Globalisation REPORT | APRIL 2021 HOW CAN WE STOP THE IMPORT OF FOOD PRODUCED USING BANNED PRACTICES IN EUROPE? A EUROPEAN REGULATION TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR FARMERS PAGE 2 MIRROR MEASURES REPORT a word from the Editors PAGE 3 The food on our plates and the sustainability of we justify to European consumers that traceabili- our agriculture are highly political issues. The de- ty stops at Europe’s borders? How can we tolerate bate happening across many European societies the fact that European citizens’ demands for more about the future of farming models is useful and sustainable, more local and more animal-friendly necessary, where not tainted by caricature. production is being slowed down to such an extent by the almost blind pursuit of a trade policy that After all, what is at stake is, quite simply, the quality continues to put environmental, territorial and of our food, the futures of hundreds of thousands health issues to one side? of women and men, a certain idea of social and territorial justice, and our ability to build a resilient While the picture we paint is not a happy one, and sustainable society. The farmers who feed us, our three organisations do not wish to foster any often in difficult economic conditions, are decisive sense of inevitability. On the contrary, this report is players in the ecological and social transition that all about proposing a reform of the European rules we are calling for. The debate is not always easy, that is both achievable and credible. It is achievable and our three organisations may sometimes have because we are proposing a “turnkey” legal reform differences of opinion, but it is possible because that requires, above all, courage and political will the main thing is this: European societies have to obtain a legislative agreement and enforce its confidence in the reliability of European agricul- application. Credible, because we took care to test ture and the European Union has the means to the compatibility of our proposal with the rules make its own decisions about its food model. and even with the philosophy of the World Trade Organization. Contrary to what some observers However, this same European Union is now de- would have us believe, achieving ecological and so- valuing the legacy of reliability that it has built up cial coherence is compatible with the idea of trade since the mad cow crisis: the rules on traceability, and multilateralism. And while the battle may be the animal welfare standards and the ban on toxic long, it is nonetheless urgent to start fighting it im- substances, all implemented by the EU in the wake mediately. While putting on hold, meanwhile, all of the various public health and environmental agreements under negotiation or ratification. scandals of the last thirty years. The EU has react- ed well. While much progress remains to be made, To all those who think that the solution to this this framework of confidence must not be under- problem would be to lower our production stand- mined, and these remaining reforms are doomed ards, using short-sighted arguments about com- to failure if the import issue is not tackled head on. petitiveness, we collectively reply that this would be a serious mistake. At a time of environmental The steady increase—encouraged with the subse- crises, choosing less ecology-based options would quent trade agreements—of imports of food pro- condemn us all. On the contrary, we support a col- duced using substances or practices that are pro- lective vision of economic, social and ecological hibited in the European Union is jeopardising the progress for our crop and livestock farming and European framework that protects our health and are determined to safeguard the qualities of our provides reliable information to consumers. And family-based and grass-fed farming model. what are these practices? Prohibited pesticides, meat and bone meal, antibiotics used as growth We are putting our proposal in the hands of Euro- promoters, unfair competition, pollution on the pean citizens and leaders, including first and fore- other side of the world, opacity and animal suffer- most the French government which, for the first ing. half of 2022, will assume the rotating presidency of the European Union. This is a rare opportunity to How can we accept such unfavourable treatment encourage consistency between words and deeds of European crop and livestock farmers? How can on a continental scale. ALAIN GRANJEAN, DOMINIQUE LANGLOIS, DOMINIQUE MÉDA, PRESIDENT OF THE FNH PRESIDENT OF INTERBEV PRESIDENT OF THE VEBLEN INSTITUTE PAGE 4 MIRROR MEASURES REPORT table of contents REPORT INVESTIGATION IN BRIEF PESTICIDES BANNED FROM 07 OUR PLATES ཝ A questionable European legislative framework. ཝ Health and environmental consequences of unfair globalisation. ཝ The export of banned polluting substances. UNFAIR COMPETITION IN EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK FARMING ཝ Antibiotics are routine... except in