The European Union (EU) stands at a crucial crossroads as it seeks to balance agriculture and food supply with sustainability and environmental preservation. This balance brings to light some of the most pressing challenges of our time: biodiversity loss, extremely polluting livestock, drought and water degradation. Despite significant regulatory frameworks and political commitments, the path to a sustainable agricultural future in Europe is complex.

The results of the recent European elections have significant implications for the future of EU agricultural and environmental policies​​. Despite a rise in far-right parties opposed to stringent environmental regulations, the centrist European People’s Party (EPP) remains the largest group in the European Parliament, maintaining a clear majority with the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and the liberal Renew group [1]. However, the stronger presence of right-wing parties will likely influence the EU’s legislative agenda, potentially delaying or weakening environmental initiatives such as the Green Deal [2].

Biodiversity loss in Europe has reached alarming levels, with over 80% of European habitats in poor condition​​. The recently adopted EU Nature Restoration Law aims to reverse this trend by mandating the restoration of at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. This law sets legally binding targets for restoring degraded ecosystems, requiring member states to develop national restoration plans, prioritize Natura 2000 sites, and enhance biodiversity in agricultural lands. However, translating these ambitious targets into actionable steps across diverse member states remains a significant challenge [3].

“Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss, with agriculture alone being the identified threat to 24,000 of the 28,000 (86%) species at risk of extinction.” [4]

The EU member states spend huge amounts to subsidize agriculture. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU accounted for €57 billion in 2013, making it the largest expenditure in the EU budget. A new study showed that 82% of these agricultural subsidies were allocated to livestock and fodder [5].

“People see fields full of plants without considering their purpose is to feed animals.” [5]

Most agricultural subsidies end up with large farmers and even landowners who do not even farm themselves. Small (organic) farmers are most affected, not only because they receive fewer subsidies, they also have to compete with an existing system that has many economies of scale and innovation. Moreover, all external costs (e.g., environment, climate, health) can be passed on to the taxpayer. This way, intensive livestock farming is being advantaged twice concludes Jeroen Candel, Associate Professor of Food & Agricultural Policy at Wageningen University [2].

Livestock is also responsible for the vast majority of food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU. Livestock products subsidized by the CAP account for 84% of food-related GHG-emissions in the EU, with agriculture accounting for 10% of total EU GHG emissions [5]. This is in stark contrast to the EU’s climate target “Fit for 55”, which stipulates a net emissions reduction target of 55% by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.

In most Member States and regions, agriculture, and especially nature, is under pressure from increasing economic activity. If 70% of that agricultural land is used for animal production, it is clear what we need to do: We need to switch to more plant-based products, because a shift in eating habits, especially a reduction in the consumption of animal products, can reduce pressure on land and natural resources [2]. Technological innovations such as lab-grown meat and precision fermentation are also leading to alternatives to livestock [6].

“Producers of alternative proteins receive 1,200 times less public support than intensive livestock farming.” [6]

Candel stated that these innovators in alternative protein are surrounded by uncertainty: “we don’t know if they will be successful, but expectations are high. Potentially, they are disruptive innovations that could enable us to produce more sustainably” [2]. However, governments largely ignore the climate-mitigation potential of these innovators [6]. The Dutch Liberal Party (VVD), for example, always stresses the importance of innovation, but in reality tends to support the status quo: the current dominant agricultural regime, rather than these innovative forms of food production [2].

The future of agriculture in Europe hangs in the balance, influenced by political shifts, industrial lobbying, and societal pressures. As citizens and policymakers, the responsibility lies with us to push for changes that align agricultural practices with environmental sustainability and social equity.

Moving forward, we must advocate for policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices, support innovation, and ensure equitable distribution of resources. This includes rethinking subsidy systems, investing in new technologies, and fostering collaboration among all stakeholders—farmers, policymakers, scientists, and consumers.

Ultimately, achieving a sustainable agricultural future requires a collective effort. It demands that we remain informed, engaged, and proactive in advocating for change. By working together, we can create a resilient agricultural system that not only feeds the world but also nurtures the planet.