In an era where a just transition to fair and sustainable practices is not only critical, but also agreed upon – as illustrated by the outcome of the Strategic Dialogue – the continued excessive influence of a small number of powerful agri-food businesses (Big Agri) over our food and farming systems raises serious concerns. Daniel Lissoni and Samantha Ibbott report.
The massive influence of Big Agri has, yet again, been exposed for all to see in two recent reports, one by Changing Markets Foundation (CMF) and another by a network of investigative journalists from across Europe – helpful summary by Lighthouse Reports. Their findings detail how a handful of influential actors shape global agricultural policies and public perception for their own benefit, and at the expense of people and planet.
Caught in the act
In July this year, CMF exposed the actions taken by 22 of the largest meat and dairy companies to strategically sidestep climate action. By employing tactics reminiscent of those used by fossil fuel and tobacco companies, these companies have spent billions globally to spread misinformation and doubt about the environmental health impacts of their operations. By lobbying aggressively against regulations and funding misleading research, they have worked tirelessly to maintain the status quo.
CMF’s report provides stark details on how industry-funded think tanks and front groups have worked tirelessly to shift the narrative and undermine scientific consensus on the need for urgent climate action. This includes downplaying the significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (between 21–37% of total GHG emissions are attributable to the food system according the the IPCC) and promoting technological fixes that divert attention from the need to reduce the overconsumption of meat and dairy.
As Caitlin Smith, Senior Campaigner at Changing Markets Foundation, notes: “Despite clear science that we need to reduce meat and dairy production to stay anywhere close to 1.5°C of warming, the Big Meat and Dairy influence in the EU remains significant, including through what we termed ‘agrodemia’ – where the industry funds scientists to support its interests.
We tracked how these industry funded narratives found their way into EU policy discussions and were used at the highest political level to derail EU Commission’s commitments to green our food and farming, including action on agricultural methane emissions.
In addition to this, our research revealed that companies and their industry groups had over 600 meetings at the highest level and spent millions on lobbying the EU to delay and derail climate action.”
As Caitlin highlights, in addition to their deep pockets, these industries have deep political connections which enables them to influence policy at the highest levels. Their substantial contributions to political campaigns and their presence in decision-making bodies ensure that their interests are well-represented, often at the expense of the consumer, small farmers, and environmental and human health.
The erosion of civil society space
While Big Agri enjoys privileged access to formal and informal meetings, we have witnessed a recent shrinking of civil society representation. For example, the Hungarian Presidency recently broke with the longstanding tradition of including civil society (in this case us, the EEB) at informal ENVI Council discussions. This exclusion raises serious concerns and marks a deepening trend that threatens citizen participation in political processes. As EEB’s Faustine Bas-Defossez (Director for Nature, Health and Environment) stated: “It was a crucial moment for broad, inclusive dialogue, and leaving out key voices, not least from civil society, undermines the spirit of collaboration [as seen in the Strategic Dialogue].
Farmers’ protests: A power play
On the other side of the food chain, investigative journalists delved into the recent tsunami of farmers’ protests across Europe, exposing how even here the “strongmen of agriculture” have co-opted these movements for their own gain. While genuine grievances among many farmers exist— such as unfair prices for produce and burdensome regulations for little return (80% of the EU’s agricultural budget goes to just 20% of farms, namely the largest) — the individuals negotiating behind closed doors do not represent the average farmer or share their grievances.
These leaders, often wealthy landowners (and even a fur farming magnate) with significant ties to large agricultural corporations, have use the protests to advance their own agendas. Their aim? To sway public opinion and political policies in favour of large-scale agribusinesses, which can result in further marginalisation of small farmers, further pressure on the environment, and poor diets for consumers.
Investigations revealed how in France, key figures from the Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) hold multiple influential positions, blurring the lines between genuine farmer representation and corporate interests. Over in Germany, the actions of Deutsche Bauernverband’s (DBV) provided a warning for the Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU agriculture in Brussels, as the farmer association backtracked on agreements it had made in the German process that inspired the Brussels one. It would be a major setback for EU agriculture if those who took part in the Brussels Dialogue took actions. And finally, in Italy the Coldiretti union, which claims to have millions of members, has a revolving door relationship with politics as well as extensive links to political and business elites, influencing policies to consolidate power further to the great concern of smaller unions.
The broader impact
Both reports underscore the need for transparency and accountability in the agricultural sector. The concentration of power among a few influential actors not only skews policies in favour of Big Agri but also hampers efforts to address critical issues like the climate crisis, destruction of nature (farming is the main driver of biodiversity loss in Europe), future food security and a fair and safe environment for workers.
The manipulation of public perception and political influence by these powerful entities poses a significant challenge to achieving a sustainable and equitable food system. If Europe wishes to secure a genuine and just transition of its food and farming systems, it must address this imbalance and ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and acted upon at every level, not just in one-off mediation exercises such as the Strategic Dialogue.
A brighter path ahead
The consolidation of power in the food and farming industry, as detailed in these reports, calls for urgent action to democratise agricultural policymaking and stop individuals from playing fast and loose with our food and farming systems. Ensuring fair representation and prioritising sustainable practices over corporate profits are crucial steps towards a resilient and equitable food and farming system that is prepared for the impacts of the climate crisis. The powerful few must be held accountable, while the true needs of farmers and the environment must take centre stage in the global agricultural agenda.
Where to start? A good place would be to transform the biggest tool in the EU’s toolbox; the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP not only accounts for about one third of the EU’s budget, but it is also a driving force behind many of the issues faced by farmers and nature. If the EU wishes to support farmers and nature the CAP must undergo a structural transformation to support a just transition towards genuine social, economic, and environmental sustainability, thereby leading the way towards a brighter future for EU food and farming.
For further details, refer to the full report by Changing Markets and Lighthouse Reports summary to understand the extensive research and findings behind these critical issues.