Europe. ཝ Bad memories of meat and bone meal. ཝ Animal welfare: out of sight, out of mind. Traceability that stops at borders. BACKGROUND ཝ ཝ Livestock and Crop Farmers: Paying 11 the Price for Free Trade Agreements. PAGE 5 35 OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE ADOPTION OF MIRROR MEASURES IN EUROPE ཝ Mirror measures adopted by France. ཝ Legal basis and European legislative process. ཝ Our proposal for the drafting of the “mirror 13 measures” regulation. INTERVIEW 22 ཝ "The lentil, a textbook INTERVIEW 38 case" by Sophie ཝ "A European regulation on Devienne, Professor mirror measures could be at AgroParisTech. compatible with WTO law" by Clémentine Baldon, lawyer, Baldon Avocats. TESTIMONY 33 ཝ "Under these conditions, I don’t see how I can keep doing my job" by Guillaume Gauthier, a young Charolais cattle farmer. ANNEXES 40 ཝ Comparative table on livestock standards in different countries. ཝ Analysis of the proposed Regulation on mirror measures with respect to WTO law. PAGE 6 MIRROR MEASURES REPORT ALWAYS MORE MEAT IMPORTS ALWAYS LESS COMPLIANT WITH EU NORMS Current and potential trade flows created by agreements currently being ratified 65 000 tons/year (CETA ) EU market of T-bone meet: 460 000 tons/year 45 000 tons/year (Hormon Panel) 20 000 tons/year 99 000 tons/year PRACTICES FORBIDDEN IN EUROPE, TOLERATED BY OUR • Institut Veblen AMERICAN PARTNERS: - Use of meat and bone meal on the feeding of animals INTERBEV - Use of antibiotics as growth promoters of ruminants - Non-mandatory individual traceability non obligatoire des animaux from birth of the animal to slaughter - Transport time not limited to 8 hours without breaks Source : FNH • - No or very few rules on animal welfare PAGE 7 report in brief In 2019, at the opening of the International Ag- are sometimes not properly applied within the EU. ricultural Show, Emmanuel Macron recalled the The Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) Regulation, on need to guarantee the “food, environmental and the other hand, demonstrates many limitations: industrial sovereignty” of the European continent. crops produced outside the EU are allowed to Yet, between 2005 and 2019, the EU’s agricultur- have been treated with substances not authorised al and food imports increased by almost 28%. in the EU provided that the imported foods re- Behind this figure lies a second reality: by import- spect the established MRLs... which can be revised ing agricultural products from farms that pay less upwards on request. In response to this difference attention to traceability and standards, or that are in treatment, European farmers can, in return, grown using pesticides banned in the European demand derogations for the use of dangerous Union, the EU is not fulfilling its environmental products within the EU, which may have harmful and public health commitments and is leaving Eu- consequences for the environment and health. In ropean crop and livestock farmers at the mercy of addition, checks show that residues of substances, unfair competition. including unauthorised substances, are frequently found in imported foods. The report also looks at The joint report by the Nicolas Hulot Foundation a textbook example, that of the lentil. Thanks to Think Tank, Interbev and the Veblen Institute aims its low price, the Canadian lentil is ultra compet- to analyse the consequences of Europe’s inaction itive and represents more than a third of domes- in this area, focusing in on two subjects: pesticides tic consumption. Why? In addition to political will, and farming methods. How do pesticides that Canadian producers are allowed to use products are banned in Europe end up on our plates? How and substances that are banned—or prohibited can European companies have the right to export for certain uses—in Europe. them? How can European beef farming be con- demned to this level of unfair competition? And Next, the report turns to livestock farming. While above all, what regulatory solutions should be put Europe has adopted numerous regulations on an- in place to finally protect European consumers imal feed, animal welfare and traceability, to date and farmers? only the regulation banning the use of growth hormones applies to imported animal products. This report points out the deleterious dichotomy Nothing is happening, in concrete terms, with of norms between European standards and the respect to the use of antibiotics, meat and bone products it imports. meal, animal welfare (animal transport times in particular) or traceability, thereby exposing Eu- First of all, with regard to the use of pesticides. ropean consumers to increased health risks and The European legislation applicable to pesticides farmers to ever greater distortion of competition, results in a difference in the treatment of food while in France they are already experiencing an produced in the EU compared with imported food, unprecedented income crisis. leading to a lowering of EU health and environ- mental standards.