By Emanuele Bompan (editor) and Valeria Pagani (journalist) of Materia Rinnovabile
In mid-February, the European Commission presented the “Vision for Agriculture and Food,” a document outlining a roadmap for the future of the agrifood sector and its supply chain in Europe. The stated goal is to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the sector, focusing on simplification, innovation and digitalization to improve efficiency throughout the production chain. However, the document seems to have internal contradictions and little clarity on the role of farmers within this transformation. While there is talk of supporting the sector, there is a lack of clear vision on how these principles will be applied in practice.
We talked about this with Cristina Guarda, Greens/EFA MEP and farmer, who is very committed to policies related to food systems.
What is your overall assessment of the EU Vision on European Food Systems presented by the Commission for Agriculture and Food?
The Vision(document here, nda) offers an absolutely lucid analysis of the current situation in the agricultural world. A sector characterized by aging farmers and uncertain incomes that are significantly lower than the European average and, in general, than all other economic sectors. Where there is a shortage of services in rural areas, along with a marked gender gap that represents an additional challenge for the sector. Where it becomes clear, through the analysis of environmental and climate impacts on agriculture, how much productive capacity depends on these factors. In essence, an extremely sharp snapshot of current issues in the sector is offered.
The problem, however, is the policy response to this. Rather than addressing the issue in continuity with the Farm to Fork strategy, which aimed to enhance the role of farmers within the entire food supply chain with progressive proposals, we are seeing a change of course. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen seems to want to return to a more conservative logic, based only on competitiveness and attractiveness of the sector. Two words that work well in terms of communication, flanked by popular terms such as simplification and innovation, but which, at least for now, remain devoid of concrete content.
Can you explain this last statement in more detail?
There is no concrete reference in the document to what is really meant by simplification. No practical examples are given of what bureaucratic aspects Europe actually intends to erase with this policy strategy. It is not clear whether we are talking about deregulation or real, targeted simplification. Because if we are talking about environmental deregulation, it is clear that this would not solve the burden of bureaucracy on farmers at all. Another point is that bureaucracy is often not imposed by Europe, but stems from national strategic plans. And therein lies the real contradiction.
Then there is the question of innovation. There seems to be an almost ideological approach, based on theidea that technological innovation is the answer to everything. A future is painted in which technology will magically solve every problem: advanced systems to capture emissions, Assisted Evolution Technologies (TEAs) for super drought-resistant seeds, and more, practices that, as of yet, have no real feasibility.
Meanwhile, no one is investing in research areas that could make a difference: improving seeds for organic, developing agroecological practices to reduce water requirements, increasing soil performance, and generating ecosystem services critical to food production. There are also no references in the Vision to those who are experimenting with new economic models of distribution based on short supply chains. High-performing research and innovation networks already exist, based on research democracy and the direct involvement of territories in experiments, but there is no mention of any of this in the document. In the end, the risk is always the same: pushing for expensive technological solutions that forcibly put small and medium-sized farmers, who often lack the resources to afford them, into debt.
What are the main proposals that the Greens/EFA group is promoting?
As Greens, we have defined some key points for our proposal on the CAP for the future. First and foremost, income. For us it is clear: payments must be tied to job creation and not simply distributed according to the area under cultivation. That is why we propose capping the CAP at €60,000 per farm and redistributing the rest of the CAP resources to those who need them most: new farmers, young farmers, rural development plans, and funding for the transition to climate- and biodiversity-friendly agriculture. Because the right to a fair wage must apply to all farmers.
On the environmental side, we want to make economic eco-schemes more attractive and beneficial. We know that a farmer who adopts agroecological practices, while needing more time and space for production, is also helping to improve soil quality, protect groundwater from contamination, and increase biodiversity. In short, it is providing an ecosystem service that generates benefits for the entire community and all economic sectors. The principle we propose is simple: those who produce ecosystem services should be remunerated for this work. We must value the farm as a whole, recognizing economically all actions put in place to protect the environment. This means creating a new source of income, providing a stable income regardless of agricultural yields.
What are the other points of your proposal?
We have a problem of dependence on other countries: we import chemical fertilizers, such as potash, and livestock feed. The answer proposed in the Commission’s Vision is to increase domestic production, together with encouraging more extensive livestock farming and solving the problem of livestock farming emissions through the aforementioned “innovations.” What is the problem? One cannot talk about extensive farming without reducing the number of livestock raised. A more sustainable livestock farming strategy cannot go without a structural overhaul of the sector. That is why we are proposing a true protein diversification strategy: it is not enough to support more sustainable farming systems, we must also ensure equal support and promotion for plant-based and alternative protein sources. But this change cannot happen without involving citizens, as consumers. The demand for protein is changing, and policy cannot ignore it. Yet, these two points are completely absent in the current Vision, whereas they were well addressed in the Farm to Fork strategy. How do we address this path? We propose clear and reliable labels that indicate environmental impact, regional origin, and animal welfare standards so that consumers can make informed choices. The basic problem with this vision is that on the one hand we talk about the resilience of production systems, but on the other hand we focus heavily on exports. You cannot talk about food sovereignty and, at the same time, be competitive based on exports. Therefore, we call for the horizon to be first European and then international. As Greens, we oppose the Mercosur agreement, because we want a model based not on global competition, but on enhancing regional markets and strengthening short supply chains, building more sustainable and resilient alternative partnerships.
Let me change the subject and ask you about PFAS, the perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances: how important is it today to understand concretely the real spread of PFAS and , at the same time, to initiate remediation actions to address a situation that is now critical in some areas?
There are two key issues that need to be addressed. The first is to stop the production and dispersion of PFAS, and that means investing in research to develop viable alternatives. The second is finding solutions to eliminate PFASs already in the environment, because the problem is not only solved by stopping their production: we also need to figure out how to destroy them effectively and safely. We currently know how to capture them, using activated carbon, mechanical filtration processes and resins. But the real problem is destruction: existing techniques, such as microwaves, incineration and waste-to-energy at very high temperatures, are extremely expensive and often produce even smaller and potentially even more dangerous byproducts, the full effects of which, moreover, we do not yet know.
So, how to take action? We need a serious investment in research to find effective strategies to destroy PFAS without creating new risks. We also need to work to prevent companies from continuing to leach them into the environment, such as by promoting closed-loop systems that prevent contaminated wastewater from ending up in rivers or groundwater. At the same time, it is crucial to support farmers in contaminated areas by helping them develop cultivation techniques that prevent plants from absorbing PFAS from the soil. Because the problem is not only about polluted water, but also about soils, with huge consequences for agricultural production. Another crucial point is to ban their use in sectors where viable alternatives already exist, such as cosmetics and textiles. In these areas, there are no more excuses: solutions to replace PFAS are available and manufacturers must be incentivized to adopt them without further delay. In short, the path is clear: stop production and leakage, invest in research, and find solutions to safely eliminate PFAS.
Cover photo by Daniyar Orazov from Unsplash
