The challenge of food systems around the globe is to address the climate impact of agriculture. Farming accounts for about 11 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Arguably, we could just “stop farming” — as suggested by a recent viral video of an environmental protester on Twitter — but as long as we need to eat to get through the day, our policy solutions need to be more sophisticated than that.

As the federal government moves to divest from fossil fuels in transportation or help upgrade residential homes to improve energy efficiency, which contributions can agriculture realistically make?

House Democrats have expressed the desire to make the 2023 Farm Bill into a climate bill, focusing on the protection of forests, research funding in the effects of climate change, as well as conservation programs for wildlife and soil conservation. Those protections are vital, and many of them have bipartisan support in the farm bill, yet arguably the most effective way in which the U.S. reduces greenhouse gas emissions has been its improvement in efficiency.

Between 1947 and 2017, U.S. total factor productivity growth in agriculture tripled, even though farmers are using less land and personnel. There are a variety of reasons for this, including modern farming equipment, crop protection chemicals, as well as crop genetics. Take no-till farming: reducing tillage means farmers are releasing less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — a practice made possible by the commercialization of herbicides.

Recently, the USDA hosted the Agricultural Outlook Forum, and as someone who covers food and trade policies in Europe, the mere difference between the approach in Brussels and the one in Washington D.C is remarkable. While Europe is entrenched in a battle over whether genetic engineering in farming should be made legal after over two decades of debate, USDA puts biotechnology front and center in the fight against climate change. USDA’s Agricultural Innovation Agenda emphasizes how new technology enables sustainability and growth, contrary to the European perspective, which seeks to degrow the sector.

In Europe, the “Farm to Fork” strategy of the European Commission hangs in the balance. In 2020, the EU executive announced ambitious plans that would slash pesticides use, increase organic farming, as well as reduce fertilizers and farmland, but the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have caused concern. The strategy and its accompanying legislation keep facing harsh criticism from EU governments, members of the European Parliament, and farmer representatives. Last summer, Dutch farmers protested the government in The Hague for disregarding the needs of livestock farmers in the fight against nitrous oxide emissions. The Dutch government plans on buying farmers out of their profession to cut those emissions, making farmers seem as a problem as opposed to part of the solution. The European model of solving climate change by reducing production has come with an array of perverse effects: if the Netherlands reduces its livestock production capacity but not its demands, it will simply import meat or dairy products from neighboring EU members. Or take the example of Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, which buys neighboring farms to get access to more emissions permits. The unfortunate reality appears to be that Europe is focused on meeting targets on paper without a long-term vision of ensuring social and environmental sustainability at the same time.

The Farm to Fork strategy is stuck in the mud. Eastern European nations feel unjustly targeted in the pesticide reduction ambitions; meanwhile, Italy and France argue over a new mandatory nutrition label, which Rome believes discriminates against the Mediterranean diet. Even the EU’s own farm commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski has voiced criticism against parts of the European Green Deal. Late last year, Wojciechowski threatened to block Dutch farm subsidies to bring attention to the unfair rollout of green policies between East and West.

The different approaches between Europe and the United States have been an issue for a transatlantic trade agreement for many years. Current U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack probably knows this best. In 2021, he explained to the European Parliament in a virtual appearance that the differences in how Europe and the United States treat crop protection and genetic engineering are an obstacle to the two blocs’ trading. Vilsack saw the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) fail when he served as agriculture secretary under the Obama administration. Europe was unable to agree on the specifics of allowing American imports into its tightly regulated food market, and the subsequent four years under the Trump administration killed all hopes for talks being renewed. 

That said, the Biden White House also knows that the tide is turning in Europe. Leaders in Brussels increasingly regret having killed transatlantic trade through its internal disputes, and the EU’s executive is increasingly sympathetic to crop genetics, which caused so much of the trade dispute during TTIP negotiations.

Climate change doesn’t stop at borders, nor should the ambition to improve environmental sustainability. Transatlantic trade, sharing best practices and banking on new technologies are the keys to improving the safety, availability and affordability of food.

