“Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”

Among the first petitions to be handed in following the ratification of the Treaty comes from the Nutrition Ecology International Centre, an interdisciplinary scientific committee established with the purpose of investigating the impact of all stages and methods of food production and consumption, with regard to health, environment, society and economy.

The Centre has collected 23,000 signatures for a petition to “stop EU subsidies to livestock industry”. The petition is well short of the 1 million required for a response from the Commission but illustrates the potential for citizen action on food and farming policy under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty. It’s not hard to imagine petitions on controversial issues such as GM crops, trade barriers that harm developing countries or large subsidy payments to wealthy landowners, gaining significant support.

It highlights two weaknesses of the food hygiene control system. The first weakness was that the remit of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the agency established to enforce food law, does not cover the whole food chain. It was only given responsibility for food safety from the farm gate onwards, while animal feed and animal health controls on the farm remain the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food. The Department argued that the plant, which converted food waste into animal feed, was low-risk and it was inspected annually to determine that it was in compliance with the hygiene regulations. However, HACCP programmes have not included oil contamination as a potential hazard, and there are no EU regulations requiring the sampling of oil used in feed processing.

A second weakness concerned the food traceability system. This was introduced as a legal requirement in the EU food system in the 1990s in the context of dealing with animal health, disease control and disease eradication. The legal requirement on the food business operator is to be able to trace one step forward and one step back. The system worked exactly as it should have at farm level. When the contaminated pork was identified at factory level, this could be traced back to the farmer suppliers, who in turn could identify the source of their feed, and in turn, the other customers of this feed plant in both the Republic and Northern Ireland could be traced.

The difficulty concerned the traceability system beyond slaughter. Although less than 10% of pork products were potentially affected by the contamination (sourced from the nine farms which had purchased contaminated feed from the single mill), 100% of product had to be recalled. In Denmark, a sophisticated traceability system would allow Danish rashers purchased by a customer to be traced back to a particular process in a particular plant at a particular time on a particular day. No such system operates in Ireland. Although the Department of Agriculture and Food has set up a review group to consider what improvements can be made, it highlights the extra costs this would imply for processors and the tight profit margins in which they operate.

However, it is not acceptable that an industry can externalise the costs of the risk of a food safety breakdown in this way. In the recent Irish supplementary budget in April 2009, the Minister confirmed that he was setting aside €200 million to compensate processors for the cost of the product recall (of which €20.7 million is being provided by the EU). The farmgate value of the output of the pig sector was €293 million in 2007. The value of exports (which account for 67% of total output) was €367 million in that year, so we might estimate that the value of processed pigmeat on the home market was around €183 million. The value of the €50 million exports of live pigs mainly to Northern Ireland should be added to this, giving a total industry value of output of around €600 million. Seen against this figure, the €200 million which the product recall may cost the Irish (and EU) taxpayers is a not insignificant subsidy to the industry to protect its reputation in overseas markets.

Whereas carbon dioxide emissions have increased 31 per cent over the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer atmosphere lifetime than carbon dioxide has increased by 149 per cent over that time. Dr Thorpe commented that

‘Methane emission growth … has been increasing exponentially in the developing world due to a rise in incomes leading to an increased demand for meat and the “hamburger connection” where developing countries make a lucrative profit supplying meat to developed countries.’

Attempts to curb animal methane emissions have included feeding grazing animals on cottonseed and alfalfa, using food additives, and vacinnating animals with drugs, but it is not clear if they will work on a large scale. A reduction in the amount of livestock kept for meat and milk would only put pressure on other food sources, such as cereals.

Animal methane emissions from developing countries have increased to 75 per cent of the global total, with India and Brazil in the lead. It is thought that atmospheric methane is responsible for one-fifth of the global warming since 1750.

Cows, sheep, goats and camels have an additional stomach and produce large amounts of methane as they digest their food. A dairy cow in New Zealand will typically produce around 80kg of methane a year, just through burping.

The policy pressures this produces is shown by complaints from the Irish Dairy Industries Association that the Republic’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is piling further economic pressure on the country’s beleaguered dairy industry. It was argued that because Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)were closely linked to methane from cattle, a 20 per cent cut in GHG emissions would result in a 20 per cent cut in Ireland’s dairy herd.

The association complained that there is no international standard for measurement of emissions from enetric fermentation in cattle. The background to these concerns is a sharp drop in prices from 40 cents a litre in 2007 to around 24 now.

Vegetarians would no doubt argue that the GHG emissions of cattle reinforce the case for not eating meat. In practice, it is difficult to see how the problem can be tackled given that the livestock sector is under heavy economic pressure.

