: A Summary, by Jane A. Leggett.
100 European Commission, Bioeconomy: the European Way to Use Our Natural Resources, Action Plan 2018, October
2018, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/775a2dc7-2a8b-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1.
101 Assobiotec and Intesa Sanpaolo, Bioeconomy in Europe, 6th Edition, June 2020, https://assobiotec.federchimica.it/
docs/default-source/default-document-library/bioeconomia-executive-
summary656353eb1efe40198f9258ada35ca85e.pdf?sfvrsn=d48dbd39_0.
102 German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, National
Bioeconomy Strategy, The German Federal Government, January 2020, p. 4, https://www.bmbf.de/upload_filestore/
pub/BMBF_Nationale_Biooekonomiestrategie_Langfassung_eng.pdf.
103 Ibid., p. 10.
Congressional Research Service

27

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

 involve society and strengthen national and international collaboration.104
In addition, Germany’s strategy calls for the establishment of a new advisory board tasked with
developing an implementation plan for the national strategy. Germany plans to invest more than
$4.3 billion towards the implementation of its bioeconomy strategy from 2020 to 2024. Of this
total, about $1.3 billion is to target bioeconomy-related research. From 2010 to 2016, the German
government invested approximately $2.9 billion on bioeconomy-related research.105
Italy
Agriculture and food are at the center of the Italian bioeconomy—estimated at more than $400
billion in 2018. Italy also considers forestry, fisheries and aquaculture, and bio-based industries
(e.g., chemicals) as key components of the nation’s bioeconomy.106 In 2017, Italy developed a
dedicated national bioeconomy strategy. In 2019, it released a revised strategy with the goal of
increasing the performance of the Italian bioeconomy by 15% by 2030. Both strategies define the
Italian bioeconomy as the integration of “the sustainable production of renewable biological
resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value-added products such
as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy.”107
The revised 2019 strategy created the National Bioeconomy Coordination Group (NBCG) and
tasked it with ensuring “synergy between national, regional and local public administrations and
the National Technology clusters operating in the bioeconomy,” in addition to facilitating and
monitoring the implementation of the bioeconomy strategy.108 The NBCG released an
implementation action plan in 2020. The action plan proposes to invest nearly $700 million in the
following areas:
 the creation of regional value chains and multi-purpose and multi-product
biorefineries;
 establishing a market for the use of urban bio-waste and wastewater;
 reconversion of industrial sites;
 restoration of the marine ecosystem; and
 circular and sustainable agrifood chains.
It also seeks to address regulatory barriers at both the European and national level. Furthermore,
the implementation action plan highlights what it asserts is the potential of a circular bioeconomy

104 Ibid., pp. 14-16.
105 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, p. 103.
106 Fabio Fava, Lucia Gardossi, and Patrizia Brigidi, et al., “The Bioeconomy in Italy and the New National Strategy
for a More Competitive and Sustainable Country,” New BIOTECHNOLOGY, vol. 61 (2021), pp. 124-136.
107 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development Around the World, November 2020, pp. 114-120.
108 Italian National Committee for Biosafety, Biotechnology and Sciences of Life Presidency of the Council of
Ministers, “National Bioeconomy Coordination Group Mandate,” http://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/en/areas-of-work/
bioeconomy/national-bioeconomy-coordination-body/mandate/.
Congressional Research Service

28

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

in accelerating Italy’s post-COVID-19 recovery.109From 2016 through 2020, Italy invested about
$600 million in bioeconomy research and innovation.110
Japan
In 2019, Japan—the third largest economy in the world—issued its first bioeconomy strategy. The
strategy builds, in part, on the country’s long history of support for the production and industrial
use of biomass. In 2020, Japan updated its bioeconomy strategy with an increased emphasis on
biotechnology and biological data, in addition to recognizing the potential role of the bioeconomy
in addressing and recovering from the coronavirus pandemic (e.g., developing measures against
future public health crisis and building efficient supply chains). According to the International
Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, the Japanese bioeconomy is “a concept that expands a
sustainable and renewable circular economy and society by using biotechnology and renewable
biological resources.”111 The strategy is crosscutting covering multiple sectors, including
agriculture, industry, health, and medicine.
Five basic policies guide the Japanese strategy
 The development of targeted market areas, roadmaps, and sustained commitment.
 Integration of biology with digital technologies.
 Promotion as an international hub.
 Coordination and enhancement of international strategies (e.g., standards
development, trade policies).
 Responding to ethical, legal, and social implications.112
According to the strategy, these policies reflect knowledge gained from previous efforts.
The strategy also targets the following market areas:
 High-performance biomaterials.
 Bioplastics.
 A sustainable primary production system.
 Organic waste and wastewater treatment.
 Health care for lifestyle improvement, functional foods, and digital health.
 Industries related to biopharmaceuticals, regenerative medicine, cell therapy, and
gene therapy.
 Bio-foundries, including bio-production of food products.
 Biological analysis, measurement, and experimentation.

109 Italian National Committee for Biosafety, Biotechnology and Sciences of Life Presidency of the Council of
Ministers, Implementation Action Plan (2020-2025) for the Italian Bioeconomy Strategy BIT II, July 2020,
http://cnbbsv.palazzochigi.it/media/2018/bitii_implementationactionplan_july2020-flg.pdf.
110 Fabio Fava, Lucia Gardossi, and Patrizia Brigidi, et al., “The Bioeconomy in Italy and the New National Strategy
for a More Competitive and Sustainable Country,” New BIOTECHNOLOGY, vol. 61 (2021), p. 132.
111 International Advisory Council on Global Bioeconomy, Global Bioeconomy Policy Report (IV): A Decade of
Bioeconomy Policy Development around the World, November 2020, p. 54.
112 Ibid., p. 55.
Congressional Research Service

29

The Bioeconomy: A Primer

 Large-scale construction using wood and smart forestry.113
A Bioeconomy Taskforce, composed of the heads of innovation-related agencies and offices, is
responsible for the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the bioeconomy strategy.
Multiple agencies and offices are to provide funding and other support, but the level of
investment is unclear. According to the strategy, Japan invested $56.4 million in FY2019 for
technology development related to the study and linking of biological data and for the
demonstration of bio-production.114

Author Information

Marcy E. Gallo

Analyst in Science and Technology Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

113 Ibid.
114 Translation by German Tokyo Embassy of Decision of the Council for Integrated Innovation Strategy, Cabinet
Office, Bio-Strategy 2020: Basic Measures, June 26, 2020, p. 7, https://www.dwih-tokyo.org/files/2020/10/
bio2020_honbun_en_rev-1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R46881 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
30

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Sep. 19, 2022

HTML · PDF

<1% changed

Aug. 19, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Industry and Trade

Science and Technology Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON