How agricultural policy impacts on health

European Union: subsidy policy that is harmful to health
The health impact assessments (HIAs) carried out in 1997 and 2003 focused on the possible effects of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on the health of people living in EU member states. The core elements of the CAP were, and still are, subsidies for dairy products and meat, and the deliberate destruction of vast quantities of fruit and vegetables in the EU. As a result of these two measures, large amounts of milk, butter, cream, cheese, meat and meat products have been available in the last forty years at prices lower than those of fruit and vegetables. According to the HIA, this situation is responsible for the rise in the incidence of dietary health risks such as cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and obesity in the EU.

On the basis of the HIA findings, the
following recommendations aimed at EU politicians were drawn up:
– Stop subsidising the destruction of fruit and vegetables
– Stop distributing high-fat milk to schoolchildren
– Stop subsidising the distillation of wine surpluses
– Reduce subsidies for beef and dairy products
– Subsidise fruit and vegetable production in particular
– Increase production of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids

This HIA gave rise to intense discussions – about the subsidies for distilling wine surpluses, for instance – which showed how difficult it was to implement HIA recommendations. The fact that HIAs give rise to debate on conflicts of interest is, however, not only normal, it is also desirable: only in this way can solutions be found that are acceptable to all sides.

Swiss Agricultural Policy 2011: side effects not ruled out
In 2006, the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) commissioned a pilot study to assess the impact of Agricultural Policy 2011 on health. Agricultural Policy 2011 essentially constitutes a further step towards market deregulation (dismantling of market barriers, reduction of market support) and a more ecological approach to farming.
According to the study, the incentives to make farming more ecological have a particularly health-promoting effect. The greater economic attractiveness of organic farming facilitates structural change, resulting in larger and more professionally managed farms and more targeted and more efficient use of fertilisers and plant protection agents. A likely result is a reduction in pollutant levels in foodstuffs, drinking water, soil and the atmosphere, and an increase in the diversity of both living and recreation spaces for both people and nature.
Besides the positive effects, however, a number of negative developments are also conceivable as a result of the removal of market support and growing cost pressures. They include the emergence of exceptionally large farms and intensive animal raising practices, which harms the well-being of the animals and increases the use of antibiotics. The cost pressures are also likely to result in more specialised and more intensive farming in certain regions, thereby running the risk of excessively high pollutant levels in the local soil and water. The economic pressure could well force farmers, particularly mountain farmers, to give up farming. This would cause the loss of valuable farming land and, along with it, important recreation spaces for the population. But the study also draws attention to the health of those who are most directly affected by agricultural policy: the farmers themselves. Because of their uncertain future and possible loss of income, they are also particularly exposed to emotional pressures, the severity of which should not be underestimated.