According to the Commission’s impact assessment, the introduction of the single farm payment and the enlargement of the EU into central and eastern Europe has dramatically increased the number of very small farms claiming subsidy from the CAP. As things stand, 31 per cent of single farm payment recipients receive less than €250. The Commission argues that:

The very large number of small beneficiaries of CAP direct payments reflects more general structural aspects of EU agriculture. For many of these small beneficiaries, agriculture may be only one of several economic activities. These activities may be related more or less directly to agriculture. Consequently, any change in the payment rules would be unlikely to have significant agricultural employment impacts but could remove an alternative income source in rural areas with many small and part-time farmers.

The implication is that it is just part-time or hobby farmers who have entitlements of less than €250 per year, the favoured example being the stockbroker with a pony paddock. There is no doubt that such cases exist, but it is also worth remembering that some parts of Europe have a large number of subsistence or near-subsistence farmers. They are concentrated in the new member states and in particular in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. The Commission does conced that “lower limits could be criticised in some member states as an unfair treatment of small farmers.”

Despite what farm ministers and agriculture commissioners would have us believe, the CAP is neither targeted at helping poor farmers nor at supporting sustainable and high nature value farming practices. If it were, it follows that low-intensity upland grazing in remote mountainous regions where there are high levels of poverty, low levels of literacy and very few other employment options ought to qualify as a high priority area. The irony is that for shepherds in places like the Fagaras mountains in Romania (pictured) the CAP is inaccesible and irrelevant. EU food safety regulations restrict how they can sell their traditional, hand-made cheeses but they get precious little from the EU’s subsidy system. €250 might be crumbs to a cereals farmer in the Paris Basin, but to a Romanian shepherd, it’s a sizeable sum. Introducing lower limits on payments risks further penalising a very hard-pressed and marginal group. There must be ways of addressing the relatively high transaction costs of paying out very small sums of money. Perhaps entitlements could be claimed every other year, so a recipient gets two year’s payments in one go?

The table below shows estimates of the number of subsistence and near-subsistence farms by member state, defined as less than 1 ESU (European Size Unit)*

The Standard Gross Margin may be different from actual margin on a farm because of the wide variation between farms with the same physical composition. A European Size Unit (ESU) is a measure of the economic size of a farm business based on the gross margin imputed from standard coefficients for each commodity on the farm. In concrete terms, 1 ESU is roughly corresponds to:

– either 1.3 hectares of cereals
– or 1 dairy cow
– or 25 ewes

or equivalent combinations of these.

* A European Size Unit (ESU) is a measure of the economic size of a farm business based on the gross margin imputed from standard coefficients for each commodity on the farm. The application of these standard coefficients results in the Standard Gross Margin (SGM) for a farm or group of farms. 1 ESU = 1200 SGM.

By stimulating the production (and consumption) of foods that are high in fat and cholesterol, researchers based at Liverpool University in the UK have concluded that “The cardiovascular disease burden attributable to CAP appears substantial”. The research focusses on subsidies for full fat milk and butter and use the hypothesis that without CAP subsidies for dairy products, per capita saturated fat consumption would be 1 per cent lower and that consumption of poly- and monounsaturated fats would be 0.5 per cent higher. The results show that there are approximately 9800 additional deaths by coronary heart disease and 3000 additional deaths by stroke each year because of the CAP in the EU-15. The researchers stress that this was a very conservative estimate. The countries worst affected are France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

The research points to the case study of Poland in the years 1990 to 2002 where farm subsidies that stimulated the production of fatty and high cholesterol foods were reduced:

“Recent evidence of the potentially powerful impact of reducing dietary saturated fats is graphically illustrated by the recent large falls in CHD mortality in Poland, between 1990 and 2002 (by 38% in men and 42% in women). This reduction across socioeconomic groups was attributed to the abolition of national food subsidies for saturated fats and the emergence of new, competitive markets, greatly increasing consumption of polyunsaturated vegetable oils. Ironically, this beneficial decline could now be threatened as Poland implements CAP after joining the EU in 2004.”

There can be no doubt that the CAP directs its support to exactly the wrong kinds of food for a healthy diet – milk, butter, cheese and red meat. Support for arable crops also benefits the livestock sector, by making feed cheaper and let’s not mention the EU’s substantial subsidies for ‘booze and fags’. The Single Farm Payment specifically excludes land used to cultivate fruit and vegetables. Until recently the EU was spending hundreds of millions on the disposal of surplus fruit and vegetables in landfill as a way of keeping prices high.

Estimating the cardiovascular mortality burden attributable to the European Common Agricultural Policy on dietary saturated fats. Ffion Lloyd-Williams, Martin O’Flaherty, Modi Mwatsama, Christopher Birt, Robin Ireland, Simon Capewell. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. Volume 86, Number 7, July 2008, 497-576

She noted that most intensive, behaviourally restrictive systems had been or were being phased out – battery chickens, veal crates, sow tethers (the latter only in the UK). Things like veal crates were very obvious system which could readily be understood by the interested public. The animal welfare problems we were running into now are more complex to do with breeds and genotypes of animals and whether they are fit for the systems they are in. Things like stocking density, length of journey, consciousness after being stunned were easy to measure. Which genotype was going to fit into a production system was more complex.

