EU's Funding for Meat: Eumans and Food For Profit Expose the European Commission

Inside the EU Parliament

In collaboration with Food For Profit, Eumans has taken a firm stand against the EU’s public funding of intensive farming. Coordinated by our Brussels representative, Lorenzo Mineo, and a team of dedicated activists, we have decided to expose a concerning pattern in the European public funding framework. 

The European Commission recently issued “Calls for proposals” for the “Promotion of agricultural products within the Common Agricultural Policy. However, a vast majority of these funds are directed toward promoting meat-based products, which indirectly support the intensive farming industry. As highlighted in FFP’s documentary, this funding contradicts the EU’s Green Deal and persists due to a complex web of agrifood lobbies, Members of the European Parliament, and opaque advocacy mechanisms. 

 

Holding the EU Commission Accountable

To advance Eumans’ mission of fostering participatory democracy and sustainability, we decided to take action. However, before appealing to the European Ombudsman, institutional etiquette requires engaging with the relevant EU body first. On 30th May 2024, Lorenzo Mineo, alongside legal experts, formally requested the EU Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) to clarify how over €60 million in 2023 was allocated to meat-based product promotions. We questioned this logic because

 “these funds are granted to industries that engage in extensive exploitation of natural resources and rely on intensive farming systems aimed at producing goods for mass distribution, which have a high emission impact”.  

In our letter, we highlighted that these subsidies violate several EU laws aimed at sustainability, including:

Additionally, the European Court of Human Rights (decision Verein Klima Seniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, application no. 53600/20, 9th April 2024) and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (Advisory Opinion, 14th May, 2024) have both underscored the duty of states to adopt environmental protection measures, reinforcing our case. Simultaneously, environmental experts backtrack negative environmental impact to high-intensity agricultural activities, and remark EU policy inconsistency in the fight against climate change (2024 Report “Towards EU Climate Neutrality”; 2021 Report “Common Agricultural Policy and Climate”; 2020 Communication from the Commission “A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System”).

Eumans main concern is that 

“public funds granted for the promotion of meat-based products, or those derived from high-emission activities, significantly hinder the achievement of climate and environmental goals, such as climate neutrality, the protection of human health, and the reduction of industrial emissions”.

Consequently, we called on the European Commission to stop the funding granted in favour of meat-based products and/or those originating from high-intensity agricultural activities, and instead prioritise initiatives that are more aligned with the Union’s principles, objectives, and international obligations. 

 

The Commission’s Response and Our Counterarguments

Despite we reached out once again on 28th June, the European Commission’s response on 1st of August was evasive. They simply listed the regulations underpinning these public funds, claiming that 

“information and promotion activities aim to highlight the specific characteristics of the Union’s agricultural production methods, particularly regarding food safety, quality, authenticity, and sustainability, especially in terms of environmental protection, organic production, and animal welfare”. 

Moreover, they shifted responsibility to Member States, stating that compliance with dietary guidelines rests with them: 

“promotional activities directed at consumers in the internal market must refer to and comply with the dietary guidelines expressed in terms of food by the recipient Member States”.

This response left us with no choice but to issue another reply, setting the stage for a formal appeal to the Ombudsman by mid-September shall our claims be unanswered. We pointed out several contradictions in the Commission’s reply. First, while the Commission referenced EU Regulation n.1144/2014, art.5, which allows for the promotion of meat products, it neglected to acknowledge that their decision to fund such promotions contradicts their most recent sustainability directives. 

Besides, the Farm-to-Fork Strategy and Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan both call for a shift towards a plant-based diet and the reduction of the food system’s environmental impact. Yet, meat-based product promotions remain a priority for the Commission. 

We also raised concerns about the selection criteria for public funding. Sustainability, a core component of the ‘Farm-to-Fork’ programme, is only one of five sub-criteria for “Pertinence”, which is ranked lower than “Impact” and “Quality”. Therefore,

“adherence to the ‘Farm to Fork’ programme and the Green Deal [....] has an absolutely marginal impact on the selection of winning projects and does not provide a substantial incentive for proposing organisations to submit programmes that support European objectives”. 

The very principle of policy consistency is violated (TFEU, art.13). 

 

Next Steps: Appealing to the Ombudsman

In summary, the European Commission is fully responsible for funding industries that worsen climate change, in direct contradiction with its own policies. Eumans and Food For Profit consider this funding legally illegitimate and plan to appeal to the European Ombudsman if no substantial response is provided within 30 days. 

We remain committed to promoting sustainability and ensuring EU policies align with their stated environmental goals. Join us in holding the EU accountable for supporting industries that harm the planet and delay progress on climate change!.