OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Slow Food

NA

Slow Food is a global movement working to ensure good, clean and fair food for all people and the planet.

Lobbying Activity

Slow Food urges ban on exporting harmful EU-prohibited pesticides

14 Oct 2025
Topic — A consultation on simplifying EU food and feed safety regulations and marketing rules.
Message — Slow Food demands an end to the production and export of pesticides banned within the EU. They also call for lowering residue limits for imported products.12
Why — These measures would protect consumer health and reduce environmental contamination from industrial agriculture.34
Impact — Pesticide manufacturers lose the ability to export hazardous chemicals to non-EU markets.56
Read full response

Meeting with Cynthia Ní Mhurchú (Member of the European Parliament)

24 Jun 2025 · Making agri-food policies work on the field

Meeting with Philippe Lamberts (Principal Adviser Inspire, Debate, Engage and Accelerate Action)

24 Jun 2025 · Presentation of the requests of the Slow Food movement in view of the future CAP. Other Commission officials present were Patricia Reilly (Cab President) and Esther de Lange (Cab Hansen)

Meeting with Patrick Child (Deputy Director-General Environment) and

3 Jun 2025 · Exchange of views on LIFE

Meeting with Maria Noichl (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Apr 2025 · Ernährung

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

25 Mar 2025 · Roundtable “Water, Agriculture, and the Food Supply Chain”

Meeting with Cristina Guarda (Member of the European Parliament)

14 Mar 2025 · Agriculture, food

Slow Food urges mandatory EU standards for food procurement

7 Mar 2025
Topic — The EU is evaluating rules governing public procurement contracts across member states.
Message — Slow Food requests mandatory EU standards for sustainable public food procurement. They want criteria to prioritize agroecological practices and support small-scale farmers. The group also advocates for plant-rich diets and shorter supply chains.12
Why — Small-scale farmers would benefit from stronger support and improved market access.34
Read full response

Meeting with Luis Carazo Jimenez (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development) and Humundi (ex-SOS Faim SOS Hunger) and

22 Jan 2025 · Exchange of views on the report “Trading away the future? How the EU’s agri-trade policy is at odds with sustainability goals"

Meeting with Camilla Laureti (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jan 2025 · Biodiversità

Meeting with Benoit Cassart (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Jan 2025 · Prise de contact

Meeting with Nicolae Ștefănuță (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Dec 2024 · Discussing slow food producers manifesto with regards to a new CAP

Meeting with Terry Reintke (Member of the European Parliament) and European Environmental Bureau and

21 Nov 2024 · New European Commission

Meeting with Thomas Waitz (Member of the European Parliament)

21 Nov 2024 · Sustainable Nutrition

Meeting with David Cormand (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Nov 2024 · Food Policy

Meeting with Roberto Berutti (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and EuroCommerce and

12 Apr 2024 · Meeting to present the research on food waste management

Meeting with Kurt Vandenberghe (Director-General Climate Action) and European farmers and

27 Jun 2023 · Fit for 55

Meeting with Martin Häusling (Member of the European Parliament) and Friends of the Earth Europe and

7 Feb 2023 · Übergabe der Petition “Keep New GMOs regulated and labelled!”

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Eurocities and

16 Dec 2022 · VTC Meeting: Sustainable Food Systems/Procurement

Meeting with Sarah Wiener (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Stichting BirdLife Europe and

12 Jul 2022 · staff only: Sustainable Use Regulation, exchange of views on the Commission proposal

Response to Revision of the EU geographical indications(GI) systems in agricultural products and foodstuffs, wines and spirit drinks

