In May 2020, the European Commission presented the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, the European Union’s flagship initiative for a more sustainable, healthy and fair food system. The strategy combines almost 30 regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives to enable sustainable food production, promote sustainable food consumption, stimulate sustainable food processing and food service practices, and reduce food loss and waste.
The first deliverables of the Farm to Fork strategy have already entered into force, such as the EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices, which was published on 5 July 2021, and the action plan for the development of organic production presented last year. Two months ago, the Commission adopted a Communication on a contingency plan for ensuring food supply and food security in times of crisis, which marks a further step towards the implementation of the strategy.
Many others are expected over the next few years. One of the most compelling is a Commission proposal to revise EU rules on front-of-pack labelling by the end of 2022. Nutrition labelling has been mandatory on all pre-packaged foods since 13 December 2016 (EU Regulation1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers). However, the way in which nutrition information is presented on the front-of-pack is not harmonised by European law. This information is simply provided voluntarily by food business operators.
However, when drafting the abovementioned Regulation, co-legislators agreed that, in the absence of a front-of-pack nutrition labelling system that is understandable and acceptable to all EU consumers, member states and food business operators should be able to develop their own systems, tailored to their consumers. The aim was to gather experiences on how the various systems worked and to decide at a later date upon which was the most appropriate. That time has come: the Commission is moving towards introducing mandatory front-of-pack nutrition information via a revision of Regulation 1169/2011.
There are currently several types of front-of-pack labels used in the European Union. These can be divided into four main categories: numerical labels, colour-coded labels, graded indicators and endorsement logos. For instance, Denmark has been using the keyhole logo since 2009, France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain have all progressively adopted the Nutri-Score since 2016, and the Nutrinform Battery recently became the official system in Italy.
From these categories, the European Commission will select and propose a scheme as a unique mandatory system throughout the EU. In this regard, the EC published an impact assessment in 2020, followed by a public consultation on 13 December 2021 (open until 07 March 2022), where respondents can express their views and vote for their favourite scheme.
This has already created heated debates among industry sectors and member states. Each existing system has its own calculation methods, which benefit some products more than others: for instance, Parmigiano-Reggiano and Parma ham producers in Italy and Roquefort producers in France consider themselves wronged by the Nutri-Score and object strongly to it. Under the Nutri-Score algorithm, products such as these would be classified D or E, while a good rating will be attributed to certain diet sodas as the Score does not take additives into account.
Another element of discord is the reference used, which can be per serving, per 100g of food (or 100 ml of liquid) or per reference intake, which would resonate differently with consumers. The ongoing public consultation is the last opportunity to express official, written feedback before the Commission publishes its proposal. It remains to be seen what will be done with it: while public views and feedback expressed in public consultations are taken into consideration in the decision-making process, the Commission is not bound by them.
EU Member States Falling Short
In two new briefings on soil and grasslands conservation, national agricultural experts at Birdlife and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) analysed how eight and eleven respective EU Member States planned to use CAP funds to protect and manage grasslands and to ensure and safeguard soil health on EU farms. The briefings find that they insufficiently do so. CAP plans for 2023-2027 fail to adequately protect and sustainably manage valuable grasslands and show too little ambition to safeguard EU soils. The findings are at odds with the EU Green Deal’s ambitions for its Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies.
This complements findings of previous Birdlife and EEB briefings that find the draft CAP strategic plans are unlikely to reach the 10% biodiversity target set by the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The plans fail to sufficiently protect wetlands and peatlands and thereby to safeguard the preservation of carbon-rich soils. Clearly, there is room for improvement. The European Commission has sent out its Observation Letters to Member States, pointing out gaps and calling for higher environmental and climate ambitions.
“Vested interests are arguing that with the conflict in Ukraine taking place, the EU should take a step back from its ambitions for the environment and climate, otherwise it may face global food shortages. But that argument couldn’t be further away from the truth. Science clearly states that healthy ecosystems are our best allies to safeguard our food systems. Sadly, our assessments show that new CAP strategic plans will fail to protect natural resources and support the continuation of damaging policies. Farm Ministers should stop gambling with our future and seriously invest in protecting our planet and the ecosystems our food production relies on.”- Marilda Dhaskali, EU Agriculture Policy Officer, BirdLife Europe.
Environmental ambitions set by the European Green Deal are integral to addressing biodiversity loss and climate change. However, these targets cannot be met if current draft CAP plans that hurt the environment are approved. The series of thematic briefings published by Birdlife Europe and the EEB confirm that the European Commission must push for stronger CAP strategic plans that align with the Green Deal targets.
