Why do the farmers’ protests continue unabated in Europe and why is relying on food imports from other regions not a sustainable solution for ensuring food security? Former Polish Minister of Agriculture (2018-2020), MP, and farmer, Jan Krzysztof Ardanowski, answers these and other questions in an interview with europeanconservative.com.
Farmers across Europe are once again protesting. It seemed that before last year’s European Parliament election, their demands had been met. What are the farmers’ concerns?
In short, farmers have been cheated. Some onerous obligations were only suspended for a limited time and, for example, negotiations for a trade agreement with Mercosur, the large South American trading bloc (bringing cheap agricultural produce into Europe in exchange for European industrial goods), resumed as soon as Ursula von der Leyen was sure she would be head of the European Commission (EC) again.
What is actually wrong with the Mercosur agreement?
This agreement is another part of the dismantling of agriculture in the EU. Farming in the EU is some of the most advanced in the world, but it depends on relatively small family farms, which are usually dozens to a few hundred hectares in size. These farms cannot compete with large estates in South America, which is why farmers across Europe are protesting. They are also protesting against the EU’s indiscriminate opening up to food from Ukraine, where high standards of farming are also not followed. In reality, the same big companies, subsidiaries of huge multinationals, are involved in agriculture both in Ukraine and South America. Controlling Europe’s food supply will give these companies huge power—even more than the governments have.
If we have good agriculture, why should we not compete effectively with countries outside the Union?
Food from South America or Ukraine is produced without meeting the standards required for EU farmers. These include technology, plant protection products, animal welfare, and more. Such production would not be allowed in our countries. Meanwhile, the Mercosur agreement plans for this food to be imported into Europe. This will lead to the end of European food production. Competing with large countries that do not face the high costs of EU standards is simply impossible.
But someone in the EU must want this agreement, since the European Commission negotiated it.
Germany is very keen on this agreement, as it urgently needs new markets for its cars, household appliances, and wind turbines due to its struggling economy, especially its stagnating industry. South America is an area of relatively low saturation in this respect. This region includes some of the world’s largest agricultural countries, which can mainly pay with food. Brazil is the world’s largest producer of poultry meat and sugar; Argentina of beef and an important producer of soya. But for the Germans, the interests of their own industry are more important than the threat to European agriculture.
It is obvious that they have a plan for South America similar to the one they pursued with Russia. By buying very cheap gas from Russia, they have lowered the costs of their own production, in other words they have in fact unfairly built up a competitive advantage for their economy. Now they want to sell industrial products to Mercosur and, in addition, become a distributor of cheap food in Europe, giving them another tool to dominate other European countries.
But would it not be better for European consumers if they had access to cheap food?
It would be better for European consumers if they learnt from mistakes and experiences, both their own and those of others. Has dependence on Russian gas resulted in a sustainable reduction in energy costs? Has the transfer of industrial production from the West to China permanently reduced the cost of living? These are rhetorical questions. Europe’s food security can only be sustainably ensured by its own agriculture.
The assumption that we will reduce or abolish agricultural production in Europe and that other regions of the world will feed us does not stand up to scrutiny. It is very easy to break supply chains. The pandemic showed this. South America is not the most stable region in the world. Becoming dependent on a few countries in the world is a mistake because it gives these countries a powerful instrument of leverage.
In 2011 Argentina, which largely determines the supply of soya to world markets, raised its export tariffs by 50 per cent overnight and the world had to accept this because it was dependent on it. There could be massive crop failures, or political decisions that food would go to other continents instead of Europe. Dependence on external food, whether it be from South America or Ukraine or New Zealand, is a threat to food security.
In recent years, we have witnessed the opening up of the EU market to products from Ukraine and other parts of the world, while at the same time imposing further onerous and expensive obligations on our farmers, driving up production costs. In addition, for years we have been seeing pressure to switch to so-called organic farming, which may be regarded as a hobby for enthusiasts, or a very niche specialisation, but not a viable alternative capable of feeding the European population.