Originally published here

The European Union is carving out the legislative framework for so-called Sustainable Food Systems (SFS). In essence, these new regulations would label and then seek to phase out what Europe considers to be the least sustainable food products.

This measure will hit European producers as much as American exports to the EU.

In a leaked document obtained by Politico Europe, the European Commission states that it intends to fight the perseverance of agricultural inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) and “unsustainable and unhealthy diets” through SFS. The minimum sustainability requirements by the EU would be based on the “do no significant harm principle” (DNSH), including “non-negotiable qualifiers” for both domestic production, exports, and imports.

The bottom line is that the European Union wants to create governing principles on what a healthy and environmentally-friendly diet looks like and makes no secret of the fact that it seeks to ban products that do not adhere to that principle.

The rules of the SFS would set a new precedent for world trade. The EU’s aspirations of slowly moving to an all-but-organic food model while giving out more farm subsidies than the United States do create further trade imbalances.

The U.S. already imports more food from Europe than the reverse, resulting in a trade deficit of $24 billion in 2021. The European Commission is not just thinking of phasing out food products from the United States it deems “unsustainable” but also those foodstuffs that were treated with crop protection tools that are commonplace in the world food market.

Consider this: Europe demands that American farmers do not export goods to Europe that were treated with neonicotinoid insecticides (known as neonics), despite the fact that France had to put a three-year pause on its ban because sugar beet farmers were facing extinction.

The European Commission also adds in its document that land use is a large contributor to biodiversity loss. While that is correct, it conveniently ignores and omits that the American food system is not only more efficient but that its efficiency is also biodiversity-friendly.

When you produce more food with less agricultural and energy inputs, you lower your carbon footprint and allow forestry and wildlife to recover. Europe’s plans to reduce farmland use, cut down on pesticides and fertilizers, as well as a significant subsidy boost for organic agriculture, makes it more dependent on agricultural imports — imports that it somehow also wants to pick and choose from.

The European Economic Area (which comprises the EU and its associated members) has 447 million consumers, representing a significant marketplace for American farmers. However, while America buys European produce and has made continuous attempts at a free trade deal, Europe has wanted to have its cake and eat it too.

Originally published here

Si le prix de la viande continue d’augmenter, le nombre de végétaliens suivra… par pure contrainte financière !

A l’heure où les capitales européennes sont le théâtre d’importantes manifestations d’agriculteurs, il est temps d’analyser ce qui a provoqué le mécontentement des acteurs du secteur agricole et ce que cela signifie pour l’ensemble de l’industrie.

Au cours de l’été dernier, les agriculteurs néerlandais ont manifesté contre les nouvelles règles environnementales de leur gouvernement. Pendant plusieurs semaines, des milliers d’agriculteurs ont brûlé des bottes de foin et bloqué des routes et des centres de distribution alimentaire afin d’attirer l’attention sur les nouvelles règles de l’UE qui risquent de paralyser le secteur.

Le gouvernement de La Haye tente de suivre les directives de l’UE en réduisant les émissions d’azote dans le pays de 50% d’ici à 2030. Les émissions d’oxyde nitreux et de méthane sont des sous-produits de l’élevage, par exemple lorsque le fumier est déposé. Les Pays-Bas, ainsi que le Danemark, l’Irlande et la région flamande de la Belgique, bénéficiaient d’exemptions concernant les plafonds fixés par l’UE pour le fumier en raison de la faible superficie de leurs terres, mais cette exemption est sur le point de prendre fin pour les agriculteurs néerlandais. Dans la pratique, cela signifie une réduction considérable du nombre d’animaux d’élevage et la faillite de nombreux producteurs laitiers.

