Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Fostering sustainable and resilient food systems at times of growing crises (exploratory opinion requested by the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU)
Date: 2024-10-23
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agri-foodstuffs, competitiveness, crisis management, fishing industry, food industry, food price, food security, food systems, self-sufficiency in food, supply chain








C_202500117EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/117


10.1.2025






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee
Fostering sustainable and resilient food systems at times of growing crises
(exploratory opinion requested by the Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU)
(C/2025/117)


Rapporteurs: 
                  Joe HEALY (IE-III)

Piroska KÁLLAY (HU-II)

Arnold PUECH d’ALISSAC (FR-I)






Advisors


Kevin KINSELLA (Rapporteur’s Advisor Group III)
Gábor KIRALY (Rapporteur’s Advisor Group II)




Referral


Letter from the future Hungarian Presidency of the Council, 14.3.2024




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted in section


2.10.2024




Adopted at plenary session


23.10.2024




Plenary session No


591




Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)


207/9/10




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


This opinion identifies the key features and policy proposals necessary to foster sustainable and resilient food systems and strengthen the EU’s crisis management tools. Food systems were affected by increased risks both to farmers and to EU food security and sovereignty during the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and the energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine.












1.2.


The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) believes that EU agricultural, fisheries and food policy must be better equipped to adapt to the continuous challenges facing the sector. It must also be competitive, crisis proof, economically, environmentally and socially sustainable, producer-friendly, knowledge-based and capable of delivering high-quality food at competitive prices, as well as providing producers with a strong, sustainable income. This requires mechanisms to regulate food prices, taking into account production costs and environmental standards to ensure fair market prices. The current structure of the commodities market is not serving the objectives linked to sustainable development, climate ambition, and the just transition.












1.3.


The EESC puts forward the following proposals:






Economic Instruments








—


Increase the CAP, EMFAF and the food chain strand of the Single Market Programme (SMP) budget to provide adequate financial resources to meet policy needs and ambitions in the areas of EU agriculture, fisheries and food. The agricultural reserve should be significantly increased and made multi-annual.










—


Concrete measures are needed to ensure that primary producers receive a fair price, for example by introducing price guarantees and regulating the balance of power in the food chain. Identify ex ante objective criteria for thresholds determining when a market crisis arises.










—


Increase de minimis aid thresholds and criteria.










—


Examine and devise an EU-wide system of public insurance against natural disasters with a high level of public investment.










—


Increase support for cooperative and similar association models.










—


Support community-assisted agriculture, such as food hubs and local and short food chains, including European quality schemes and the use of financial incentives for these products (e.g. VAT reduction, etc.).










—


Introduce tools and mechanisms, similar to those in France, to change how producer prices are set, taking account of all costs so as to rebalance power in the food chain.










—


Establish a digitised centre for collecting data on prices and costs to bring transparency to the food supply chain.










—


Insist that all current and future EU trade deals fully incorporate Green Deal and Farm to Fork standards, EU food safety, animal and plant health regulations, and other standards related to food production and sustainability.










—


Simplify and remove red tape throughout the food chain.










—


Reward farmers for carbon sequestration and carbon-efficient production systems.






Environmental Sustainability








—


Regenerate and restore soil health. Water efficiency should be increased by using technologies to reduce water use, such as precision irrigation. This is particularly important in drought-stricken regions.










—


Avoid carbon leakage by encouraging food production in the most carbon-efficient food producing areas.










—


Ensure effective enforcement of unfair trading practices rules, including a ban on below-cost pricing, and insist on the standardisation of their application at the European level.






Social and Societal Support








—


Strengthen food security and strategic autonomy and boost the resilience of farming and fishing by reducing dependence on imports.










—


Encourage young people and women by fostering generational renewal, education and training.










—


Regulate trade flows to avoid unnecessary market disruption.










—


Set up the European Food Policy Council (EFPC) as a platform for strengthening dialogue on food-related issues, similar to the proposal by the strategic dialogue.










—


Labelling of origin for raw materials and processed products, as an option to promote stable relations between producers and industry and a way to inform consumers (1).




2.   Introduction









2.1.


Growing crisis situations and the resulting risks for the agri-food sector have shown that steps must be taken to step up coordination and improve contingency planning, so as to be prepared to deal with any threats to the EU’s food supply and food security.












2.2.


The Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU has asked the EESC to prepare an exploratory opinion addressing sustainable and resilient food systems at times of growing crises. This opinion should highlight the fact that European agriculture and fisheries have never faced as many challenges and economic turbulences as they do today.












2.3.


The Hungarian presidency is aiming to facilitate timely discussions on both how to create a competitive, crisis-proof, sustainable, farmer-friendly and knowledge-based future for EU agriculture and fisheries and the shape of the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the European Maritime, Aquaculture and Fisheries Fund (EMFAF) and the food chain strand of the Single Market Programme (SMP). To deliver a comprehensive European food policy which is truly relevant to European consumers, the EESC considers that the price and quality of the food produced sustainably in the EU must be competitive and affordable. This means that the European agri-food sector is able to deliver food for consumers at prices that include extra costs for criteria such as sustainability, animal welfare, food safety and nutritional value, but also a fair return to the farmers and fishers, and at the same time, maintains its position as the preferred choice for the vast majority of consumers (2).












2.4.


The EESC sees this opinion as an opportunity to put forward civil society recommendations to foster sustainable and resilient food systems in the EU through a holistic approach. The opinion also aims to feed into the discussions begun at the EU AGRIFISH Council meeting on 27 May 2024, where Member States’ agriculture and fisheries ministers said that they were willing to strengthen crisis management tools and recognised the need for flexible, resilient and more far-sighted crisis management, in which research and innovation play a major role.












2.5.


By raising awareness about the value of food, the EESC has been the first EU institution to call for a comprehensive food policy in the EU (3). Such a policy is crucial for guaranteeing healthy food produced by sustainable food systems, linking agriculture and fisheries to nutrition and ecosystem services, and ensuring that supply chains prioritise public health as vital for the EU (4).












2.6.


The EESC fully supports the need to enhance fairness, equity and transparency in the agricultural, fisheries and food supply chain, particularly by strengthening the economic position of farmers, fishers and small food producers.












2.7.


In 2022, the EU food chain comprised 12 million farm holdings and food enterprises, providing employment for 29 million people and producing EUR 800 billion in added value (5). However, there were 3 million fewer farms in the EU in 2020 than in 2010, a decrease of 24,8 % (6). As regards fisheries, according to the FAO (7), the EU fleet comprised around 74 000 vessels in 2020, a 28 % reduction compared to 2000, and the fleet is still shrinking.












2.8.


The EESC is pleased that, as called for in the Committee’s previous opinions, the European Commission has proposed several measures to increase flexibility and ease administrative burdens for EU farmers (although this is still not the case for fishers), with a view to reinforcing food sovereignty and improving farm incomes. However, the Committee points out that flexibility should not imply decreased support and a weakened CAP (8).




3.   Policies to support food producers and a more resilient and sustainable food supply chain









3.1.


Agricultural and fisheries production is inherently risky. Yields, product quality and prices are influenced by many external factors with significant impacts, such as the weather and other environmental or sanitary factors (such as animal diseases and plant pests). Agricultural production is also subject to risks stemming from developments in agricultural markets, trade disruption or geopolitical events. Last but not least, the narrative of crisis is often seen as an opportunity for large food intermediaries to increase their profits. In times of growing crisis, when shocks become more frequent, markets become more volatile, making farming riskier and food more expensive.












3.2.


Longer-term trends of inherently low farm incomes, increased price volatility, extreme weather and climate-related crises, and a diluted and weaker Common Market Organisation (CMO) have exposed structural problems in the EU food and agricultural policy and weakened EU farmers and EU food security and sovereignty.












3.3.


In the early decades of the CAP, strong CMO measures were designed to stabilise markets (intervention, private storage aid, export subsidies), encourage production and ensure steady incomes for farmers and fishers and adequate food supplies for consumers. In the course of various CAP reforms, market support has been diluted, removing effective price support. This support has been replaced by safety nets provided through aid schemes for some sectors, market support tools, marketing standards, producer organisations and competition rules.












3.4.


The last CAP reform of 2021/2022 and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of 2013 had a very strong environmental orientation and practically ignored the CMO. The result was inadequate price support and crisis management tools that were unable to support farm incomes adequately when the COVID-19 crisis struck, followed by the war in Ukraine and the resulting energy and input cost crisis.












3.5.


