Europe needs to grow her own food
Opinion in the summer series of SAMPOL
The European food system is interwoven in a global network with countless small and large players, whether we like it or not. Nevertheless, there are certainly opportunities to make the European food system stronger.
Never before in the history of mankind have we produced so much food as we do today. In Europe we find ourselves in a Valhalla of food, but we don’t think about it anymore. We think it’s perfectly normal that all year round the supermarkets are bulging with food, both home-grown products and food that is brought here from the other side of the earth: fresh, processed, pure nature and ready-to-eat. Checks guarantee that the food on those European shelves is safe and of high quality. Apparently, that works: the risks of contamination have been reduced enormously in recent decades. Yet Europe is very concerned and you hear more and more explicitly the voice of policy calling for more competitiveness of agriculture and the development of food sovereignty. Is Europe putting the right emphasis, or is it missing the mark?
In any case, it has been burning at the gates of Europe for far too long. The crisis in Ukraine has a huge impact on the European food system, partly because Ukraine is a global player in the field of grain production. And then there are the whims of the American president. Trump is introducing one levy after another under the motto ‘Make America Great Again’. China is building mega stables, also known as pig hotels, up to more than 20 floors high. Potato production in India is exploding. And what is Europe doing? Europe beats and anoints its farmers. Those farmers receive billions of euros in subsidies, but have to comply with increasingly strict regulations. They have to compete against fierce competition from outside, where social, economic and ecological standards are often far below the European standard. The playing field is not fair. Competition is unfair, especially for basic products, the bulk of food production. A potato remains a potato, no matter where in the world you produce it.
SOVEREIGNTY: THE ILLUSION OF EUROPE
As is often the case with social problems, there is no silver bullet. In any case, erecting a wall around Europe is not one of the options. Our store shelves would be meagre if the trade in food came to a halt. After all, the European food system is interwoven in a global network with countless small and large players, whether we like it or not. A few examples illustrate the illusion of food sovereignty for Europe.
Plants need fertilizers, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Without fertilizer, a plant will not grow. Globally, China, America, India and Russia are the largest nitrogen fertilizer producers. Potassium is found in Canada, Russia, Belarus and China; and for phosphorus you have to go to China, America and Morocco. In other words, Europe imports fertilizer. No fertilizer, no agriculture. Or is it?
In a fully circular system, there is no need for synthetic fertilizers. The excrement of humans and animals then goes onto the field and the circle is complete. Europe could opt for that. The Green Deal certainly contains elements that reinforce such a goal, just think of the investment in biofertilizers. Circularity is fantastic – considered purely – but the downside of agriculture without synthetic fertilisers is that we produce a lot less food. Statistics show that without the use of synthetic fertilizers, 4 billion people can be fed, half of the current world population.
We take a second example from livestock farming. There too, we are miles away from self-sufficiency or sovereignty, although we sometimes hear policymakers calling for home-grown meat to be eaten. Europe has a nice number of livestock, and that certainly applies to Flanders. However, whether those animals are ‘home-bred’ depends on how you look at the matter. Our livestock farmers work very hard, let there be no doubt about that, but without the massive import of animal feed, we cannot maintain that livestock. As for fertilizers, the import of animal feed comes mainly from other continents, such as North and South America.
SHOULD EUROPE THEN JUST ACCEPT THE FACTS?
Certainly not. There are certainly opportunities to make the European food system stronger. Investing in technology and innovation is an obvious choice. This also includes, for example, a reflection on the current legislation on breeding and genetic engineering. Europe is running, or stumbling, hopelessly behind with its policy.
Moreover, the European system works like a creaking cog that lacks clout. Plant protection products are being withdrawn from the market, but alternative products are in the endless queue of the European bureaucratic system, waiting for approval. The consequences for agriculture are not long in coming. Farmers stand by restlessly as their harvests dwindle while hard labor is destroyed by a disease or plague. You would get frustrated for less.
But innovation and technology have their limitations. After all, researchers are not magicians. For example, you can make a barn low-emission, but you don’t turn a cow into a milking or meat robot. The impact of animal production on the environment and climate is much higher than that of plant-based products, even billions of euros of innovation are not going to change that. And that’s where the shoe pinches. Europe is fixated on how the farmers produce, but ignores what is on the European fields. Freedom of choice of the farmer, that’s what it’s called. That is true, were it not for the fact that Europe, with its agricultural policy and associated subsidies, does help determine which production is profitable for a farmer.
The discussion about a better balance between the sectors in agriculture and horticulture is not being held. Or is it? After all, we invest in protein-rich crops, also on Flemish soil. It should be noted that the vast majority of this protein-rich cultivation serves to feed livestock, and is therefore not intended for direct human consumption.
OUR PLATE, YOUR VOTE
This brings us to another urgent issue: the European consumer’s plate. There is also some work to be done there. Half of Europeans weigh too much. This overweight not only leaves its mark on obese fellow human beings, it puts our entire economic fabric under pressure. ‘Diseases of affluence’ is called something like that. It mortgages the future of our young people. It costs us a sea of doctor’s prescriptions and medicines. It gives employers sleepless nights. And last but not least, it works like a leech on the state coffers.
Europe knows the problem. After all, you really can’t miss it anymore. But campaigns and labels on our food are not enough to turn the tide. More is needed. An unambiguous policy that focuses on healthy food. That doesn’t have to be a negative message. More fruits and vegetables. At school, in stations, public spaces. Let’s start with that. Preferably today, because the rest of the world is not waiting for Europe.