Fromages menacés

Même avec la perspective d’un rachat des activités par le gouvernement (ce qui a été proposé), les éleveurs ne sont toujours pas d’accord avec les projets de l’UE. La perspective d’une réduction considérable du nombre d’animaux de ferme mettrait également en péril les produits laitiers traditionnels bien-aimés du pays, tels que les fromages de Gouda et d’Edam. Les protestations des agriculteurs ont entraîné la démission du ministre de l’Agriculture, Henk Staghouwer, en poste depuis moins d’un an, mais le gouvernement reste ferme dans sa décision de suivre les directives de l’UE.

Le 3 mars, les agriculteurs se sont rendus à Bruxelles pour exprimer des préoccupations comparables sur les objectifs de réduction des émissions d’azote. Les organisations agricoles ont déclaré dans un communiqué commun que l’accord sur l’azote, dans sa forme actuelle, « provoquera un carnage socio-économique ». Elles souhaitaient que l’accord reflète mieux les perspectives d’avenir du secteur agricole.

Il s’avère que les nouvelles restrictions concernant les émissions toucheront le secteur agricole encore plus durement qu’on ne le pensait. Les informations obtenues par Euractiv montrent que les plans de l’UE toucheront trois fois plus d’élevages de porcs et de volailles que prévu. Jusqu’à présent, l’UE ne comptait que sur une fraction de l’élevage pour appliquer ses règles, mais cela est sur le point de changer. Bien que certains États membres de l’UE fassent pression, il est probable que les restrictions prévues seront mises en œuvre, ce qui causera des dégâts dans un secteur agricole qui a beaucoup souffert de la directive Covid-19 et de la guerre en Ukraine.

De 20 à 53% d’inflation alimentaire

L’Union européenne a dévoilé sa stratégie « Farm to Fork » en mai 2020, au début de la pandémie de Covid-19. Ce plan prévoit une réduction significative des pesticides et des engrais de synthèse, ainsi qu’une augmentation de la production de l’agriculture biologique.

La Commission européenne, l’organe exécutif de l’UE à Bruxelles, dévoile structurellement des paquets législatifs qui font de ces plans une réalité, mais qui se heurtent à des critiques de la part des agriculteurs et des consommateurs. Lorsque l’USDA a réalisé une étude d’impact sur les effets de la stratégie, elle a constaté que les prix agricoles augmenteraient de 20 à 53%. L’UE elle-même n’a pas présenté d’étude d’impact.

Face aux critiques croissantes et à l’inflation générale des prix des denrées alimentaires, le Conseil européen (qui représente les Etats membres de l’UE) retarde à présent la mise en œuvre de la réduction des pesticides, notamment parce que les pays d’Europe centrale et orientale craignent qu’elle n’entraîne une nouvelle hausse des prix des denrées alimentaires.

En septembre dernier, une source du Financial Times affirmait que, « dans des pays comme l’Espagne, une réduction de 50% de l’utilisation des pesticides entraînerait une baisse importante de la production ».

Les protestations des agriculteurs néerlandais ne sont que la partie émergée de l’iceberg de la boîte de Pandore que l’UE a ouverte en s’immisçant dans le système agricole européen. La vision utopique et déformée de l’agriculture véhiculée par l’environnement se heurte aux besoins réels des consommateurs.

Sans innovation, moins de production

En fait, la solution européenne consistant à développer l’agriculture bio va à l’encontre de l’objectif de réduction des émissions de dioxyde de carbone. Les émissions de CO2 augmenteront de 70% si l’agriculture biologique devient la norme, comme l’ont montré des chercheurs britanniques.

La raison en est simple : l’agriculture bio a besoin de plus de ressources et de plus de terres agricoles pour obtenir le même rendement. Les aliments biologiques sont donc non seulement moins bons pour l’environnement, mais aussi plus chers pour les consommateurs.

Quant à l’élevage, c’est la décroissance qui est à l’œuvre. Incapables de concevoir que l’innovation permet de résoudre bon nombre des problèmes de durabilité de notre époque, les gouvernements réduisent les effectifs du secteur alors que tous nos concurrents améliorent les leurs. La mentalité de la décroissance utilise le langage de l’urgence pour réaliser ce qu’elle a toujours voulu réaliser de toute façon : l’abandon progressif de la consommation de produits carnés.