Anyway, the hype the European Commission is making around organic is hypocritical. On the one hand, it repeats at every turn that the climate and nature must be protected, while part of Brazilian production, for example, comes from areas where the Amazon jungle has been cleared. The EC also seems unconcerned about regular reports of outright slave labour exploitation in the agricultural sector in South America.
Why do you think organic farming is not an alternative?
In simple terms, ‘organic’ farming under EU rules means not using artificial fertilisers, pesticides, or antibiotics. To many consumers, this makes the food seem better, a bit old-fashioned, like it’s made “the traditional way.” But this is a myth that needs to be challenged. When used properly and carefully, plant protection products are like medicine for plants. They protect crops from diseases and prevent issues like mycotoxins, which are carcinogenic.
Moreover, ‘organic’ food is much more expensive to produce because of lower yields, higher labour demands, or the need for advanced robotics—basic machinery isn’t enough. To make it worthwhile for farmers, organic food would need to be 200–300 percent more expensive than regular food. How many consumers would accept such price hikes?
And that’s not all. Organic farming is niche, unstable, and highly vulnerable to pests and diseases. It simply cannot feed the world’s growing population—or even Europe’s current population. This idea is unrealistic. For it to work, people would need to move back to rural areas and grow food themselves. At the start of the 20th century, one farmer could feed 2.5 people; today, one farmer feeds over 100. This progress allows people to leave farming, live in cities, and take up other jobs like mechanics, scientists, or lawyers.
This diversification of work and specialisation is unprecedented in history and represents real progress. But we must remember that this progress depends on farmers, who meet everyone’s most basic need: food.
Does the European Commission not realise this?
The left-liberal elites in Brussels, who are not held accountable by democratic processes and prioritize big business over their citizens, repeat the false and unfounded claim that climate change is caused by human activity. This is nonsense unsupported by any reliable data. Yes, we are seeing climate change, but it is happening in ways over which we have no control. Throughout the Earth’s history, climate change has occurred many times without any human influence. There have been ice ages and periods of high temperatures. Man has no influence whatsoever.
These same elites, who support importing food from areas where the Amazon rainforest has been destroyed, exploit people’s fears for their health and the planet. They play on emotions to push a so-called ecological alternative, which is no alternative at all. They loudly promote the need to change human behavior and the economy, particularly in agriculture, in the name of ecology.
The consequence of these measures is clear and doesn’t require much imagination: the collapse of countless farms in Poland and across Europe. This process has already begun. To save themselves from bankruptcy, farms are getting into debt and trying to expand, thinking that this will ensure their survival. It will not. The policy we are now seeing—if it continues and is taken to its logical end—will destroy a large proportion of farms, eliminating an entire social group: the farmers of Europe.
Why would Brussels want farmers to disappear?
Farmers in Europe are generally a more traditional group and don’t fit into the worldview of the Brussels elite. Their attachment to traditional values, the family, and the natural relationship between man and woman is seen as irritating. People with larger families, devoted to the Christian faith, don’t align with the vision of European society promoted by the liberal-left circles that shape Europe’s policies. These circles push for cultural changes, such as LGBT ideology, abortion, and similar causes. Farmers, with their practical thinking, resilience, and logical approach, stand out as a thorn in their side, which is why they face constant and hostile criticism.
Another reason—more practical, but aligned with the aims of Brussels—is the labour market demands of Europe’s largest economy. Since it turned out that the German experiment with importing people from other cultural backgrounds didn’t work—instead of feeding the economy, immigrants take welfare—it must have occurred to some business leaders that by liquidating peasant farms, they would force farming families to work in their factories. And they are probably not wrong.
Farming is ceasing to be a profitable activity on any type of farm. Whether they are involved in crop or livestock production. Smaller farms can’t cope with the competition from cheap imported produce, while larger ones struggle with rising costs. There may come a day when people abandon these farms and seek a job in a factory or a supermarket.
