Your tax dollars at work. Which farm gets the bulk of government handouts? Photos: (l) Chris Robert on Unsplash; (r) greenpeace.org
A startling new UN report highlights the massive damage being done to people and the planet by more than half a trillion dollars in government subsidies for agriculture and food systems. And it highlights how politicians are afraid to take on powerful vested interests protecting the status quo.
But there’s good news
New research shows there is more public support for climate-friendly food policies than politicians may believe, and it suggests ways to remake the food system. This should provide incentives for policy makers to drive real change.
First, let’s survey the damage
87% of the $540 billion in global agricultural subsidies is ‘harmful’ because it hurts people’s health, fuels the climate crisis and drives inequality by rewarding the wrong behaviour and the wrong players in the food system, according to the report. Agriculture contributes 35% of global GHG emissions, 70% of biodiversity loss and 80% of deforestation.
These government payments “are inefficient, distort food prices, hurt people's health, degrade the environment, and are often inequitable, putting big agri-business ahead of smallholder farmers, a large share of whom are women," the UN report said.
UN experts are calling for a global rethink and redistribution of agricultural subsidies to make them more environmentally sustainable and equitable.
For example, beef and dairy, the biggest sources of food-related GHG emissions – and typically produced in factory farms by large industrialized groups — receive the bulk of the subsidies.
The report recommends reducing support for the “outsized” meat and dairy industries in rich countries, as well as the monocultures and use of polluting chemical fertilizers/pesticides in lower-income countries, while increasing support for healthy foods such as vegetables and fruit, and small farm holdings.
“This report is a wake-up call for governments around the world to rethink agricultural support schemes to make them fit-for-purpose to transform our agri-food systems and contribute to the Four Betters: better nutrition, better production, better environment, and a better life,” said Qu Dongyu, Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
Back to the good news
As we approach the landmark COP26 Climate Summit, politicians wary of pushback if they enact climate measures that impact the agri-food system, should draw courage from a new report. The Meat Atlas, from respected German NGO, Friends of the Earth, shows there is more public support for climate-friendly food policies than policy makers appear to believe.
Because many people already believe the climate is a reason to eat less beef and pork, governments have enough public support to reduce meat consumption. Source: The Meat Atlas.
A European Investment Bank survey (chart above) of 30,000 people in 30 countries shows that 78% (China), 65% (EU) and 54% (US) support reductions in red meat consumption to fight climate change. The survey also found that subsidies for meat substitutes and price breaks for plant-based diets are popular in China, Germany and the US.
A wide range of policy options were tested, from reducing subsidies for meat producers, (a 50% cut is popular), price breaks for plant-based diets and alternatives meats (very popular), a 15% tax on meat consumption (some support) to funding healthy food purchases for lower income families (very popular).
“If policymakers find the right measures and introduce them in the right order, it will stimulate the transition to a more sustainable future and help reduce political risks,” the report says.