USDA Clashes With Europe’s Environmental Protection Plans
The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy aims to make food systems fair and healthy while reducing pesticide use—and USDA chief Tom Vilsack vehemently opposes it.
In early 2020, the European Union announced, as part of its European Green Deal proposal, an agricultural component known as Farm to Fork. Under this proposal, EU members would reduce their pesticide use, reduce food waste, improve animal welfare and increase the amount of land used for organic or sustainable practices. The EU also wants to ban food imports of crops grown using agrichemicals that contribute to global environmental problems.
Over the last month, the USDA has attacked the EU plan through press appearances, releases and statements, as Eddy Wax and Emma Anderson write in an article for Politico. They say that this is a “brewing Cold War between the two agricultural heavyweights over the future of farming.” So, what’s the deal? Why is the USDA so against these policies?
Under the Trump administration, officials repeatedly hammered the EU, saying that the EU’s plan is “anti-technology,” by which the administration meant that the EU’s plan would have fewer uses for advanced pesticides and pesticide applications, drugs for livestock and up-and-coming software applications such as artificial intelligence. Perhaps more tellingly, the Trump administration noted that these restrictions would likely have trade ramifications for transatlantic business. The Biden administration, although it has broken with its predecessor in many ways, has maintained this general stance.
The USDA’s targeted attack on the Farm to Fork program has taken the form of statements from USDA officials, including USDA chief Tom Vilsack, as well as pointed studies from the Economic Research Service (ERS). In one of those studies, the ERS finds that the proposals from the EU would reduce the EU’s agricultural production by 12 percent and increase food prices by 17 percent within member countries.
This, though, is a continuation of a narrative that the USDA has been pushing for a century: More production is better. In reality, the United States has an agricultural overproduction problem, especially in key sectors such as corn, soy, wheat and dairy. An obsession with production and yield has led to these sectors producing far more than the market needs, which in turn has led to large subsidies, mass governmental purchases and attempts to shoehorn excess production into products such as biofuel. The problem, as has been noted over and over again, is not that the world doesn’t produce enough food: It’s that people don’t have enough money to buy the food.
And, of course, there are the other problems. The obsession with yield and profit and growth has led to fewer jobs, corporate monopolies, land-squatting and environmental disasters fed by excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers.
The USDA’s main beef with the EU’s plan is all about money. It is not clear what sort of trade barriers may arise from it, but signs indicate that there may be restrictions on trade and imports with countries that do not have as stringent regulations as the EU. That means fewer EU imports of American cereals and meat. The EU is the fifth-largest export partner for American agricultural goods, worth more than $11 billion per year. It is not the only one at risk, either; Mexico has enacted rules that could result in a ban on genetically modified American corn, and Mexico is an even bigger trade partner than the EU. The USDA fears that the requirements introduced by the Farm to Fork agreement could become a widespread movement, dramatically reducing markets for American goods.
Vilsack’s USDA is not quite as openly pro-agribusiness as former agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue’s, and so this opposition to the Farm to Fork proposal is accompanied by a statement about how the United States will deal with the problems of food insecurity, the environment and climate change. Vilsack told Politico that “there are two different pathways” and that the United States does not believe it necessary to reduce yield in order to create more sustainability. The US’s plan would involve more high-tech approaches such as targeted spraying and artificial intelligence—just like the Trump administration mentioned—to reduce pesticide use without fundamentally changing anything about the American agricultural system.
Follow us
Republish!
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Republish this article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Want to republish a Modern Farmer story?
We are happy for Modern Farmer stories to be shared, and encourage you to republish our articles for your audience. When doing so, we ask that you follow these guidelines:
Please credit us and our writers
For the author byline, please use “Author Name, Modern Farmer.” At the top of our stories, if on the web, please include this text and link: “This story was originally published by Modern Farmer.”
Please make sure to include a link back to either our home page or the article URL.
At the bottom of the story, please include the following text:
“Modern Farmer is a nonprofit initiative dedicated to raising awareness and catalyzing action at the intersection of food, agriculture, and society. Read more at <link>Modern Farmer</link>.”
Use our widget
We’d like to be able to track our stories, so we ask that if you republish our content, you do so using our widget (located on the left hand side of the article). The HTML code has a built-in tracker that tells us the data and domain where the story was published, as well as view counts.
Check the image requirements
It’s your responsibility to confirm you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some images, such as those from commercial providers, don't allow their images to be republished without permission or payment. Copyright terms are generally listed in the image caption and attribution. You are welcome to omit our images or substitute with your own. Charts and interactive graphics follow the same rules.
Don’t change too much. Or, ask us first.
Articles must be republished in their entirety. It’s okay to change references to time (“today” to “yesterday”) or location (“Iowa City, IA” to “here”). But please keep everything else the same.
If you feel strongly that a more material edit needs to be made, get in touch with us at [email protected]. We’re happy to discuss it with the original author, but we must have prior approval for changes before publication.
Special cases
-
Extracts. You may run the first few lines or paragraphs of the article and then say: “Read the full article at Modern Farmer” with a link back to the original article.
-
Quotes. You may quote authors provided you include a link back to the article URL.
-
Translations. These require writer approval. To inquire about translation of a Modern Farmer article, contact us at [email protected]
-
Signed consent / copyright release forms. These are not required, provided you are following these guidelines.
-
Print. Articles can be republished in print under these same rules, with the exception that you do not need to include the links.
Tag us
When sharing the story on social media, please tag us using the following: - Twitter (@ModFarm) - Facebook (@ModernFarmerMedia) - Instagram (@modfarm)
Use our content respectfully
Modern Farmer is a nonprofit and as such we share our content for free and in good faith in order to reach new audiences. Respectfully,
-
No selling ads against our stories. It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads.
-
Don’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.
-
You have no rights to sell, license, syndicate, or otherwise represent yourself as the authorized owner of our material to any third parties. This means that you cannot actively publish or submit our work for syndication to third party platforms or apps like Apple News or Google News. We understand that publishers cannot fully control when certain third parties automatically summarize or crawl content from publishers’ own sites.
Keep in touch
We want to hear from you if you love Modern Farmer content, have a collaboration idea, or anything else to share. As a nonprofit outlet, we work in service of our community and are always open to comments, feedback, and ideas. Contact us at [email protected].USDA Clashes With Europe’s Environmental Protection Plans
by Dan Nosowitz, Modern Farmer
October 13, 2021
Modern Farmer Weekly
Solutions Hub
Innovations, ideas and inspiration. Actionable solutions for a resilient food system.
ExploreShare With Us
We want to hear from Modern Farmer readers who have thoughtful commentary, actionable solutions, or helpful ideas to share.
Submit
One problem of what the EU does is that it is very strict on banning residues of herbicides/pesticides (or on occasion it won’t even allow its use, regardless of whether it can detect any residues) European farmers don’t or cannot use but it will provide exemptions / long phaseouts / less strict regulation for herbicides/pesticides that its farmers need.
Lining up with the safer and healthier practices being implemented in Europe is another path the USA can take. Why we are so opposed is a bit perplexing.