Si le choix de ne pas manger de viande ou de trouver des alternatives à la viande est libre, ce n’est pas à ceux qui s’opposent à la consommation de viande d’opposer leur point de vue aux autres. En outre, l’abandon progressif de l’élevage ne met pas seulement en péril le prix de la viande, mais aussi celui des produits laitiers de toutes sortes.

Nous devrions être végétaliens par choix, et non par contrainte financière.

Originally published here

When the European Commission (the EU’s executive arm) unveiled the “Farm to Fork” (often referred to as F2F) strategy in May 2020, the repercussions of the years to come were unknown. Brussels laid out an ambitious roadmap for agricultural reform: reducing land use, severe cuts in synthetic crop protection, reduction in synthetic fertilizers and boosting organic production.

Three years later, the strategy at the heart of the European Green Deal faces stark opposition, even from within. The commission’s agriculture commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, has said he thinks F2F unfairly disadvantages Eastern European member states. And farm lobbies oppose the plans based on feasibility. In arguing for pausing the F2F, President Emmanuel Macron of France said, “Europe cannot afford to produce less.”

Arguably, the commission has been surprised by two events that will continue to shake Europe: the COVID-19 pandemic and the incurred recovery spending, and the war in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are large food exporters to the European Union, which relies on them for everything from fertilizers to non-GMO animal feed. However, the commission also failed to deliver on impact assessments. While a U.S. Department of Agriculture study found the Farm-to-Fork strategy would shrink Europe’s food trade and even GDP, Brussels faced criticism from European Parliament lawmakers who claimed its impact assessments were delayed and overly optimistic.

The flagship legislative cornerstones of F2F are stuck in inter-governmental dispute: the reduction of chemical pesticides pins farm-heavy member countries against the commission; Italy rejects the EU’s approach on food labeling, which it believes discriminates against the Mediterranean diet; and EU trade partners take issue with the planned animal welfare rules. 

On trade, Europe is opening itself up to battles at the level of the World Trade Organization because it also requires trade partners to start imposing agricultural regulation that mirrors its own. African nations have pointed out that EU food rules unjustly discriminate against foreign imports.

The baseline for F2F is the precautionary principle, a legal doctrine that has imposed the strictest food standards on European farming. While this system appears cautious on its surface, it has also prevented European farmers from using modern technological advances in their work. Take gene editing: as CRISPR-Cas9 technology revolutionizes foodstuffs in the United States, Canada and Brazil, it remains banned in the EU under precautionary rules. Producers would have to disprove all eventual negative side-effects before getting market access.

Contrary to risk-based analyses, this is what scientists refer to as hazard-based risk assessments. Hazard, in this context, refers to the possibility of doing harm, while risk refers to the probability that it will. This approach has led to the ban of many chemical pesticides authorized for use in the United States.

EU rules on greenhouse gas emissions have also angered farmers across the continent. Last summer, Dutch farmers descended on the cities to protest nitrous oxide reduction targets. Nitrous oxide and methane emissions are byproducts of livestock, for instance, when manure decomposes — an effect Dutch authorities are trying to avoid by buying farmers out of their livestock business.

Agricultural expos these days flaunt high-tech solutions: smart sprayers, drones, and AI-powered data analysis. New breeding technologies allow plant breeders to create efficient and resource-saving crops, meaning that we produce more with less, effectively surpassing peak agricultural land use. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Innovation Agenda has made innovation a prime target for biodiversity and sustainability gains. Meanwhile, Europe feels the weight of an agricultural policy that essentially asks farmers to cease their professions to protect the environment — an approach that is coming to haunt it as international trade and losses in purchasing power lay bare the vulnerabilities of our food systems.

Originally published here

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Bill Wirtz, a senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, joins Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to explore the relationship between agricultural innovation and free trade and discuss the differences in American and European food regulations.

Listen HERE