Parliament decides on F2F this month, here is what it should know

Parliament should raise serious questions about the plans...

This month the European Parliament is set to discuss the Farm to Fork strategy of the European Commission. The plans set out significant changes to the farming system, mandating a 50% reduction of pesticides by 2030, and an increase to 25% of the share of organic in all EU food production in 2030. Adding to that, the strategy wants to set out goals for "healthy diets", combining the goal of reducing meat consumption for both health and environmental purposes.

The essential claim is that processed meat is a danger to public health, as it is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The “associated with” is quite an important keyword here, especially since it is being repeated so often. Everything you consume is essentially carcinogenic, and can therefore be linked to different cancers. The question is how dangerous it is exactly. 

A study by Dr. Marco Springmann and James Martin, both Fellows at the Oxford Martin School bases claims on is a 2011 meta-analysis from the Paris Institute of Technology for Life, Food and Environmental Sciences, which says this:

“The preventability of colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom through reduced consumption of red meat, increased fruit and vegetables, increased physical activity, limited alcohol consumption and weight control was estimated to be 31.5 per cent of colorectal cancer in men and 18.4 per cent in women.”

You may have noticed here that reducing red meat consumption is just one out of five key characteristics that people would have to follow in order to cut down their risk of colorectal cancer by up to a third (for men). If you narrow it down only to red meat consumption, you find a possible risk reduction in the UK of five per cent, provided the person was eating more than 80g of red meat per day. So yes, certain people can reduce their risk of certain cancers to a certain degree if they limit their consumption of red meat.

But can a generalised food policy even address these issues, or shouldn't it rather be a conversation between patients and physicians? In a similar way, some consumers have serious gluten-intolerance, but that problem does not require a solution that demands an overhaul of the entire food system. 

The MEPs addressing the Farm to Fork strategy should also request more intensive studies into the effects that the strategy will have on farmers and consumers. USDA's own study found that it would lead to a decline in agricultural production between 7-12%. Meanwhile, the EU’s decline in GDP would represent 76% of the decline in the worldwide GDP. Adding to that, the situation of food security and food commodity prices deteriorates significantly under a worldwide adoption scenario, as USDA researchers have found.

We needed thorough impact assessment for the Farm to Fork strategy, and the European Commission needs to be asked to justify :

1) If EFSA-verified pesticides are declared as safe, then why do we need a 50 per cent reduction target for them?

2) What happens if we increase organic food production from the current 8% to 25%, but consumers don't increase their demand? In case of price crashes, who will be held responsible?

3) Who will be held responsible if the USDA projection for Farm to Fork is correct?

4) Will the Commission be transparent about the fact that organic farming also uses pesticides?

5) Why does the Commission not fast-track approval of genetic engineering technologies, that are essential for the fight against climate change?