Food for thought for policymakers

MEPs discuss agriculture and food policy.

Thijs Berman and Lily Jacobs

Europe’s agricultural policy has failed effectively to incorporate food policy and this has to change. Structures of subsidies are still such that fat and sugar are cheaper than vegetables and fruit and that is why obesity is a problem that affects Europe’s lower income groups the most.

Demography in rural areas has changed and agriculture plays less of a role in them than it once did. Environmental concerns over sustainability and climate change have become a priority. Consumers worry about food safety and quality. Food and non-food production are now seen to struggle with each other over land use. And yet despite these major changes, the text of the treaty on European agricultural policy remains unchanged. The original objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as stated in Article 39 of the treaty were (i) productivity; (ii) a fair standard of living for farmers; (iii) stabilised markets; (iv) security of food supplies, and; (v) reasonable prices for consumers. The CAP’s main objectives have been reached for quite a long time. So, if we now want to go to quality food, it will require a new perspective and a different CAP.

Our CAP should be divided in two, with one policy responsible for the maintenance of rural areas, as part of regional policies. The second part should deal with the common food policy, where consumer concerns over what we put on the end of our forks determine the conditions under which the farmer produces and not the other way around. In such a system, Europe would pay for landscape management and nature preservation where the market fails to do so. Farmers would produce the safe, high quality, value-for-money food that consumers demand.

The idea of an integrated agricultural and food policy is not new. Indeed the Land Use and Food Policy Intergroup in the European Parliament first suggested the creation of a common food policy more than 20 years ago. Distinguishing between rural policy and common food policy could have prevented some of the problems that the EU is currently facing in terms of obesity and diabetes. Such a structure would have even been able to decouple price support for sugar and dairy products earlier and made sure that the needs of consumers and farmers were brought together for the benefit of both.

Indeed, the time is ripe to be asking questions about how to promote quality food in a sustainable way for both our farmers and our consumers. We must engage in an open, democratic debate to improve food quality and sustainability for the health of the community. This debate should bring us beyond what the mainstream understanding of the EU agricultural policy would lead us to believe. With the Commission on the brink of publishing its newest proposals on nutritional labelling and the CAP health-check well underway, we need to decide a plan for the future which will ensure that Europe’s farmers are able to make a good living producing nutritious, high-quality food which is sold at fair prices to consumers.

Although we have come a long way in the last 20 years, we still have much farther to go before achieving an integrated agricultural and food policy - one that separates itself from rural policy. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament’s powers will be extended to some aspects of trade policy and agriculture. But perhaps the strongest force here - as always - will be the people: more and more European consumers have begun to call for their food to be grown in sustainable ways, both in Europe and throughout the world. It is now up to political decision-makers to make this radical step to a healthier Europe.

• Dutch Socialist MEP Thijs Berman chairs the Land Use and Food Policy Intergroup and Dutch Socialist MEP Lily Jacobs is a member of the Parliament’s committee on agriculture and rural development.

Neil Parish

I cannot recall a column I have written recently that has not reminded readers how British farmers already produce food to the highest standards and quality in the world. Of course, the rest of Europe is not far behind either.

From my perspective, the greatest threat to the quality of food in our supermarkets is not from our own farmers, but from comparatively sub-standard imports from other nations whose regard for traceability, animal welfare and quality assurance are far inferior to those we enjoy here in the EU.

Take, for example, our recent campaign to force an EU clampdown on entirely unacceptable lapses in the safety of Brazilian beef. After years of raising concerns, the European Commission has finally taken some action against a number of holdings reported to be at risk from underhand practices, such as removing ear tags, and levels of quality and traceability that would cause a European farm to be shut down.

But while Brazilian beef is arguably the worst example of unacceptable safety standards, there are many other holdings licensed for export around the world that, while perhaps not breaching the rules, employ practices and values at which the average European consumer would baulk. There may be some MEPs who would argue the answer is to ban all food imports. I am definitely not one of them. I would much rather see the Commission take action only against the most prolific cases, while allowing free trade to flourish and all the power placed in the wallets of the consumer to decide from where their food should be sourced.

Robust labelling is the key to improving food quality. I believe consumers have never been so conscious of where their food originates from and how it has been produced. As concerns continue to grow over the quality of imported food, our obesity crisis, and animal welfare standards, more and more consumers will continue to opt for local production and organic farming methods. The EU has a role to play by ensuring food labels tell us simply and effectively all we need to know about food quality, traceability and animal welfare standards. For example, protected designation of origin and protected geographical indicators on our foods help identify quality produce from particular regions of Europe that are often prepared through ancient and non-factory methods.

As we conduct a ‘health-check’ of the Common Agricultural Policy, my priority is to continue the process of reconnecting agriculture with the marketplace. Of course the European Union can continue to force new standards and regulations onto farmers, but in the long run that will only stifle farming, rather than unleashing the competitive spirit of our farmers in a way only market-led consumer demand can. Farmers will have to respond to the market-place so that if consumers want cheap, low-grade, less safe and lower-welfare produce, they shall have it. But we all know they want the opposite.

Ultimately, how you look at the debate on food quality is determined by what role we all believe the government should play in our lives. I believe government’s role is to ensure a high level playing-field of minimum standards, but also to empower consumers to determine higher levels of quality if they demand them. Others want to see the government legislate to force standards to the highest denominator. Both are valid viewpoints, but I believe the former will allow farmers to innovate and respond to market demand, while the latter will tie up farmers and stifle agri-businesses. The main exception to this rule would be animal welfare standards, where I believe both governments and consumers have an equal obligation to ensure we continue sensibly but positively to force up standards across the board.

European farmers have the highest standards in the world and our role in the EU is to ensure that those standards remain viable in a modern global marketplace.

• UK centre-right (EPP-ED) MEP Neil Parish is the chairman of the Parliament’s committee on agriculture and rural development.

MEPs discuss agriculture and food policy.