The World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) claims that “EU policies do not favor sustainable producion or consumpion”. By checking the credibility of the source and analyzing the statements of the EU Commission, we conclude that the claim is mostly true.
Understanding food security and sustainability in the EU
The EU is increasingly focusing on sustainable and healthy food systems. A big part of this conversaon is about whether these policies help create food systems that are both sustainable and healthy.
EU’s support for struggling agricultural sectors
The EU has a program called Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS) which gives financial help to certain agricultural sectors, especially those that are having a tough time. This support is meant to stop these sectors from failing, which could cause wider problems. However, the EU makes sure this program follows strict rules to avoid causing issues in the market.
WWF’s take on the EU’s agricultural support
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has stated in their article, which relies on a report which is a desk-based review investigating the determinants of the cost of food by the environmental consultancy RSK ADAS Ltd (ADAS) commissioned by WWF-EU and WWF-UK, that the Voluntary Coupled Support, which is mentioned above, is driving the overconsumption of meat and dairy. Upon request, WWF writes that this statement refers to the ‘Who determines the cost of food?’ report, which says that a lot of the VCS money (about 70%) goes to livestock. Citing research by Jansson et al. (2021), WWF suggests that if we reduce these subsidies, we might have fewer animals for meat, higher meat prices, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. This idea aligns with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2019 regarding the impact of farming on the environment. In their study, it was found that eliminating VCS payments would decrease EU emissions by 2,354kt. However, this wouldn’t effectively reduce global emissions, as reductions within the EU would likely be offset by increases elsewhere, unless dietary changes are made alongside the subsidy removal.
It should be mentioned that this is only a prediction and does not factcheck the claim. However, WWF admits that there is a lack of empirical evidence to directly link subsidies to the final prices of meat. The article by WWF does not consider the absence of detailed empirical evidence. Therefore, the statement that Voluntary Coupled Support inevitably promotes the overconsumption of meat and dairy cannot be scientifically proven.
Issues with EU’s Fixed Price System
Another issue raised by the WWF pertains to the EU’s fixed price system, funded by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). The EAGF supports EU farmers in ensuring a consistent supply of safe, nutritious, and affordably priced food.
The WWF criticizes the exclusion of fruits, vegetables, and organic products from this system. This claim in the report is credible, as the official website of the European Commission publicly discloses this information. The WWF’s response indicates that this exclusion creates an uneven playing field, disadvantaging these healthier and more sustainable food options. The WWF again refers to the report which states that the exclusion of certain products from support mechanisms results in fruit, vegetable, and organic farmers having to lower their prices when the market price drops to stay competitive, in contrast to farmers in other eligible sectors. The report shows that prices vary significantly in Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, and Sweden due to seasonal availability changes.
Moreover, a price increase has been observed following the global financial crisis, Covid-19, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Eurostat data (2023), cited in the report, shows significant price fluctuations in food items like fruits and meats across EU countries. For instance, in Sweden from May 2022 to February 2023, the price indices for both fruits and meat consistently increased, from 121.64 to 132.95 and 125.59 to 135.25, respectively. This trend of rising prices is similarly observed in other countries and across different food categories.
The WWF’s study relies on these Eurostat figures, which, being a European Commission website, are a credible source. Therefore, it’s true that farmers offering fruits, vegetables, and organic products are disadvantaged due to their exclusion from the fixed price mechanism, lacking the same protections as other products despite their environmental and health benefits.
European Commission’s response
The European Commission has responded upon inquiries and explain, that most of the money they give to farmers (over 87%) isn’t linked to how much the farmers produce. This means that the subsidies help farmers without making them produce more than what people want to buy. The Commission also talks about the rules around CIS, the Coupled Income Support. They say that this support also doesn’t lead to too much production and is important for the economy of some sectors. In the EU, coupled income support is primarily based on the number of animals or hectares rather than actual production to avoid encouraging production intensification.
Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts
The Commission warns upon inquiries that neglecting support for certain sectors may endanger them. Contrary to the belief that this support leads to overproduction and lower meat prices, the Commission argues that reducing support or imposing production limits could harm small family farms and benefit larger EU farms due to payment structures.
Ceasing production could create severe economic and social issues in rural areas, affecting living standards, job availability, and environmental health, as livestock is crucial for maintaining grasslands and promoting sustainable farming practices like crop rotation.
The Commission notes a WWF report’s warning: without targeted livestock support, the EU may increase meat and dairy imports, raising greenhouse gas emissions outside the EU (carbon leakage). Additionally, without Coupled Income Support, a significant drop in EU production could lead to reliance on imports from less sustainable regions, potentially worsening the global environmental footprint.
Fertilizer use and food retail transparency
The WWF is also concerned about how much fertilizer is used in EU agriculture. They state that around 74% of EU farmland is fertilised, making the sector very vulnerable to price shocks, ultimately resulting in higher prices on the shelf for consumers. The European Commission’s information confirms that fertilizer prices have risen for farmers, due to the Russian war against Ukraine and the subsequent surge in energy and mineral fertilizer costs. In October 2022, prices decreased again, but not to the levels of previous years. The 74% also aligns with the information provided by the Fertilizers Europe association and the European Commission.
The EU agricultural policies are quite complex. They must balance many things like economic needs, public health, environmental sustainability, and global trade. The European Commission’s response sheds light on their efforts to keep this balance, showing how carefully they need to think about these policies.
Conclusion
In short, the claim that EU agricultural policies favour unsustainable practices in food production, particularly in meat and dairy, is substantiated by external research. However, the EU Commission’s responses also highlight the importance of these policies for economic and environmental sustainability, with a focus on supporting smaller farms and sustainable practices. Therefore we came to the conclusion that the claim “EU policies do not favour sustainable production or consumption” is mostly true.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE – Julia van der Zee and Simon Gruninger, Jade University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Leave your comments, thoughts, and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.