Financed through the agricultural reserve, the main support instruments in the CMO which deal with crisis management are Articles 219 to 222. From 1 January 2014 to the end of 2023, 63 exceptional measures were adopted under these articles (9). While these measures have proved to be essential across a wide spectrum of sectors at various times, they have not proved effective in challenging the longer-term erosion and damage done to the sustainability of EU food systems and farmers by the many ongoing crises.












3.6.


Regarding fisheries, in 2021 the EMFAF was adopted and included support provisions for exceptional events causing market disruption. These provisions may cover compensation for operators in the fisheries and aquaculture sector for foregone income or additional costs and storage aid to producer organisations. The problem is that the latest versions of the WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies prohibit subsidies for a range of issues, such as operating losses and price support for fish caught or fuel. These can only be granted when fish stocks are satisfactory; however, as recognised by the WTO agreement, the state of fish stocks may be influenced by factors beyond the control of the subsidising Member. The Commission therefore needs to advocate for the introduction of force majeure provisions, whereby subsidies may be granted under exceptional circumstances.












3.7.


To demonstrate just how ineffective the CMO safety net measures would be in a time of crisis, intervention in the beef sector would only be triggered when the market price in a Member State falls below 85 % of the reference price (i.e., EUR 1,93/kg), although the current average EU price for beef is EUR 5,06/kg. Therefore, intervention would only apply if the average EU price fell by 62 %.












3.8.


The EESC stresses that the future CAP framework must guarantee agriculture across the EU, including vulnerable regions and not just in favourable locations and the most productive regions.












3.9.


The EESC proposes that the EU strengthen its food security and strategic autonomy and boost the resilience of its farming and fishing sector and entire supply chain (10). It should do so by investing in research and innovation, reducing dependence on imports from outside the EU, introducing sustainability criteria in trade preferences regulations such as the autonomous tariff quota (ATQ) system, linking access to the EU market with access to the third country’s waters, and diversifying the supply of critical production imports such as fertiliser, feed and raw materials (11). In this regard, the EESC points out that the Farm to Fork Strategy includes a legislative initiative requiring indication of origin for certain products. Labelling the origin of agricultural and fisheries raw materials and processed products will bring more transparency into the food supply chain and strengthen production in Europe in a way that complies with high standards (12).












3.10.


In order to support farm incomes effectively, the EU must increase the CAP budget to provide adequate financial resources and be commensurate with its ambition to support a just transition (13). The EESC regrets the EU decision to cut EUR 105 million from the current EMFAF for the period 2025-2027 and requests an increase in resources for the next financial period. In addition, in order to ensure effective price support and crisis management instruments, funding for the agricultural reserve (set at EUR 450 million per annum) needs to be set at a significantly higher level and be multi-annual.












3.11.


The EESC proposes that the EU examine the recommendation from the European Court of Auditors to set ex ante objective parameters and criteria which would act as thresholds for determining when a market disturbance arises and an exceptional measure should be triggered. This approach should assist with prevention as well as providing more robust protection in times of crisis.












3.12.


The EESC proposes that the de minimis aid for the agricultural sector be increased from EUR 20 000 to EUR 50 000 per farm over three years to give the Member States more flexibility to respond to specific crisis in their countries. Likewise, the EESC believes that the recent increase in the de minimis aid ceiling per fishing company over three years, from EUR 30 000 to EUR 40 000, falls short of the sector’s actual needs.












3.13.


Current and future natural disasters should be considered in the context of a societal risk and not an individual burden. Against this background, the EESC proposes that the EU examine and devise an EU-wide system of public insurance against natural disasters with a high level of public investment. It must be financed separately from the CAP budget and be compatible with international trade regulations. Examples of insurance schemes are already in operation in a number of Member States (e.g. France, Spain and Austria).












3.14.


Mutual funds share risks among groups of producers or cooperatives, enabling farmers to be compensated in the event of loss. The EU could establish and initially finance mutual funds in agriculture and the costs of running them. Such types of mutual funds must keep the money for a mutual purpose.












3.15.


The EESC proposes that agricultural cooperatives and similar association models, as well as fish producer organisations, should receive significant support as they play a crucial role in improving food security, generating income and building local communities. This strengthens the position of farmers and fishers in the markets, increases their income and improves their ability to produce more in a more sustainable and resilient way. Through scale and bulk processing and purchasing, cooperatives and similar models of association strengthen farmers’ position in the marketplace, especially when dealing with the imbalance of power on the retail side. Many cooperatives and similar models of association provide their members with contract product prices, supporting or guaranteeing prices, which in turn remove or reduce price volatility and risk. The Irish dairy sector is an excellent example of the positive impact of cooperatives. There is a particular need to revitalise cooperative structures and similar models of association in Eastern Europe, where unfortunately they have been abandoned due to bad connotations in the past.












