The resolution on the Farm to Fork Strategy was approved on Wednesday by the European Parliament in plenary session with 452 votes in favor, 170 against and 76 abstentions. The “Farm to Fork” strategy was designed to transform the European food system, making it more sustainable in several respects and reducing its impact on third countries. This is the ten-year plan developed by the European Commission to guide the transition towards a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system.
The strategy was developed to achieve 6 objectives considered as priorities by the European Commission, which are: To guarantee sustainable food production; Ensure food safety; Promote a sustainable food chain from start to finish: of the production and distribution process; Promote the consumption of sustainable foods and support the transition to healthy eating habits; Reduce food waste and fight food fraud along the supply chain.
All certainly very good and shareable, but, as all the main trade associations have pointed out for some time, some controversial points remain, which could and should be clarified so as not to make this transition towards a more sustainable agriculture a further burden on the shoulders of producers. for years already struggling with difficulties of all kinds, between unfair competition from non-European competitors (and not only with regard to made in Italy, just think of the latest case of prosek) adverse climatic conditions, devastating epidemics such as that of xylella for the Apulian olive trees and finally Covid 19 which had a significant impact on Italian and European agricultural exports and production.
The first controversial point that concerns our production very closely is the question, which for some time has been causing heated discussions among the various countries of the Union, is that of the so-called labeling, i.e. a classification of products based on their nutritional values and their greater or lesser health. The countries of the North, France and Germany in the lead would like to adopt the infamous Nutriscore, which consists in classifying according to the colors from green to yellow to red, the healthiest products compared to those with higher fat, sugar and salt content. Based on this classification, many typical products of our country, such as Parmigiano Reggiano or olive oil, would be less healthy than packaged products of large multinationals (almost all French and German).
And on this point doubts still remain on the table, as Paolo de Castro, member of the agriculture commission in Brussels said. “We are not satisfied, however, on the nutritional labeling front. Despite having opposed many attacks on our excellence, obtaining that any nutritional labeling systems do not influence consumers through color systems and are based on different portions for the various products and not on a single reference for all product categories (as the big food multinationals would like instead in favor of NutriScore, ed), the mandatory nature required in the text does not go in the direction we wish “.
The second controversial point certainly concerns the resources that must be provided to the sector to cope with this demanding transition towards a new way of producing, as Ettore Prandini, president of Coldiretti promptly pointed out “Farm to Fork is a challenge for Italian agriculture. ambitious on which there are still too many inconsistencies, starting from the need to guarantee adequate resources in a situation in which the food supply of European citizens must be ensured after the shock in trade caused by the pandemic ”.
A request also made by the CIA, which recognized the need to recognize and compensate for virtuous behavior and always looking at the essential objective of economic sustainability of companies, without which even environmental and social sustainability is not possible. But the controversy also concerned the news according to which the commission had kept a report hidden, which essentially established how, whatever the scenario, the achievement of the sustainability objectives included in the F2F would lead to a decrease in production of 5-15% in all sectors. The Popular Party was very critical and, despite agreeing with the objectives of the strategy, also asks the Commission “to provide valid alternatives to the millions of European farmers on how to achieve these objectives and continue their business”.
In short, many specters still linger on the new agricultural strategy of the European Commission, which also concern some aspects that would penalize small producers, who are most of them in Italy, compared to large farms, very widespread in Northern Europe and Eastern Europe. The group of Brothers of Italy voted no to the resolution precisely for the aspects that in their opinion could penalize especially the Italian agricultural sector “
The possibility of mandatory nutritional schemes for labeling such as Nutriscore, the prejudice on the consumption and production of food of animal origin, as well as the increase in production costs for our companies which would favor the imports of productions at a market cost lower, make us very critical of this strategy which shows an evident ideological approach on the part of the European Commission that risks penalizing our agricultural and agri-food businesses, expression of our Made in Italy “, reads a press release from the group that adheres to the ‘Ecr in Europe. the impression that is obtained is that of a sharing of the principles of a necessary greater sustainability, in which our farmers excel compared to many other European countries, but of a rather wide divergence of views on the methods, times and resources that the strategy would impose on the actors in the field. In short, the intentions are very good, but the methods and tools to be put in place to achieve their profitable fulfillment still need to be reviewed.
#Farm #fork #agricultural #production #risk