21 Jun 2022

While we welcome the recognition that "As sustainability concerns have become more accentuated in recent years, GI and TSG production is not or not systematically taking them into consideration" (p. 5), we regret that “inclusion by the GI producer group of sustainability criteria in the product specification” remain voluntary (art. 12). This is a missed opportunity to encourage more producers to adopt sustainable practices; to allow those producers already adopting sustainable practices to distinguish themselves and justify a premium price; to meet consumers expectations in terms of improved access to sustainable food. We regret that the opportunity was not taken to anticipate the debate on sustainable food labelling and be pioneer in contributing to make the Union food system more sustainable by integrating mandatory sustainability criteria in GIs schemes. Even if the Farm to Fork Strategy is mentioned (p. 5), we regret the lack of specific mention to how GIs contributes to achieving the strategy’s targets. If the legislator wants the GIs to effectively contribute to achieving them, then they must be acknowledged in the Regulation and considered in the methodology and in the indicators used to define the sustainability standards. I.e., the targets to reduce by 50% the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030 and by 50% the sales of antimicrobials used for farmed animals and aquaculture set in the F2F. Leaving apart the debate on the sustainability criteria (which for Slow Food are intrinsically linked to quality) and focusing on the specific definitions of GIs (art. 48), still it does not seem that the problem of the diverse interpretations of “quality” is properly addressed. Based on the analysis of European GIs cheeses and processed pork products that Slow Food carried out, it clearly emerges that there is not unique and coherent way of interpreting “quality” because there are no guidelines for product category and producers’ consortia have a wide margin of discretion both in drawing up production specifications and in their practical application. There is a major discrepancy in the level of accuracy of the specifications. While some are well articulated and identify high quality standards and very precise rules, others are superficial or too succinct leaving space for the use of poor-quality raw materials. To be coherent with the GIs definitions and to respond to quality expectations by consumers, a set of minimum requirements per product category to be included in the products specifications should be defined to assess the quality of the products. Otherwise, the risk is that the legislation will continue to allow the use of GIs schemes for products with a weak link with the place of origin. Protecting a traditional product should mean guaranteeing the production conditions that have shaped its fame and identity: not only the unique territories, but also the ecosystems and biodiversity of those territories and the artisanal knowledge. The raw materials should be an expression of the area where the product is made. I.e. in relation to animal products, the animals (local breeds, good quality feed and animal welfare) are also crucial to giving identity and ensuring sensory quality to cured meats or cheeses, as are the skills linked to their processing. Without a clear connection to the natural resources (permanent meadows, native animal breeds, healthy soils) any legal action to protect a name and brand loses its meaning. By what right can we claim a certain name for a cheese if in another country the same cows are raised in stables and fed with the same feed; the same additives and curds from multinationals and similar machinery and thermo-conditioned aging cells are used? Nothing can really differentiate these cheeses.Often in the GIs producers consortia, small producers -often excellent- are unable to assert their positions because the votes are not assigned per person.Adequate representativenes should be guaranteed.
Read full response

Meeting with Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Greenpeace European Unit and

3 May 2022 · New Genomic Techinques

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Greenpeace European Unit and

3 May 2022 · New genomic techniques

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

30 Mar 2022 · Sustainable food systems

Response to Soil Health Law – protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU soils

16 Mar 2022

Slow Food welcomes the opportunity to comment on the European Commission's initiative on protecting, sustainably managing and restoring EU Soils. Please find attached our position developped together with organisations representing a broad range of interests from farmers, to environmental protection, to research. The attached documents goes further into the following points: - We consider the development of a tool such as the soil health index at the level of individual land parcels, to be calculated and used in each single land transactions, to be a key innovation - We call for the establishment of a system of public funding for independent research and investment in innovation supported by farms in the area of improving soil health and biodiversity. - We ask that a special chapter of the Soil Health Law be dedicated to the protection of intact soils. - We call for the Soil Health Law to cooperate with other mechanisms, treaties, and food system regulations, and support investments in circular economy and bioeconomy to stop the outsourcing of soil degradation. - We urge the European Institutions to fully commit to the soil-related targets of the Green Deal. - We call for an update of the "zero net land take by 2050" target including a binding timeline, milestones, and targets. - We urge that the opportunity provided by the possibility of regenerating soils through the biocycle of organic wastes is not lost. We thank you for considering our input and remain at your disposal.
Read full response

