Farm to Fork Strategy Meeting Strong Resistance

Once again the EU violates the principle of subsidiarity, micromanaging policies that should be set at the national level or even lower.

From The European Conservative

By Bridget Ryder

The EU’s Farm to Fork policy is not only facing strong opposition from agribusiness, but even the commissioner responsible for agriculture has expressed his reservations.

While the EU has moved forward with its plan to abolish the combustion engine, another flagship aspect of the Green Deal—agriculture and food policy—is proving almost impossible to implement. 

The Commission released the Farm to Fork strategy in 2020, proposing some 30 measures to transform both agricultural practices and consumer food habits. It looks to tighten animal welfare standards, triple organic agriculture, reduce pesticide use and fertiliser runoff by 50%, and create standardised consumer food labelling to nudge Europeans’ eating habits away from fats, salt, and sugar, towards more ‘sustainable’ nutrition.

But it is meeting resistance from both member states and industry. Even EU Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski, who has always been sceptical of the plan, recently downplayed its importance.

“The Green Deal is not a law,” Wojciechowski told the Polish Parliament in December 2022. “It is a political program in which all sorts of objectives are included, and which, as is the case with political programs, will be implemented to a greater or lesser extent.”

Indeed, the Commission initially emphasised that the strategy largely consists of aspirational targets. But the EU Parliament’s resolution supporting the strategy called for giving them a “binding nature,” in other words, moving from aspirations to law. In June 2022, the commission proposed a revamp of the bloc’s pesticide rules that includes binding targets to reduce pesticide use in member states. 

Consumers are already pushing some in the agriculture industry to use fewer pesticides, but the target is still meeting strong resistance, as shown in an internal report from the Directorate General of Agriculture on the implementation of the Farm to Fork policies. 

Titled “overview of the politically sensitive topics,” the document was leaked to Politico, which revealed that the issue is “very sensitive in the Council and with stakeholders.” The national reduction targets sent by the Commission to member states are under debate, the document added, because the proposed cuts were made by the health and food safety directorate. Despite the fact that the Farm to Fork policies directly affect farmers, the commissioner for agriculture and the Directorate-General for Agriculture have largely been sidelined from its policy creation. 

Although the strategy is called Farm to Fork, Ursula von der Leyen, Commission president, put its formulation and implementation in the hands of the health and food safety department of the EU. The agriculture department still controls the Community Agriculture Policy (CAP) that governs farm subsidies and comprises about a third of the EU budget, but the two policies are separate. Wojciechowski was notably absent from the public presentation of the strategy and under von der Leyen, his directorate has lost political influence compared to previous commissions.

Additionally, according to Politico, proposals in the Farm to Fork strategy related to nature restoration and the circular economy (markets that incentivise reuse) are “politically sensitive” for the farming sector. Recommendations, meant to crack down on greenwashing by companies, are considered “too burdensome” for agrifood businesses. Meanwhile, the proposal to cut back on the amount the EU spends on promoting red meat and wine—two star European agricultural products—is “blocked”—leading some to consider it hypocritical for Brussels to continue to promote foods while establishing policies to discourage Europeans from consuming them, particularly meat and fat. 

Not surprisingly, proposals to put health warning labels on alcohol and to create “nutrient profile” requirements to market foods as healthy are just as contentious. Along the same line, the possibility of creating a new food sustainability label is viewed with “high political concern by the farming community.” Furthermore, suspicions have been raised by a new regulatory framework to permit growing gene-edited crops, currently being drafted by the Commission. 

All the criticism coming before the Commission has unveiled the capstone of the policy—a legal framework outlining what it considers a sustainable food system. Nevertheless, the framework is already facing “possible criticisms from third countries on rules applicable to imports,” according to the document. 

The U.S. has been highly critical of Farm to Fork. In 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a study that estimated it would lead to reduced productivity and higher food prices. Imports into the EU are often required to conform to the same production requirements as EU products, raising concerns about its wider effects. The U.S. has also expressed deep reservations about pesticide use restrictions. 

Even within the EU, a new framework “might generate concerns” for farmers and others who are already “highly regulated,” the directorate general for agriculture warns. 

“Every time the EU comes up with another requirement, not only does it impose an extra cost on producers but it also makes it harder for non-EU competitors to serve EU consumers,” Pieter Cleppe, editor-in-chief of brusselsReport.eu told The European Conservative. 

He added that there is often an underlying protectionist aspect to the regulations.

In a recent article in The Critic, Cleppe cited the EU’s long-standing opposition to genetically modified crops while wanting to reduce the use of pesticides: 

The EU’s anti-innovation mindset surrounding GMO crops has put it out of step with the rest of the world, but genetic modification could be a wiser alternative to heavy-handed regulation of pesticides. As findings by the renowned molecular biologist Marc Van Montagu make clear, GM technologies not only reduce the need for pesticides but also increase productivity, reduce soil erosion, and prevent tons of CO2 emissions.

Meanwhile, the EU Parliament has cited gaps in the Farm to Fork policy, as it does not address the low prices farmers are paid for their products. In February, it also called on the commission to develop a comprehensive strategy for fertilisers to alleviate Europe’s dependence on synthetic fertilisers whose nutrients are necessarily imported from countries such as Russia. 

The impact of the Farm to Fork strategy—as part of the Green Deal—will be explored during a panel discussion hosted by The European Conservative on the EU’s legislative priorities for 2023. Pieter Cleppe will participate in the event, “Europe: A Path Forward?” to take place in Brussels on March 22nd, at the Silversquare working space at 11:00 a.m. It is open to the public but will require registration.