[ad_1]
Agriculture is far from the principle of real costs. Four-fifths of state support goes to animal production, which has the biggest impact on the environment, according to a study.
Farmers who produce in an environmentally friendly way would find themselves at a disadvantage today, according to a study.
We pay about 70 percent more for organic cucumber in the supermarket than for a conventional cucumber. A whole organic chicken costs more than twice that of a conventional broiler. Consumers are not offended by these price differences. The organic production method – species-appropriate animal husbandry and widespread avoidance of pesticides and fertilizers – makes organic food more expensive. That makes sense to us.
However, it could also be viewed very differently. Because conventional production pollutes the environment more than organic production. If politicians made sure that the polluter pays for the damage to the environment, the price of organic products would suddenly drop much better, possibly even better than many conventionally produced foods.
Polluters only pay half the costs
But the Swiss agriculture and food industry are struggling with the truth about costs. In the case of transportation, the federal government has been reporting the costs caused by road, rail and aviation users, but they are only partially reflected in the price: damage to nature and the landscape, for example, air pollution or accidents. In contrast, there is no comparable total cost estimate for food production.
Expert group Vision Agriculture is now presenting a publication analogous to the Federal Government’s approach to transportation, showing the total costs of agriculture and breaking down who bears them. The study comes to a sobering conclusion. In general, consumers only pay half of the costs of agriculture, which amount to 15.9 billion Swiss francs. The state, that is, the taxpayer, and the general public, which is affected by environmental pollution, pays the rest. Official federal statistics and our own estimates of the external costs of Swiss agriculture provide the basis for the study.
The amount contributed by taxpayers and the general public differs greatly by product. In the case of beef, for example, consumers only pay a little over a third of the actual costs. After all, it’s about two-thirds for pork and about three-quarters for poultry and eggs. Notably, consumers have to fork out most of the fresh vegetable products themselves – they cover 80 percent of the costs for vegetables and 90 percent of the fruit.
One of the main reasons for these distortions is that the federal government financially supports food production in every way imaginable: the federal government makes contributions for sugar beets and wrapped milk, as well as for pesticide spray devices, advertising of meat and slaughterhouse waste disposal. In addition, according to the vision of agriculture, there is the ecological damage caused by pesticides, ammonia or greenhouse gas emissions, for example, and that have to be borne not by the polluter but by the general public.
Since these costs are not covered in the market, the study authors calculate their amount based on the federal government spending to reduce environmental damage. From the federal contributions for pesticide-free arable agriculture, they deduce that the environmental and health costs of using pesticides amount to 1,200 francs per hectare. By multiplying the treated area, the total external costs of pesticide use are obtained.
Likewise, external costs for ammonia emissions and greenhouse gases are also evaluated. Overall, the environmental damage caused by agriculture amounts to 3.6 billion Swiss francs, according to the Vision Agriculture assessment. Compared to other studies, the environmental costs of agriculture are estimated quite conservatively. In an Avenir Suisse study, they are reported to be twice as high.
The results of the study are explosive for upcoming agricultural policy decisions: They show that it is precisely those parts of the agricultural economy that place the greatest burden on nature and health receive the most federal funding. The production of animal feed, which accounts for half of the production of calories, causes about three-quarters of environmental pollution. However, it receives four times more subsidies from the federal government than the production of plant-based foods. The several hundred million francs that the federal government spends to curb environmental damage are, in this context, nothing more than damage limitation, the study concludes.
Not the consumer’s fault
Disregard for the polluter pays principle and misdirected subsidies lead, according to the study authors, that sustainably produced goods are too expensive. “If bean or vegetable burgers cost more than chicken or ground meat, sustainable consumption and production behavior is like swimming against the tide,” says Felix Schläpfer, professor at the Kalaidos University of Applied Sciences in Zurich. According to Schläpfer, the popular opinion in agricultural circles that the problem lies with consumers who are unwilling to pay more for sustainable products falls short.
The promotion of production and consumption patterns that are harmful to the environment also contradicts official federal goals and strategies. According to the Swiss nutrition strategy, this country consumes too much meat and too many high-fat dairy products such as butter and cream, and too few products based on cereals, potatoes, legumes and vegetables. At the same time, agriculture is likely to only achieve its climate goal if less meat and milk is produced and, in particular, the number of head of cattle is reduced.
The Farmers Association considers the study doubtful
The farmers association has little to gain from the figures compiled by Vision Agriculture on the truth of costs. Farming costs have been calculated using other methods before. The studies yielded completely different figures. “This shows that for many of the points examined, the database lacks the necessary scientific reliability,” says spokesperson Sandra Helfenstein. The study focuses on costs and is very generous with the calculations there. The benefits of agriculture, on the other hand, are ignored.
Vision Agriculture demands that the federal government no longer put billions in taxpayer money in the way of sustainable agriculture. This requires a master plan whose horizon extends beyond the four-year stages of agricultural policy and is closely coordinated with the official goals and strategies of the federal government in the areas of environment, climate, health and nutrition.
The dismantling of subsidies linked to animal production, as advocated by Vision Landwirtschaft, is likely to meet resistance, as are the proposed taxes on concentrated feed, imported feed and pesticides. The fact that imported food is also subject to long-term taxation to prevent domestic production from being discriminated against should not change much of the broad opposition of farmers to the proposals.
