Do EU food and agricultural policies need a health check?
It is very unlikely that the present inflationary pressures on fuel and food prices will soon abate, and that prices of these basic commodities will return to the levels they were a year or two ago. There are of course different causes to these...
It is very unlikely that the present inflationary pressures on fuel and food prices will soon abate, and that prices of these basic commodities will return to the levels they were a year or two ago. There are of course different causes to these developments which are threatening to throw the world economy into a deep recession. However, more importance needs to be given to the effect that current EU legislation, and regulations relating to food and agricultural standards, might be having on the spiralling costs of food in Europe.
One of the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, which introduced the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), was "to provide food at reasonable prices". Many are now arguing that, despite various reforms in the CAP, this most important EU policy is partially responsible for the present rise in food prices. The latest reforms proposed by EU Agricultural Commissioner Ms Mariann Fischer Boel on May 20 are aimed "to slow down soaring food prices".
But they may not go far enough. As is normal in all political organisations where conflicting interests of different countries need to be reconciled, compromises have to be made to keep everyone happy. This is not an easy task, as was revealed recently when French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticised EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson for being too lenient in his negotiations with the World Trade Organisation by promoting more liberal trade policies. In fact, President Sarkozy strongly believes that the way the EU should be tackling food shortages and spiralling prices is through heightened protectionism and subsidies.
On the other hand, Britain never felt comfortable with the effects of the CAP and other food regulations. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is now putting pressure on the EU Commission to relax its rules on importing genetically modified animal feed. Mr Brown believes that GM crops are of vital importance in the attempt to cut spiralling food prices.
The debate on genetically modified crops is frequently very emotive. France and many other EU countries have labelled GM foods as "Frankenstein foods" and are clearly not convinced about their safety. The fact that BSE, that devastated the British cattle industry some years ago, was attributed to contaminated food is adding weight to the arguments of those who fear the safety of GM foods.
However, it is a fact that Europe is running short of animal feed because of its strict licensing regime. This will undoubtedly give rise to even higher prices for animal fodder and eventually to the prices that consumers have to pay for their food. It is therefore very encouraging that the most recent CAP-proposed reforms are aimed at encouraging farmers to again utilise all their land rather than leave them fallow, as was the practice up to very recently.
The EU also needs to examine which of its food standards are really meant to protect consumer safety, and which are mere stumbling blocks to free trade. While there will always be a market for niche food products, like organic vegetables and free-range poultry products, the demands of a growing population in an expanding European Union make the provision of good quality and safe food produced in the most economical way an inevitable top priority for EU legislators.
We have all heard about how certain EU food standards are discouraging the production and availability to the consumers of good quality foods at reasonable prices. I remember distinctly how a few years ago a consignment of cucumbers exported by a Gozitan company was turned back in Germany because these cucumbers, although perfectly fresh, had a slight curvature contrary to the EU standards for this product. This consignment of cucumbers was of course left to rot, to the financial detriment of the Gozitan farmers who produced them.
What the EU should be doing is to encourage more research on producing drought- and pest-resistant crops in order to increase yields.
We should also be helping Third World countries, especially in the neighbouring African continent, to utilise genetically modified seeds that are herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant in order to feed their impoverished millions and to export their surplus to Europe and other advanced economies.
Pulling the world out of poverty and hunger should be the dominant aim of world politicians and the leaders of agricultural research companies.
While there is no convincing evidence so far that GM crops or foods cause harm to humans, regulators still need to be vigilant to ensure that scientific research is intensified to nip any emerging safety problems in the bud. However, we should also urge our politicians to make their voices heard in international fora about the need to let the effects of globalisation spread to the EU agricultural industry which at present is too protected from competition.
May the health check on the CAP, and other food standard regulations, promoted by the EU Agricultural Commissioner be endorsed by the European Commission in the shortest possible time to ensure that the production and trading of food products is liberalised, because this will be an important tool to calm down spiralling food prices.
One of the objectives of the Treaty of Rome, which introduced the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), was "to provide food at reasonable prices". Many are now arguing that, despite various reforms in the CAP, this most important EU policy is partially responsible for the present rise in food prices. The latest reforms proposed by EU Agricultural Commissioner Ms Mariann Fischer Boel on May 20 are aimed "to slow down soaring food prices".
But they may not go far enough. As is normal in all political organisations where conflicting interests of different countries need to be reconciled, compromises have to be made to keep everyone happy. This is not an easy task, as was revealed recently when French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticised EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson for being too lenient in his negotiations with the World Trade Organisation by promoting more liberal trade policies. In fact, President Sarkozy strongly believes that the way the EU should be tackling food shortages and spiralling prices is through heightened protectionism and subsidies.
On the other hand, Britain never felt comfortable with the effects of the CAP and other food regulations. Prime Minister Gordon Brown is now putting pressure on the EU Commission to relax its rules on importing genetically modified animal feed. Mr Brown believes that GM crops are of vital importance in the attempt to cut spiralling food prices.
The debate on genetically modified crops is frequently very emotive. France and many other EU countries have labelled GM foods as "Frankenstein foods" and are clearly not convinced about their safety. The fact that BSE, that devastated the British cattle industry some years ago, was attributed to contaminated food is adding weight to the arguments of those who fear the safety of GM foods.
However, it is a fact that Europe is running short of animal feed because of its strict licensing regime. This will undoubtedly give rise to even higher prices for animal fodder and eventually to the prices that consumers have to pay for their food. It is therefore very encouraging that the most recent CAP-proposed reforms are aimed at encouraging farmers to again utilise all their land rather than leave them fallow, as was the practice up to very recently.
The EU also needs to examine which of its food standards are really meant to protect consumer safety, and which are mere stumbling blocks to free trade. While there will always be a market for niche food products, like organic vegetables and free-range poultry products, the demands of a growing population in an expanding European Union make the provision of good quality and safe food produced in the most economical way an inevitable top priority for EU legislators.
We have all heard about how certain EU food standards are discouraging the production and availability to the consumers of good quality foods at reasonable prices. I remember distinctly how a few years ago a consignment of cucumbers exported by a Gozitan company was turned back in Germany because these cucumbers, although perfectly fresh, had a slight curvature contrary to the EU standards for this product. This consignment of cucumbers was of course left to rot, to the financial detriment of the Gozitan farmers who produced them.
What the EU should be doing is to encourage more research on producing drought- and pest-resistant crops in order to increase yields.
We should also be helping Third World countries, especially in the neighbouring African continent, to utilise genetically modified seeds that are herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant in order to feed their impoverished millions and to export their surplus to Europe and other advanced economies.
Pulling the world out of poverty and hunger should be the dominant aim of world politicians and the leaders of agricultural research companies.
While there is no convincing evidence so far that GM crops or foods cause harm to humans, regulators still need to be vigilant to ensure that scientific research is intensified to nip any emerging safety problems in the bud. However, we should also urge our politicians to make their voices heard in international fora about the need to let the effects of globalisation spread to the EU agricultural industry which at present is too protected from competition.
May the health check on the CAP, and other food standard regulations, promoted by the EU Agricultural Commissioner be endorsed by the European Commission in the shortest possible time to ensure that the production and trading of food products is liberalised, because this will be an important tool to calm down spiralling food prices.