"From farm to fork." The European Parliament discussed the European Commission's strategy for sustainable food production

"From farm to fork." The European Parliament discussed the European Commission's strategy for sustainable food production

The European Parliament discussed the European Commission's strategy for sustainability food production. The "Farm to Fork" strategy. The overwhelming majority supported the positive attitude of the Committee on Agriculture and the Environment - the transition to more sustainable food production.

"From farm to fork." Sustainable food production

The following report was written by Stein Ivar Ormsettrø, food councilor in the EU delegation in Brussels.

However, a few Member States noted that a comprehensive overall impact assessment for the strategy had still not been prepared. Some are also critical of sustainability labeling and nutrition plans on the front of food packaging. These are primarily those who are concerned that some traditional, regional products may be labeled unhealthy. The resolution was adopted with 452 votes in favor and 76 abstentions.

Half of the pesticides and antibiotics. Strategy of the European Commission.

The strategy involves halving pesticides and antibiotics, and reducing the use of fertilizers. The EC proposes tightening of the rules on animal welfare with the gradual cessation of caging animals. Tightening up mandatory nutrition labeling, animal welfare labeling, and measures to reduce the consumption of meat and highly processed foods high in salt, sugar and fat. Organic production must be increased to at least 25% of the area. The implementation of the common agricultural policy at national level must be an important tool to achieve many of these goals. Parliament also deals with imported products. It is important that imported products must meet similar standards to EU products.

Farmers are part of the solution, not the cause of the problem.

Views during the debate in Parliament:

• Food production is responsible for around a third of all EU greenhouse gas emissions and an even greater proportion of biodiversity loss. The time to take comprehensive action is therefore too late.
• By reducing the use of pesticides and promoting the development of environmentally friendly alternatives, we can stop the reduction of important pollinators such as bees.
• Tightening up animal welfare laws. We can reduce the suffering that occurs behind closed barn doors and during animal transport and in slaughterhouses.
• By investing in switching to a more plant-based diet, we can save animals from suffering. We can combat food-related diseases, conserve valuable farmland and biodiversity, and reduce the climate impact of what is on our plates.
• By providing clearer food labeling and a fair price, we can empower consumers to make more informed choices about the environment, animals and their own health.
• A balanced choice must be as reasonable as possible.
• We cannot restore biodiversity or be successful with new sources of protein. However, if we continue to subsidize intensive livestock farming and sign free trade agreements that counteract sustainable development.
• By requiring a similar standard for imported products, we protect our farmers from unfair competition from other markets.
• We should discuss how we can achieve pesticide use reduction through biological alternatives and innovations, new breeding techniques and digital technology. All this without reducing yields and product quality, increasing hunger and losing farmers' income.

"From farm to fork." Strategy of the European Commission for sustainable food production

• It is reprehensible that a comprehensive, holistic impact assessment of the Sustainable Development Strategy has not been prepared.
• We are disappointed because the Commission has not been disclosing information for several months.
• The way we produce food today is unsustainable and has not been sustainable for decades. The food we eat has contributed to the destruction of soil and water. It has led to the use of pesticides, antibiotics and fuels, as well as deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions. And the saddest thing is that about a third of all food ends up in the garbage can. Therefore, we must act now.
• Farmers are part of the solution, not the cause of the problem. They want to contribute to more sustainable food production, but also the social expectations set for them must be achievable.
• Farmers must pay off greater durability. Farmers must be able to earn a living from their work.
• Farmers feel the need to invest more and more, while at the same time becoming poorer. They use more pesticides and fertilizers in increasingly eroded soil that lacks water and nutrients.
• The farmer is reduced to the role of an ecologist, controls and targets are imposed that give a lot of greenery, with the risk of favoring imports from countries outside Europe.
• We are legislating for the future of millions of farmers without having a clear idea of ​​the consequences this could entail. We are exposing the industry to a sophisticated type of Russian roulette.
• Change in food production carries more risks than opportunities. According to experts, this will lead in the short and medium term to an increase in costs, a reduction in production and an increase in food prices.
• European food production risks over-funding due to inconsistent legislation on pesticides, antibiotics and land-use changes.

Comments Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety

Kyriakides said in a debate in Parliament that the whole world must contribute by taking steps to prevent our planet from being destroyed by food production. We must ensure the transition to a more nature-friendly food system. She also pointed out that the reform of the common agricultural policy in the EU is an important tool to stimulate transformation. The National Strategic Plans currently under preparation will be able to strengthen raw material producers and strengthen the sector while reducing environmental damage.

Change in food production carries more risks than opportunities

More comprehensive common animal welfare rules will appear at the end of 2023. New food labeling rules will appear at the end of next year. They will help consumers make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices, she added. Through trade and partnership agreements, development policies, international standard-setting bodies and green alliances, the EU will work with its partners and help where possible accelerate global change. She also pointed out that new genre editing techniques can contribute to achieving common goals. No choice has been made on the future harmonized EU food label. Selection will follow a thorough impact assessment, extensive stakeholder consultation and scientific advice.

It also dismissed criticism of the secrecy of the impact assessment study. When it comes to the technical report from the Commission's own research department, she said, it was not about assessing the impact of the Farm to Fork strategy or the biodiversity strategy. The study has limitations on modeling, and includes, for example, only a limited selection of conditions and measures in strategies. Therefore, impact pricing will be carried out with all major initiatives announced in the farm to fork strategy.

Final comment and evaluation. The Commission has been criticized for holding back several studies that looked at the consequences of the strategy

The debate in Parliament was relatively heated. The Commission has been criticized for holding back an internally limited study that looked at the policy implications for several months. This is not a complete impact assessment, but has nevertheless been perceived by many as particularly reprehensible because a report has been asked for a long time.

It is known that the agricultural organization Copa & Cogeca has been lobbying to remove quantitative targets for the reduction of pesticides and antibiotics, and to downplay the link between the strategy and the use of funds from the common agricultural policy. Copa and Cogeca are accused by some of wanting to continue "business as usual".

Several external studies show that the strategy will reduce food production in the EU and raise world food prices. Reduced food production in the EU can also lead to increased food production outside the EU, in countries where greenhouse gas emissions are higher and biodiversity is further reduced.

The European Parliament discussed the European Commission's strategy for sustainable food production

The EU needs to consider how the European food system interacts with other food systems when formulating comprehensive food policy to prevent or mitigate unintended negative effects across borders. Some argued that the EU should therefore instead use its trade and development policies to invest in green agricultural technologies and sustainable agriculture, including in Africa.

Most of the parliament refused to weaken the strategy. The proposal to remove the 50% pesticide use reduction target did not get the majority. However, a proposal was adopted to invite the Commission to conduct thorough impact assessments of future legislation. Parliament supported the strategy with an overwhelming majority. The strategy is expected to be of great importance for future food production in Europe.

Parliament's approval of the strategy for for sustainable food production is an important milestone in the EU's ecological transition. The goal is a sustainable food system that has a positive impact on the environment and helps stop climate change. Biodiversity loss must be reversed. At the same time, access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food must be ensured for all. A contribution to rural development and fair return to all links in the food chain is also key, reports Stein Ivar Ormsettrø, Food Council at the EU Delegation in Brussels.

Source: regjeringen.no

Read our next article: Norway Cheese Championship