3.16.


Alternative food initiatives, such as community-supported agriculture, food hubs and regional or local food chains, are often considered to be at the forefront of the transition to a more sustainable and resilient food system. These modes of food production and consumption provide an opportunity for producers to reconnect with consumers and rebalance power in the supply chain. They also prioritise values such as solidarity, trust, justice and environmental sustainability and foster mutual learning about and appreciation of food along the supply chain (14). Accordingly, these initiatives, along with strong promotional (internal and external) and quality schemes, can clearly contribute to the take-up of more sustainable patterns of behaviour with regard to food and should be supported as a key objective in future policy making on the agri-food sector.












3.17.


Regional producers often operate in the immediate vicinity of the local population, thus gaining some ‘societal control’, which should also tend to drive sustainable production methods (15). The EESC recommends that the EU, both under the future CAP and otherwise, propose schemes and measures encouraging the development of types of short chains.












3.18.


Given that access to finance is a prerequisite for certain transitions as well as a key feature in enhancing the resilience and adaptability of the agricultural sector, the EESC advocates supporting farmers’ investment capacity with simple and bureaucracy-free financial instruments, such as guarantee instruments or risk sharing loans. In this regard, the memorandum of understanding between DG AGRI and the European Investment Bank (EIB) has proven successful. More broadly, a reflection together with banks and other private stakeholders about the future of sustainable agricultural investments should take place.












3.19.


The EESC highlights the importance of supporting and strengthening the position of young people and women who intend to start up a business in the food production sector. Steps must be taken to ensure that they have access to land and credit, fostering the generational renewal that is critical to ensuring a future for food systems through education, training and greater recognition (16). The EESC further suggests to establish rules for land use, to balance land affectation for food production with other land uses that would compete with food production (such as some projects for energy production and leisure activities) and to revert the intensification of land concentration (17) by protecting the access to land for food producers towards purchases by private companies for speculative purposes.












3.20.


The EESC believes that policy support should target improving and rewarding practices which help to regenerate and restore soil health (18). The promotion of and support for regenerative, organic farming and agroecological practices should be given even greater priority in the future, in order to maintain the health of our soils and safeguard one of the most important resources for farmers. In addition, production and processing throughout the food chain should be incentivised to reduce water use and promote the reuse and recycling of water. It is essential to keep water in the area and to support projects and measures that reduce water use (e.g., precision investments) (19). The EESC also recommends to better manage the conditions of use in agriculture of sewage sludges, as part of circular practices, and their quality to ensure the absence of pollutants. In the context of sustainability standards being set by various actors, organisations and institutions, both public and private, the EESC recognises the need to harmonise methodologies and clarify definitions of on-farm sustainability assessments so that they fit farmers’ daily reality, do not contradict each other, and avoid detrimental overlapping.




4.   A fairer food supply chain (in the EU and internationally)









4.1.


The EESC believes that a fair and sustainable food supply chain is fundamentally dependent on farmers and fishers receiving a fair price from the market that covers the costs of production and leaves them an economically sustainable margin. Income stability for farmers and fishers is the key to a resilient and sustainable food supply chain.












4.2.


Regarding international trade, the EESC supports rapid responses to disrupted trade flows (increase in imports of specific products originating as far as possible from sustainable sources). The EESC considers that trade flows can be regulated easily with solid knowledge of trade. Coordinated implementation by exporters and importers could be done automatically as soon as a 10 % increase in trade volume is recorded for a set period, for example, one year. If the increase is justified by an unforeseen event which has led to lower domestic production, the clause would not be activated. On the other hand, if the increase is not justified, an additional customs duty would be applied to limit this increase (20).












4.3.


Regarding price negotiations, one possible forward-looking solution is to have the price set by negotiation between the producer and the primary processor or buyer. This price should ensure that the producer earns an income corresponding to twice the minimum salary on an annual basis. Until now, the price paid to the producer has largely been decided by means of negotiation between industry and retailers. In France, this new type of negotiation applies already for 80 % of dairy products and a fourth of the beef sector, based on inter-professional cost estimates. Known as the Egalim Law in France (21), this bolsters the farmers’ protection and rebalances the relationship with the retail sector (only the milk, beef and pork sectors use this system of negotiation). This type of sectorial price negotiation is currently applicable to national markets, as what is exported is linked to international market prices.