Czech Republic Wanting to Hold Off on Farm to Fork
Štěpán Černý, director-general for European Affairs for the Czech government told EURACTIV. “It would be wise to forget about the EU’s flagship sustainable food policy, the Farm to Fork strategy, throughout the Czech Republic’s presidency to instead focus on increasing food production.” Amid the challenges posed by the war in Ukraine, focussing on producing enough food to meet demand should be a priority instead of decreasing it as Farm to Fork aims to do.
“Let’s maybe forget for a while on [the] Farm to Fork strategy […] for a couple of months, and let’s mobilise the foodstuff production as much as we can,” he said during a recent event. Questioned further by EURACTIV on the sidelines of the event, the representative explained that this is because the strategy “has its stated goal [as] reducing the amount of food we are producing.” “The ambition of Farm to Fork, and it’s explicit by its authors on a couple of occasions, is to reduce the amount of food we are producing. And I don’t think that’s the wise thing to do only this right now when you’re being threatened by hunger,” he said.
This seems to fly in the face of the Czech Agriculture minister Zdeněk Nekula’s line of thinking, who recently told EURACTIV that the Green Deal “was not dead”. Asked about this apparent contradiction, Černý said that, while this sentiment still holds, some “practical steps” are required to “solve the problem at hand in the short term”.
While sustainable ambitions should not be stopped, they should be paused throughout the six-month Czech Presidency to “reorient the strategic thinking about Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).” According to him, this would give some leeway for member states’ national strategic plans to just “use all the money and tools they have right now to produce as much food as they possibly can within the shortest time span.”
“Let’s mobilise all the tools to expand as much foodstuff production as we can over the next couple of months and to mobilise all the resources we have,” he emphasised. In this way, the presidency is not focusing “solely on sustainability in the long run, but on next winter or the next couple of months.”
For Černý, increasing EU food production also carries broader geopolitical importance. Pointing out that, as things stand, Russian President Vladimir Putin will not open the ports in Ukraine nor de-mine the surrounding sea ports, Černý said that the EU runs the risk that “global hunger caused by Putin will shift the blame to the EU for being too hard on Putin”. He warned that this narrative is already gaining ground in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. “So in order not to have the EU seen as the cause of global hunger [..] we need to really mobilise the resources we have,” he said, adding that sending foodstuffs labelled as from the EU to places where hunger is pervasive is “probably the best answer”.
The ’Watering Down’ of the Farm to Fork Strategy
Ten countries have joined forces to water down the ambition of a flagship EU environmental policy on pesticides, according to an internal document dated 8 June. Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia want a list of exceptions — which would excuse a country if it does not meet the pesticide-reduction target included in the upcoming law.
With war raging in Ukraine, concerns over food security have been on the rise — rolling back EU climate policies. New EU rules on the sustainable use of pesticides, a key initiative of the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, were postponed in mid-March after what campaigners say has been an intensive campaign by pro-pesticide farming lobbies.
The proposal would set an EU-wide legally binding 50 percent pesticide-reduction target by 2030. But the group of central and eastern European states has raised concerns over the impact of such policies on the food crisis that is currently unfolding as a result of the Russian blockade of Ukraine’s grain exports. “Food security and the competitiveness of the EU agricultural production have been facing many challenges … [which] have been further exacerbated by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” their joint statement said.
In such context, they say, it is crucial to provide “stability” and “proportional measures” to European farmers and consumers. The so-called ‘non-paper’ includes a list of exceptions that would excuse member states for their continued or increased use of pesticides. They said countries should be allowed to change the course of action if “the member state foresees that it will not achieve national 2030 reduction target due to unpredictable reasons” such as new pests, the occurrence of invasive species or structural changes in agriculture”.
“Doing nothing is clearly not an option,” EU health commissioner Stella Kyriakides told MEPs last week. The upcoming proposal will include binding targets although there will be different national targets, she said. “This is necessary to move forward … [but] all member states will have to make an effort.”
Nevertheless, the group of 10 member states has noted that the 50-percent pesticide-reduction target will apply to the EU as a whole. “Setting the obligation to act instead of the obligation to reach the target will secure better implementation of the legislation,” they also said in the non-paper. They argue that the contribution of individual countries to achieving these targets should take into account the intensity of pesticide use in each member state and “the need for plant protection in order to maintain a sufficient level of agricultural production, guaranteeing food security.”
To secure a prosperous future, Europe needs is a paradigm shift towards a food system that puts the health of people, planet, and animals at its core. To make this happen, European leaders should keep steady course and not dilute the Farm to Fork’s ambitions. It also means using the upcoming sustainable food systems law as a game changer for the public good.
