This article is also available in Italian / Questo articolo è disponibile anche in italiano

In mid-February, the European Commission unveiled its Vision for Agriculture and Food, a document outlining a roadmap for the future of Europe’s agri-food sector and supply chain. The strategy aims to bolster the sector’s competitiveness and resilience by prioritising simplification, innovation, and digitalisation to enhance efficiency across the entire production chain. However, the document appears to present internal contradictions and lacks clarity on the role of farmers in this transformation. While it speaks of supporting the sector, there is no clear vision on how these principles will be put into practice. We discussed these topics with Cristina Guarda, Greens/EFA MEP and farmer, who is deeply engaged in food system policies.

What is your overall opinion of the EU Vision on European food systems presented by the Committee on Agriculture?

The Vision (here you can find the document, editor’s note) presents a sharply focused analysis of the current state of agriculture—a sector characterised by an ageing workforce and by uncertain incomes, which are significantly below both the European average and those of other economic sectors. A field in which there is a lack of services in rural areas, together with a pronounced gender gap that represents an additional challenge, and in which it is clear, through the analysis of environmental and climate impact on agriculture, how much production capacity depends on these factors. In essence, it presents a highly lucid picture of the sector’s current problems.

The issue, however, lies in the political response. Rather than addressing these challenges in line with the Farm to Fork strategy—which aimed to strengthen farmers’ roles within the food supply chain through progressive measures—we are witnessing a shift in direction. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen appears to be steering policy back towards a more conservative approach, focused solely on competitiveness and attractiveness of the sector. These are effective buzzwords, accompanied by popular terms like simplification and innovation, yet for now, they remain lacking in real substance.

Could you explain this last statement in more detail?

The document makes no concrete reference to what is actually meant by simplification. It provides no practical examples of which bureaucratic aspects Europe intends to remove through this political strategy. Nor is it clear whether it is about deregulation or real, targeted simplification. If it is about environmental deregulation, it is evident that this would do nothing to ease the administrative burden on farmers. Another issue is that much of this bureaucracy is not imposed by Europe but stems from national strategic plans. This is where the real contradiction lies. Then there is the question of innovation. There seems to be an almost ideological stance, as if technological advancement alone can provide all the answers. It paints a future where technology will miraculously solve every problem—advanced systems to capture emissions, assisted evolution technologies (AET) to create ultra-drought-resistant seeds, and more. However, at the moment, these practices are not yet a viable option. Meanwhile, no one is investing in research areas that could make a difference: improving seeds for organic farming, developing agroecological practices to reduce water consumption, enhancing soil performance, and generating ecosystem services essential for food production. The Vision also fails to acknowledge those exploring new economic distribution models based on short supply chains. High-performing research and innovation networks already exist, built on democratic research and the direct involvement of local communities in experimentation. Yet there is no mention of any of this in the document. In the end, the risk remains the same: promoting costly technological solutions, which inevitably lead to small and medium-sized farmers taking on debt, as they often don't have the resources to afford them.

What are the main proposals that the Greens/EFA group is promoting?

As Greens, we have outlined key priorities for our vision of the future CAP. First and foremost: income. It is clear to us that payments should be tied to job creation rather than simply distributed based on cultivated land. That is why we propose capping payments at €60,000 per farming business and redistributing the remaining CAP funds to those who need them most—new and young farmers, rural development programmes, and funding supporting the transition to climate- and biodiversity-friendly agriculture. Every farmer should have the right to a fair wage. On the environmental front, we want to make economic eco-schemes both more attractive and more rewarding. We know very well that farmers who adopt agroecological practices require more time and space for production, yet their work enhances soil quality, protects aquifers from contamination, and boosts biodiversity. In short, they provide an ecosystem service that benefits the entire community and all economic sectors. The principle we propose is simple: those who produce ecosystem services must be paid for their work. Farm businesses must be assessed as a whole, with financial recognition for all measures taken to protect the environment. This would mean creating a new and stable income stream, independent of agricultural yields.

What are the other elements of your proposal?

We have a dependency problem from other countries: we import chemical fertilisers, such as potassium, and animal feed. The Commission’s Vision suggests addressing this by boosting domestic production, promoting more extensive livestock farming, and tackling livestock emissions through the previously mentioned “innovations”. What is the problem? You cannot talk about extensive farming without reducing the number of animals reared. A more sustainable rearing strategy must go hand in hand with a structural review of the sector. This is why we advocate for a genuine strategy on protein diversification. Encouraging more sustainable livestock systems is not enough—we must also ensure equal support and promotion for plant-based and alternative protein sources. But this transition cannot happen without engaging citizens, since they are consumers. Demand for protein is changing, and policymakers cannot afford to ignore it. Yet these two aspects are entirely absent from the current Vision, despite being well addressed in the Farm to Fork strategy. Where do we stand on this path? We propose clear and transparent labelling that provides information on environmental impact, regional origin, and animal welfare standards—ensuring consumers can make informed choices. The underlying problem in this Vision is that it speaks of resilient production systems while simultaneously focusing strongly on exports. We cannot champion food sovereignty and, at the same time, base competitiveness on exports. That is why we ask that the focus must first be European, then international. As Greens, we oppose the Mercosur agreement because we support a model that valorises regional markets and strengthens short supply chains, rather than one built on global competition. We advocate for alternative partnerships that are more sustainable and resilient.

Changing the subject, I would like to ask you about PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: how important is it today to fully understand the real distribution of PFAS and, at the same time, to start remediation interventions to deal with a situation that is now critical in some areas?

There are two key issues that must be tackled. First, we need to stop the production and release of PFAS, which requires investment in research to develop viable alternatives. Second, we must find ways to eliminate the PFAS already present in the environment. Halting production alone will not solve the problem—we also need to understand how to destroy them effectively and safely. We already know how to capture PFAS using activated carbon, mechanical filtration, and resins. But the real challenge lies in destruction. Current methods—including microwaves, incineration, and high-temperature thermal processing—are extremely expensive and often generate even smaller, potentially more hazardous by-products, the full effects of which remain unknown. So, what can be done? Serious investment in research is essential to develop effective PFAS destruction methods without creating new risks. We must also work to prevent companies from continuing to release them into the environment—for instance, by promoting closed-loop systems that stop contaminated wastewater from reaching rivers and aquifers. At the same time, farmers in affected areas also need support in adopting cultivation techniques that prevent plants from absorbing PFAS from the soil. This is not just a water pollution issue—the contamination of soil has major implications for agricultural production. Another crucial step is banning PFAS in industries where safer alternatives already exist, such as cosmetics and textiles. In these sectors, there is no justification—replacement solutions for PFAS are available, and manufacturers must be pushed to adopt them without further delay. The path forward is clear: stop production and release, invest in research, and develop safe ways to eliminate PFAS.

This article was originally published on the website of Circular Economy for Food, a project of the Università di Scienze Gastronomiche di Pollenzo of which Materia Rinnovabile is a media partner

Cover: Cristina Guarda