4.4.


The EESC is proposing that the European Commission investigate a new policy model to strengthen the farming sector’s bargaining position in the food chain when it comes to price negotiations. This could be based on the French model, with a European policy-framework enabling farmers to be in a position to legally negotiate prices through their inter-professional bodies, across the different sectors. The EESC also recommends considering setting up a dispute resolution process/mechanism, in line with the one in place in France, which would help strengthen the position of farmers without adding excessive bureaucracy.












4.5.


The absence of true cost accounting is a major shortcoming in food systems and often results in farmers and fishers receiving a price below the cost of production. The EESC welcomes the Commission’s initiative to set up an observatory on production costs, margins and trading practices in the food supply chain.












4.6.


The EESC proposes that the Commission set up a digitised centre for collecting detailed, real-time market price data covering the entire food chain (producer, processor, distribution and retailer) across all agricultural and fisheries sectors in all Member States. This is key for the fair and transparent operation of food markets, for rebalancing power in the food chain and for enabling the fast and effective application of market crisis instruments. The EESC proposes that the European Commission examine the Livestock Mandatory Reporting system in the USA where packers and importers are required to submit purchases and sales of livestock and livestock products to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) (22).












4.7.


In the past, the EESC has pointed out that the current structure of the commodities market is not delivering the ‘sustainable economy we need’ or meeting the objectives linked to sustainable development, climate ambition and the just transition laid down in the UN Agenda 2030 and the European Green Deal. In fact, it is actively working against them (23).












4.8.


The EU must also undertake to guarantee the fundamental rights of all food chain workers (production, processing, distribution). Accordingly, it should commit to safeguarding the fundamental social rights of workers and, in particular, uphold the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the relevant ILO conventions and recommendations (24). Sustainable and resilient food systems need fair working conditions and orderly industrial relations for workers. Often the working conditions, social protection systems and health and safety of workers in the agri-food sectors are weaker, especially when it comes to seasonal workers (25).












4.9.


A constant challenge to EU sustainable food systems are food imports from third countries which fail to comply with EU standards and obligations that apply to the same products in the EU. The EESC proposes that all current and future EU trade deals apply the principle of reciprocity (26) and therefore must incorporate internationally agreed standards as well as EU food safety, animal and plant health regulations, and any other standards related to food production and sustainability (European Green Deal (EGD), Farm to Fork (F2F), Biodiversity and Fit for 55 strategies), recognising that integrating and implementing SDGs and higher standards into multilateral trade deals is extremely challenging. All EU trade deals must respect EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) provisions and adhere to the precautionary principle (27).












4.10.


The introduction of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive has improved the supply chain for primary producers, especially in relation to payments. However, more effective enforcement and targeted expansion of the areas covered by this directive are needed, with clear sanctions where necessary. Uniform application across the Member States is also essential.












4.11.


The EESC proposes that the Unfair Trading Practices Directive be reinforced by providing the competent authorities with robust enforcement powers. In addition, there should be a ban on selling items below cost. Grey listed practices should be elevated to black listed status.












4.12.


The EESC proposes that the EU examine the transposition of the Unfair Trading Practices Directive in Spain: this is a good example of the way forward, as this transposition forces each link in the food chain to cover its production costs.




5.   Towards a sustainable food systems framework









5.1.


The agri-food sector would benefit from a clear regulatory framework providing it with more stability and certainty. For example, the EESC has highlighted the limitations of voluntary approaches such as the EU code of conduct on responsible business and marketing practices, and called for the adoption of regulation and legislation to ensure a swift transition to sustainability (28).












5.2.


The EESC believes that simplification and removal of excessive red tape through production-friendly policies and streamlined regulatory frameworks are essential. Regulatory approaches must avoid burdensome compliance costs that could inhibit innovation, while maintaining sustainability goals.












5.3.


Since most agri-environmental schemes are voluntary, a systemic and innovative approach is needed. This approach must complement conventional economic analysis-based policy making by taking into account the influence of behavioural factors on the sustainable farming decisions (29) taken by farmers. A better understanding of both economic and behavioural factors that influence farmers’ participation in agri-environmental schemes is crucial. Economic incentives, market conditions, and behavioural insights should work in tandem to create culturally embedded policies that are practical for farmers in diverse regions, which are critical for achieving a sustainable transition in food systems (30).












