Food policy is a popular theme in election manifestos. Krijn J. Poppe discusses the role that food plays during the elections and what a ministry of agriculture has to do with it.
A report by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) is starting to take effect. Some are even calling for a Ministry of Food, but I'd be surprised if there is. Because for some, that is a code word for the old Ministry of Agriculture, while others think more about the environment, nature and meat reductions in that context. So there is less agreement about this than it seems.
I don't know whether there should be such a ministry, I'll leave that to public administration experts and the formation. But broadening agricultural policy to include food policy, which not only covers farmers, but also the rest of the chain and consumers, seems to me to be a sensible idea. And for three reasons also in the interest of farmers and horticulturists.
First of all, it seems attractive to me to involve citizens more in agricultural policy, and not just as taxpayers. In the United States, this is done through a food program that gives out food stamps to the poorest – that's where the bulk of the money actually goes. That does not seem to me to be a good approach for Europe, social policy is a matter for the Member States. But arranging a number of issues related to food safety, labeling and more sustainable and healthier food in Europe at the same time as subsidies for farmers and rural development I think could contribute to that involvement and greater understanding of the amounts that go to agriculture.
A second reason is that consumers can also contribute to a more sustainable menu. Especially because sustainable and healthy food often go hand in hand and the consumer's choice could be a bit healthier – obesity and diseases of affluence are a major cost item. For example, the climate agreement with which we want to limit climate change and the rise in sea level will have to be translated into different behaviour. In part this means that farmers adapt production with new techniques, but the consumer can and must also make a contribution.
That brings us to my third point. More sustainable products also need a market. At the same time as making production more sustainable, the consumer market for those products must also be developed. This was also the case with organic in the XNUMXs: you can stimulate production, but that makes little sense if the supermarkets do not include the product in their range and the consumer does not buy it.
One of my favorite examples is the American coffee market: once the coffee there was of very poor quality, more like ditch water than an Italian espresso. Until a number of entrepreneurs, including the founders of Starbucks, came to the realization that you had to let the consumer pronounce about four Italian words and he or she would then pay twice as much for the coffee, which of course also has to be of better quality. quality should be. We can learn something from this for our entire food package: we have to compete on quality instead of just on price. If food policy can help with that, we can also use it for agriculture.
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
This is a response to this article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/ondernemen/columns/column/10873571/Kiezen-voor-voedingsbeleid-kan-ook-landbouw-helpen-]Choosing food policy can also help agriculture[/url]