[ad_1]
One of the most common misconceptions of many Americans is that Americans are poorer than Europeans. Looking at income alone, Americans are wealthier than Europeans by multiple data points. America has more GDP per capita than her in most of the EU. The American middle class is superior to the European middle class, but it even challenges what is considered middle class in the first place.
On top of that, primary necessities are cheap for most consumers. As I wrote before, Americans spend 5% of their disposable income on food, compared to 8.7% in Ireland (the lowest in the EU), 10.8% in Germany, 12% in Sweden, 17% in Hungary, 25% in Hungary. Romania. But some critics argue that America’s food system prioritizes efficiency over sustainability, which has a negative impact on the environment. This is where the analysis becomes very interesting.
Towards the end of the 1980s, the divergence in agricultural output between Europe and America became noticeable. While Europe has maintained stable levels of agricultural production since her 1985 or so, the United States has doubled her productivity between 1960 and her 2000, and in the near future she will grow by 150%. You are trying to achieve productivity gains. Meanwhile, American agricultural inputs are slowly receding to her 1960s levels, meaning America is producing far more food with fewer resources. For corn production, for example, this means that the United States produces 70 bushels per hectare of hers, while European countries produce less than 50 of hers.
An interesting mix of regulatory actions and omissions leads to this divergence. A major contribution began in the 1970s when Germany introduced “Vorsorgeprinzip”, commonly known as the precautionary principle. This policy is a preventative public safety regulation that reverses the burden of proof in the regulatory approval process. For example, new crop protection chemicals are only approved if they are shown to have no adverse effects on human health or biodiversity. The precautionary principle presumes a comprehensive and difficult-to-establish level of evidence that a product will never cause harm, rather than relying solely on its toxicity. Because it was included in the treaty, it was significantly prolonged. Ironically, the old pesticide remained on the market and the new product failed to gain approval.
In fact, proof of the harmful effects of the precautionary principle, and coincidentally another reason why American agriculture is more effective, is becoming visible in the field of biotechnology. Food and newer gene-editing techniques are still illegal in the European Union. Regardless, the precautionary principle and Europe’s strict regulatory approach prevent its use.
Indeed, European policies have made agriculture less sustainable. That’s because Europe has ignored the innovation perspective. Let’s take the example of soil destruction. Agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions because carbon dioxide is stored in the soil, and when farmers destroy the soil through cultivation, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The more we destroy the soil, the more emissions we produce. In the United States more than 70% of his agriculture is done with reduced or no tillage, while in Europe more than 65% of his food is still produced in conventional tillage. The reason for this is that no-till farming requires the use of large amounts of pesticides and is frowned upon in Europe.
Without innovation, agriculture cannot become more sustainable. The European Union intends to shrink farmland, reduce the use of synthetic pesticides, and keep new biotech solutions illegal within its “Farm to Fork” strategy (known as F2F), while the United States We chose a different approach. USDA’s Agricultural Innovation Agenda (AIA) promotes the concept that more innovation will make food systems more efficient and sustainable through public and private research and investment. doing. While AIA is a forward-looking approach, F2F seeks to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture by reducing farmland use and reducing the toolbox for farmers to fight pests and plant diseases.
That said, America’s food system also faces challenges. American environmental campaigners and trial lawyers seem to want to introduce a European-style regulatory system through the courts, including by suing food companies. It creates the perverse effect of having to convince a judge or jury of the adverse effects of crop protection tools, not a scientific institution with As a result, pesticide development becomes a burden that only large companies can afford, leading to market concentration. This is a problem because in an era when agricultural efficiency and innovation are needed more than ever, it is imperative that competition dominates in the field of pesticides and agricultural technology. home, create a baseline for farmers to get different options in the market.
Ultimately, we need to recognize the wonders of modern agriculture. The benefits of high-yield agriculture are clear. We need to feed more people in a more sustainable way, while charging less. For example, the number of cows he needs to reduce by 60% compared to the 1930s, but the amount of milk produced by him doubles. We need to build on these types of successes to make our food system more efficient and sustainable.
Bill Wirtz is a Senior Policy Analyst at Consumer Choice Center, focusing on new technology, agriculture, trade and lifestyle regulation. He recently said, “No copy and paste: What you should not imitate from European agricultural regulations”
[ad_2]
Source link