5.4.


The EESC is of the opinion that strong EU regulation that sets the basis for systemic changes is necessary in order to accelerate the transition to a sustainable EU food system. In this regard, sustainable public procurement will be an important lever for strengthening the demand for sustainable food products, including products certified according to European quality schemes.












5.5.


The EESC welcomed the announcement of an EU framework for sustainable food systems, which would lay the foundation for the systemic changes that need to be made by all stakeholders across the value chain. It would point out that such a framework should be proposed without delay by the new Commission in order to address the challenges of food systems in a timely manner (31).












5.6.


Public participation and civil society involvement in the decision-making process is crucial. In order to feed strategically into the Commission’s work and facilitate this transition, the EESC has been calling for the creation of a European Food Policy Council (EFPC) (32).












5.7.


With the world population set to increase to close to 10 billion people by 2050, and demand for food expected to grow by 70 % over the same period, a CAP and a CFP capable of fostering sustainable and resilient EU food systems are essential. This requires not only innovative, science-based solutions producing more food with less climate and environmental impact, wasting less food, and distributing it more fairly, but also support for region-specific practices that respect local ecosystems.












5.8.


The EESC advocates strengthening education and knowledge transfer among farmers and the local community, as well as promoting the value of food by fostering food education among consumers; this in turn would help bring the agricultural and fisheries sector closer to society. The EESC reiterates the importance of investing in education on sustainable diets from an early age, in order to help young people appreciate the value of food. Particular attention must be paid to vulnerable groups, especially people on low incomes (33).












5.9.


The EESC recommends that the EU explore models that reward farmers and land managers for carbon sequestration, taking into account the challenges of measuring carbon accurately and the diverse conditions across Member States. Such models should prioritise inclusivity, ensuring that small and medium-sized farms can also benefit more without facing prohibitive costs; at the same time, this model must fully respect ecological principles and promote the creation of an EU single market for capture, use, storage and transport of CO2 through innovative technologies (34), taking into account the unique characteristics of agriculture (circular emissions), the measurability of carbon emissions and sequestrations, and the distribution of risks and cost incurred across the value chain. Carbon-efficient production systems should be encouraged and incentivised. The EESC is convinced that the bioeconomy can play a crucial role in fostering sustainable and resilient food systems, not least by creating added value for side-streams and by-products or through improved crop rotations (35).












5.10.


In the EU, over 58 million tonnes of food waste (131 kg/inhabitant) are generated annually (36), with an associated market value estimated at 132 billion euros (37). This corresponds to about 20 % of all food produced. This waste is responsible for a global warming potential of about 186 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (38). Key measures for reducing food waste include information and education-based initiatives, especially for younger people in schools, economic/financial measures such as incentives and market signals including subsidies, grants and tax credit schemes, regulatory measures that make it easier for supermarkets to donate unsold food, and voluntary agreements. A distinction should be made here between food which is wasted because of people’s bad habits (which can be mitigated by information campaigns involving organised civil society and youth organisations and by specific programmes in schools) and food chain waste mainly due to very low prices paid to farmers who are thus forced to stop harvesting their products because it is economically unviable. Food chain waste could be remedied by producer-generated pricing in which the primary processor industry plays a key role. Food hubs are another possible solution to limit food waste and supply chain waste, and lead to improvements in food quality and sustainable agricultural practices. In addition, and in line with food safety rules, food donation should be made less difficult by easing red tape and imposing simple, clear rules and by facilitating the creation of local food donation platforms to help match beneficiaries with donors. For example, these rules should enable canteens and restaurants to donate excess food relatively easily, thus avoiding food waste and supporting people in need.






Brussels, 23 October 2024.


The President


of the European Economic and Social Committee

Oliver RÖPKE
               





(1)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Towards a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 97).

(2)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Food security and sustainable food systems (exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency) (
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 72).

(3)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A From Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020) 381) (
OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 268); Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Food security and sustainable food systems (exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency) (
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 72).

(4)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Food security and sustainable food systems (exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency) (
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 72).

(5)  Eurostat - Key figures on the European food chain.

(6)  Eurostat - Key figures on the European food chain.

(7)  FAO - The state of world fisheries and aquaculture.

