Okay, so, I’m aware that this is the vegan comm, and I’m vegan myself, but the report is mostly focused on sustainability, and is in no way binding. Transitioning away from meat is just a small part of it, and the actual policy and legislation is still to come. I’m going to be looking at it from a public health / food policy perspective, because I’m halfway thru a masters in that general vicinity.
I had a look through the links posted by @whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml and a few things stuck out at me immediately:
The stakeholders also agreed on the need for a major rethink of subsidies, calling for a “just transition fund” to help farmers adopt sustainable practices, and targeted financial support to those who need it most.
This reeks of grift. Hard to say for sure without seeing the actual policy that results from this report.
The report did not set targets for meat production, such as culling herds, but called for support to help shift dietary habits, such as free school meals, more detailed labels, and tax reductions on healthy and sustainable food products.
Yep. No real numbers, no real targets. This basically amounts to lip service. Again, we’ll have to see how the policy actually shakes out, but it doesn’t fill me with hope. Also, “help to shift dietary habits” is code for “blame the consumer”. Free school meals are great but watch who gets the contracts to provide said meals. My gut says it’ll be the same manufacturers. Tax reductions also sound great in theory, but I want to know what metric they’re using for “healthy and sustainable”. I can see this being gamed by manufacturers to get the tax breaks with minimal effort.
The recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas pollution within farming focus on technological solutions such as new feed and better management of manure. The report also called on policymakers to define the agri-food sector as a “critical entity”, increase financial support for the sector and give it preferential treatment.
Technical solutions are a stop-gap at best, if they ever even appear. This is just like the pie-in-the-sky “carbon capture” solutions other industries keep proposing. It’s right around the corner guys, I promise. It’s an exuse to keep the status quo. Second sentence just reads like more grift.
One was a call to better target Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding, which at €378bn representing nearly a third of the EU budget for the period 2021-7 – payments to farmers should be based on genuine need, not area farmed. Moreover, the portion of direct payments linked to environmental measures should see a “substantial annual increase” from the current 32%, the report stated.
Bit more detail on the numbers, which is nice. I’d really like to know what form the payment agreement takes, and how exactly they define “environmental measures”.
The traditional opponent of the green camp – the powerful farming lobby groups Copa and Cogeca – commended the “deliberative approach” to producing the report, one that involved all stakeholders. They welcomed in particular the recommendations for a ‘temporary Just Transition Fund’ and ‘a well-resourced nature restoration fund’ outside the scope of CAP funding to support farmers in the transition.
Hmmm, what a surprise. Lobbyists approve of allocating funding to the groups they represent. Reeks of grift.
They also called for a review of EU food labeling legislation and urged that food marketing to children be addressed, while advocating tax reductions and other social and fiscal incentives.
They’re talking about food labelling again. Industry is typically very much against labelling so I’m interested what direction this will take and what tradeoffs they’ll demand. I can see it ending up as another voluntary scheme where the labels only end up going on the products with the best ratings. Also, “other fiscal incentives.” Hmm.
And finally;
The report’s recommendations are not set in stone. Von der Leyen has committed to include the results of the stakeholder dialogue in a Vision for Agriculture and Food, to be put together during her first 100 days.
Because of course they’re not. We’ll have to see what form the policy and legislation actually take, but with the amount of money and special funds being set up, industry is going to find a way to game it.
To ensure a sufciently funded transition, both public and private capital needs to be mobilized. A Temporary Just Transition Fund should be
established outside the CAP to complement support for the sector’s swift sustainability transition.
Yep. It’s a fucking public-private partnership.
The European Investment Bank should implement a specifc group loan package for the sector.
With special loan categories! Can’t see that getting abused.
There is actually some stuff in the exec summary that sounds half decent. Like, from an environmental point of view, having a legally binding land take target seems pretty neat. It’s probably not enough, but having it binding is really nice. From what I’ve encountered in passing, my general opinion of EU governance is that they tend to get a lot right when it comes to food. I’m not from there though, so I don’t have as much firsthand knowledge or experience with their legislation.
TL;DR: Sounds nice. Ripe for exploitation by industry. And I guarantee you the reason they were at the table in the first place is to defend their own interests.
Okay, so, I’m aware that this is the vegan comm, and I’m vegan myself, but the report is mostly focused on sustainability, and is in no way binding. Transitioning away from meat is just a small part of it, and the actual policy and legislation is still to come. I’m going to be looking at it from a public health / food policy perspective, because I’m halfway thru a masters in that general vicinity.
I had a look through the links posted by @whogivesashit@lemmygrad.ml and a few things stuck out at me immediately:
From: https://portside.org/2024-09-04/europes-farming-lobbies-recognise-need-eat-less-meat-shared-vision-report
This reeks of grift. Hard to say for sure without seeing the actual policy that results from this report.
Yep. No real numbers, no real targets. This basically amounts to lip service. Again, we’ll have to see how the policy actually shakes out, but it doesn’t fill me with hope. Also, “help to shift dietary habits” is code for “blame the consumer”. Free school meals are great but watch who gets the contracts to provide said meals. My gut says it’ll be the same manufacturers. Tax reductions also sound great in theory, but I want to know what metric they’re using for “healthy and sustainable”. I can see this being gamed by manufacturers to get the tax breaks with minimal effort.
Technical solutions are a stop-gap at best, if they ever even appear. This is just like the pie-in-the-sky “carbon capture” solutions other industries keep proposing. It’s right around the corner guys, I promise. It’s an exuse to keep the status quo. Second sentence just reads like more grift.
From: https://worldbriefings.com/news/eu-farm-lobbies-embrace-less-meat-consumption-in-historic-agreement
Bit more detail on the numbers, which is nice. I’d really like to know what form the payment agreement takes, and how exactly they define “environmental measures”.
Hmmm, what a surprise. Lobbyists approve of allocating funding to the groups they represent. Reeks of grift.
They’re talking about food labelling again. Industry is typically very much against labelling so I’m interested what direction this will take and what tradeoffs they’ll demand. I can see it ending up as another voluntary scheme where the labels only end up going on the products with the best ratings. Also, “other fiscal incentives.” Hmm.
And finally;
Because of course they’re not. We’ll have to see what form the policy and legislation actually take, but with the amount of money and special funds being set up, industry is going to find a way to game it.
I also went and tracked down the exec summary of the dialogue (here: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c9fdbb7b-10c9-405f-9be8-427ef6ad7614_en). Oh look;
Yep. It’s a fucking public-private partnership.
With special loan categories! Can’t see that getting abused.
There is actually some stuff in the exec summary that sounds half decent. Like, from an environmental point of view, having a legally binding land take target seems pretty neat. It’s probably not enough, but having it binding is really nice. From what I’ve encountered in passing, my general opinion of EU governance is that they tend to get a lot right when it comes to food. I’m not from there though, so I don’t have as much firsthand knowledge or experience with their legislation.
TL;DR: Sounds nice. Ripe for exploitation by industry. And I guarantee you the reason they were at the table in the first place is to defend their own interests.