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

24 Nov 2021 · Sustainable food systems

Response to Food waste reduction targets

29 Oct 2021

Please see our contribution attached
Read full response

Response to Sustainable food system – setting up an EU framework

26 Oct 2021

Slow Food welcomes the European Commission’s initiative on the Sustainable Food System (SFS) Framework and the possibility to comment on it as we believe that a strong legal framework is necessary to drive the comprehensive transition towards sustainable food systems that is needed to address some of the existential threats we face. In 2019, Slow Food, together with over 25 other civil society organizations, called for the Farm to Fork Strategy to pave the way for the Common EU Food Policy and bring coherence between all policies affecting food (environmental, agriculture, trade, health, fisheries, etc.) and in line with the EU’s sustainability objectives. We believe that certain elements of the European Commission’s proposal on the SFS Framework have great potential to bring forward the Common Food Policy. We recommend that sustainability be considered in a holistic way going beyond the environmental, health, and economic dimensions. In order to be sustainable, food systems should meet criteria across 6 dimensions (health, ecological, economic, social, ethical, resilience). We agree with the SFS Framework objective to creating favorable food environments. This entails ensuring that foods, beverages and meals that contribute to sustainable healthy diets are the most available, accessible, affordable, pleasurable and widely promoted (see CSO joint policy brief on Food Environments). As stated by the EU’s group of chief scientists, binding policies, such as regulation and fiscal measures, tend to be the most effective interventions and must be the main drivers of change to healthy and sustainable food systems operating within planetary boundaries. Voluntary commitments and self-regulatory initiatives should only be seen as complementary drivers and never replace regulation. We believe that an additional objective of the SFS Framework should be to drive the transition towards diversified agroecological food systems, based on farming agrobiodiversity, with lower dependency on external inputs, stimulating social relationships and short-supply chains, to build long-term healthy agro-ecosystems and secure livelihoods. To promote the development of agroecology, the SFS Framework must enable EU food policies to 1) Support farmers in their transition to agroecological food production, and 2) Make agroecological food accessible to all Europeans. A 2nd concern that we have with the IIA on the SFS Framework is seems to take a “product-based approach” to sustainability, rather than a “food systems approach”. Instead, the SFS Framework must take a comprehensive and cross-cutting food systems approach, and address food production, processing, distribution, and consumption, within and outside the EU, and recognise these are all parts of a complex system which must be governed holistically. Finally, we agree with the Farm to Fork’s aim to empower citizens through improved labelling, to allow them to make better choices. However, sustainability labelling should not become an excuse not to have transparent labelling about the ways in which foods are produced, and it is critical that consumers continue to be able to identify food produced with gene-editing such as “New Genomic Techniques”. Given the urgency with which we need to act, and the depth of the transformation that is needed to address the environmental, social, and health crises Europe is facing today, Slow Food supports policy option 4 (a new comprehensive framework law on the sustainability of the EU food system) as the only credible way forward to respond to the multiple challenges and opportunities linked to reforming the European food system. We invite you to please read our full contribution, attached.
Read full response

Response to Animal welfare labelling for food

24 Aug 2021

Slow Food Europe welcomes the revision of EU legislation on animal welfare and appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback to the Inception Impact Assessment. Please find our feedback attached
Read full response

Meeting with Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and Greenpeace European Unit and