Of course there can be important differences between member states. The ban on sow tethering in the UK resulted from private members’ legislation and did not apply in Denmark. Consumers in the UK seemed to be generally unaware of this difference in production methods. The UK pig industry was on its knees and got little reward for its more animal welfare friendly systems.

The next technological revolution is likely to involve GM crops, but they face intense resistance in Northern Europe with the concerns of consumers fanned by environmental groups. This applies as much to imports as to local production. The phrase ‘Frankenstein foods’ has lodged itself in consumers’ minds.

Spiralling food prices are placing supermarkets under pressure from farmers’ leaders to put poultry fed with genetically modified products back on the shelves. The English National Farmers’ Union has held talks with the product managers of all the major supermarkets to explain that shortages of non-GM soyabeans – the key protien source for poultry – was making it both extremely expensive and increasingly difficult to source the GM-free products demanded by retailers.

There is no sign yet that the campaign has forced a change in policy. Supermarkets are very jealous of their green image which they see as giving them an edge over competitors, particular in value added markets where price is not the only differentiator. Sainsbury’s have sad that they are investigating ‘potential sustainable solutions.’ Two of the greenest supermarkets, Marks and Spencer and Waitrose, have said that they will not change their policy.

As the world’s biggest exporters have devoted more land to GM crops, the cost of unmodified soyabeans is rising. British farmers are currently paying around £276 per tonne for GM soya and £293/t for non-GM. With the US, the world’s biggest producer, now 95 per cent GM, the UK has looked to Brazil for a GM-free alternative. But Brazil, the world’s second biggest soya exporter, is expected to increase GM plantings from 54 per cent of its total crop to 65 per cent next year and 80 per cent over the next decade.

An Irish government statement reads:

“The taoiseach assured the IFA that he was prepared to use the veto if a deal that is unacceptable to Ireland is put to a vote.”

I think the critical ‘if’ in the government statement gives sufficient room for maneuver for Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson to carry on negotiating the end game of the Doha Development Agenda. It is highly unlikely that whatever final deal comes out of Geneva will be ‘put to a vote’ in the European Council. These things tend to go through without a vote, not least to give the impression of European unity, and so as not to imply that any country has ‘lost’. If necessary a side-deal will be done to give Ireland something in return for its acquiescence in the new trade deal.

Ireland gets way more than it’s fair share of EU farm handouts. And this fact will not be lost to other member states if Ireland votes to derail the Lisbon Treaty. The EU is currently engaged in a fundamental, ‘once in generation’ review of its budget. The main target for cuts appears to be the agriculture budget, which accounts for around 45% of all EU spending.

Here are some facts that might be of interest:

- Ireland pays €730 million towards the CAP (€178 per citizen) but gets €1.736 billion out of it (€423 per citizen). This gives a positive budgetary balance of €1.007 billion (€245 per citizen), the biggest net gain per citizen of any EU country. Remember that Ireland has a GDP per capita of €32,600, the second highest in Europe.

- Ireland receives €10,577 in CAP direct payments per farm worker (the highest in the EU), and €279 per hectare of farmland.

- Ireland’s farm sector not only benefits from cash payments from the EU, but a high level of tariff protection on its key sectors of beef and dairy. According to the OECD which tries to measure these things, beef farmers in Europe received border protection worth €10 billion in 2006, around 43% of the value of total EU beef production. This hidden consumer tax on the price of beef represents 43% of the total revenue of EU beef farmers.

- 75% of Ireland’s land area is classified as ‘less favoured’. This means it gets the EU’s area-based compensation payments under the Disadvantaged Area Compensatory Allowance of EUR 257 million in 2006.

- Over at farmsubsidy.org we recently released a list of farm subsidy payments in Ireland. Only the top 100 are named because the Irish Government felt that to name the others would be infringing on their constitutional rights to receive handouts in secret. 37 per cent of EU farm payments in Ireland go to the top 10 per cent of recipients.

- Agriculture accounts for 0.9 per cent Ireland’s GDP but 28 per cent of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions, chiefly because of the methane emissions of its large subsidy-driven cattle herd. Ireland is currently 11 per cent above its Kyoto Protocol target.

Nobody likes to be blackmailed, and if Irish farmers have a hand in throwing the EU into another 2005-style constitutional turmoil, this will not be forgotten. Irish farmers get more than most from the EU, they may live to regret biting the hand that feeds them.

As well as being the founding editor of the AgraFacts news subscription service, Roger is a Journalism Fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.