This week’s ERS USDA impact assessment of the Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy is a blunt assessment of what adoption of what appears to be a wholesome agricultural policy would mean.

Less pesticides, fertiliser and antibiotics all appear 'good things' that will have mass appeal to consumers. Similarly, 'organic produce' has a positive feel, even if it is difficult to quantify what specifically that is.

Farmers have to tread carefully in pushing back against this, as they will be blamed for not caring about the environment.

Also, it is agriculture's contribution to the EU’s green deal which aims to make the EU carbon neutral by 2050 and what reasonable person could object to that?

Nature journal

Alongside the USDA impact assessment, the scientific journal Nature has also published a feature this week describing how the EU green deal “offshores environmental damage to other nations” with its opening line: “importing millions of tonnes of crops and meat each year undercuts farming standards in the European Union and destroys tropical forests”.

Both these assessments are the reality of what is inevitable if the EU raises its production bar and continues to trade globally.

The consequences for EU farmers is that they cease being competitive in global export markets first and secondly in the EU markets as imports displace domestic production.

Cost to farmers and consumers

There is also the debate at EU political level about making the EU production standard what is required for imports to the EU.

That seems logical, both in fairness to EU farmers and indeed EU consumers having access to both imported and EU production all of the same standard.

The problem is synchronising standards with countries that are outside the jurisdiction of the EU.

Without this, as the USDA report identifies, any increase in the value of produce doesn’t compensate for the loss of production caused by F2F conditions and farmers are exposed to a 16% drop in revenue.

Of course, if the political will is there, a just transition fund has been set up to finance the costs of delivering the green deal and if it is applicable to switching from coal production in Poland, it is equally applicable to switching from livestock production in Ireland.

Cost of F2F on global basis

In a perfect world, the F2F model would be applied to agricultural production, because if it is correct environmentally for the EU, then it is correct everywhere.

Of course, the view in Nature is that it won’t be and effectively the EU will be offshoring the issue.

Alternatively, if F2F was to become the global standard, it would cause an 11% reduction in agri food availability and an almost doubling of price.

This wouldn’t matter to the EU or US, as it would still be affordable, but the reality is that they project up to 185m people, mainly in Africa and Asia, being exposed to increased food insecurity.

Is there a better way?

All of this suggests that a solo run by countries or regions isn’t the answer to controlling global carbon emissions and that, in fact, well-intended initiatives can have unintended consequences.

There is also the issue of feeding an increasing global population and to do that in a way that is affordable requires maximising resources and efficiency.

There is a good case focusing on grain production where soils and climate are suitable. There is even a case that can be made for minimising the use of grain in livestock production.

However, the reality is that many areas of the world that are natural grassland or indeed marginal lands are suitable only for livestock production.

There is no other way to produce food from these areas other than through using ruminant livestock to produce protein that humans can consume.

This has to be the starting point in the debate on controlling the GHG emissions from global, not just Irish or EU, agriculture.