(8)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2021/2115 and (EU) 2021/2116 as regards good agricultural and environmental condition standards, schemes for climate, environment and animal welfare, amendments to CAP Strategic Plans, review of CAP Strategic Plans and exemptions from controls and penalties (COM(2024) 139 final – 2024/0073) (OJ C, C/2024/4063, 12.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4063/oj).

(9)  
            COM/2024/12 final.

(10)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Strategic autonomy and food security and sustainability’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 56).

(11)  
            COM/2024/12 final.

(12)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Towards a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 97).

(13)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Advancing the EU’s just transition policy framework: what measures are necessary?’ (exploratory opinion at the request of the Belgian Presidency) (OJ C, C/2024/1576, 5.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1576/oj).

(14)  Plank, Christina, Rike Stotten, and Robert Hafner. 2024. ‘Values-Based Modes of Production and Consumption: Analyzing How Food Alternatives Transform the Current Food Regime’. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 8 (June):1266145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.12661; De Bernardi, Paola, Alberto Bertello, Francesco Venuti, and Alessandro Zardini. 2021. ‘Knowledge Transfer Driving Community-Based Business Models towards Sustainable Food-Related Behaviours: A Commons Perspective’. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 19 (3): 319–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1664271.

(15)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Towards a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 75, 28.2.2023, p. 97).

(16)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The role of youth in rural development (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/1570, 5.3.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1570/oj).

(17)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – A just transition to ensure a sustainable future for EU agri-food systems (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/6878, 28.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6878/oj).

(18)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on EU Soil Strategy for 2030 — Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate (COM(2021) 699 final) (
OJ C 290, 29.7.2022, p. 131).

(19)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Sustainable water management and climate emergency: circular and other solutions for the EU agri-food system in a future “Blue Deal”
            ’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 349, 29.9.2023, p. 80).

(20)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Introduction of safeguard measures for agricultural products in trade agreements’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 364, 28.10.2020, p. 49).

(21)  Egalim 3: Balancing the trade relationship between agri-food and large retailers.

(22)  USDA - Livestock Mandatory Reporting.

(23)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Food price crisis: the role of speculation and concrete proposals for action in the aftermath of the Ukraine war’ (Own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 100, 16.3.2023, p. 51).

(24)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Food security and sustainable food systems (exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency) (
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 72).

(25)  EESC study: Collecting data on the situation of social protection of seasonal workers in the agriculture and food sectors in EU Member States after COVID-19.

(26)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Towards a Fair Food Supply Chain’ (Exploratory opinion) (
OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 38).

(27)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Food security and sustainable food systems (exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency) (
OJ C 194, 12.5.2022, p. 72).

(28)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Aligning food business strategies and operations with the SDGs for a sustainable post-COVID-19 recovery’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 152, 6.4.2022, p. 63).

(29)  Schaub, Sergei, Jaboury Ghazoul, Robert Huber, Wei Zhang, Adelaide Sander, Charles Rees, Simanti Banerjee, and Robert Finger. 2023. ‘The Role of Behavioural Factors and Opportunity Costs in Farmers’ Participation in Voluntary Agri-environmental Schemes: A Systematic Review’. Journal of Agricultural Economics 74 (3): 617–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12538.

(30)  Burton, Rob J.F., and Upananda Herath Paragahawewa. 2011. ‘Creating Culturally Sustainable Agri-Environmental Schemes’. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (1): 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001.

(31)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: ‘Towards a European Food Policy Council as a new governance model in the future EU framework on Sustainable Food Systems’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 293, 18.8.2023, p. 1).

(32)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee: ‘Towards a European Food Policy Council as a new governance model in the future EU framework on Sustainable Food Systems’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 293, 18.8.2023, p. 1


(33)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Promoting healthy and sustainable diets in the EU’ (own-initiative opinion) (
OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 9).

(34)  
            COM/2022/672 final; Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Sustainable Carbon Cycles (COM(2021) 800 final) (
OJ C 323, 26.8.2022, p. 95).

(35)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Bioeconomy — contributing to achieving the EU’s climate and energy goals and the UN’s sustainable development goals’ (exploratory opinion) (
OJ C 440, 6.12.2018, p. 45).

(36)  
            Eurostat, 2023.

(37)  
            SWD (2023)421.

(38)  EEA - Bio-waste in Europe.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/117/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)