Suddenly, food production is the flavour of the month. In many advanced societies, tourism has come to be viewed as much more important than farming and food production. Not just in traditional historic cities such as Rome, Paris and London, but also in countries such as Ireland and New Zealand which are globally competitive agricultural producers.

It is in times like these that a sensible reassessment, especially in Europe, should take place of what we expect from farmers.

More to the point, it is an apt time to reassess how the job of meeting these expectations of a safe, nutritious food supply should be paid for.

Cost of food

As the cost of food has declined, as a proportion of their income for consumers – it’s now around 10% in many richer countries, compared to roughly 30% 40 years ago – society’s demands on farmers have increased and have become more strident. Some of these demands are based on avoiding perceived risk either to consumers or the environment.

The cost to farmers of meeting these perceived risks has been complained about, but never rigorously quantified. Yet, at the same time, access to the EU’s agricultural market is a central feature of most but not all of the international trade deals negotiated by the EU.

It’s not just the new international deals that have these features but also historical arrangements that, for instance, let in soya from North and South America duty-free because of the traditional need for imported protein to facilitate EU animal production.

It is a feature of trade that could be reassessed, but it’s not only US or South American soya – a range of feed inputs into the EU livestock industry are produced with technologies that are off-limits to EU farmers,whether it is GM maize that is placing EU soft wheat at such a disadvantage, or the removal of active ingredients in EU crop production that are not matched by similar restrictions elsewhere and hormone-treated beef and pigmeat on the world market.

Cost of technology

It should be possible for an economic unit such as Teagasc’s FAPRI in Athenry, together with its counterparts across Europe, to develop a cost of this technology deprivation and extra environmental obligations. If the costs were quantified, then Irish and EU farmers would have a logical case to look for extra payment for extra public good, to use the modern jargon.

But first, the sums have to be done on the cost of the various restrictions and technical handicaps imposed on EU agriculture.

It is a project deserving serious consideration at policy and farm organisation level.