11 May 2021 · VTC Meeting - New Genomic Techniques and Gene drives

Response to New EU Soil Strategy - healthy soil for a healthy life

10 Dec 2020

Slow Food welcomes the proposal for a new EU Soil Strategy. The EU needs a dedicated legally binding framework to protect European soils from the threats posed by land grabs, soil degradation and contamination. While the Roadmap on the new Soil Strategy refers at times to inappropriate agricultural practices, it fails to clearly pinpoint the role of industrial agriculture in soil degradation. The spread of industrial agriculture aimed at increasing yields is closely linked to the use of synthetic chemicals, genetics and technology, and promotes the spread of monoculture with inevitable consequences on water and soil consumption and impoverishment of fertility levels. As outlined in the Roadmap, “the underlying drivers of soil degradation are in general not projected to change favourably compared to current status”. And as outlined in the Biodiversity Strategy, “farmers play a vital role in preserving biodiversity.” To reverse soil degradation and face the climate crisis, including the impact that climate will have on agricultural yields, it is necessary that everyone commits to healthy soils, including those who practice agriculture on a large scale. The quality of EU agricultural products, as well as the quantity and yields in general, are also inextricably linked to soil quality. Even those who believe that sustainable food systems can be achieved only with technological improvements, new seeds and fertilizers, know that all these tools will not be useful if soil will lose fertility. Just as the Biodiversity and Farm to Fork Strategies acknowledge the role that agroecology must play in achieving sustainable food systems, so should the Soil Strategy identify agroecology as the tool to achieve large part of its objectives. Only agroecological practices, which limit monocultures and the use of synthetic chemicals, avoid deep ploughing, rotate between crops and introduce green manure, can preserve or regenerate soil fertility. Moreover, agroecological practices encompass the development of resilient local food systems where farmers and citizens are strongly connected and citizens know about, can demand and can purchase food produced in the respect of soil, of the wider ecosystems, of farmers and of farmworkers. The transition to agroecological food systems should take inspiration from the Ten Elements of Agroecology and the 13 Agroecological Principles of the FAO and of the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Together, they list the practices and concepts that must be applied for an agroecological transition. They should be used as a benchmark to design the EU sustainable food and farming policy framework, including the new Soil Strategy. The new Strategy must acknowledge the role that agroecological smallholder farmers play in maintaining healthy soils and their potential in ensuring the transition of the wider farming community to sustainable soil management. Likewise, it must acknowledge the role that local communities (bringing together farmers, food artisans and consumers, as e.g. in the case of Community Supported Agriculture initiatives) play in supporting healthy and fair food systems. By enhancing their autonomy and adaptive capacity, agroecology empowers producers and communities as key agents of change. Institutions must link their support to those who concretely engage in regenerative practices. We welcome the reference to full implementation and enforcement of the biodiversity provisions in all trade agreements as outlined in the Biodiversity Strategy. Likewise, the Soil Strategy should strive for the same kind of consistency.
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

25 Nov 2020 · Future Common Agriculture Policy, Farm to Fork Strategy.

Response to Sustainable use of pesticides – revision of the EU rules

7 Aug 2020

Slow Food Europe welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (SUP) and asks that the Commission consider the 5 following points. 1. The review of the SUP must be undergone with the aim of reaching the goals set forth in the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategies. Given the mounting evidence on the widespread impact of pesticides on the ecosystem and biodiversity including not only pollinators but also other wildlife, birds, etc., the EU must urgently drive a phase out of chemical pesticides. The SUP can constitute an important tool to reduce the use of pesticides, and instead drive the uptake of IPM and other agroecological practices, both of which are integral parts of the European Green Deal. Without full integration between various policies pertaining to the food system, a true transformation towards sustainable food systems will not be possible. 2. Slow Food contests the need for further impact assessment and evaluation of the SUP. The Better Regulation Guidelines from the Commission allows the Commission not to conduct an impact assessment in case of “political imperative to move ahead quickly” and the immediate action required to meet the 50% reduction of pesticide use by 2030 objective of the Green Deal means that the European Commission is not obliged to carry out an impact assessment. Slow Food Europe calls on the Commission to proceed without carrying out this evaluation process, improve the SUP and finally make sure Member States implement it. The evidence provided by the SAPEA report, the Commission’s evaluation of the implementation of the SUP, and the European Court of Auditors all highlight the weaknesses of our current agricultural policies, and the urgent need to move towards ambitious integrated food policies. 3. Slow Food urges the SUP to focus on promoting Integrated Pest Management, and not on developing new innovative techniques. In both assessment reports, the European Commission concluded that the main failure of the SUD implementation to date has been engaging farmers in the IPM approach. Slow Food calls on the EU to reward producers who cultivate and farm biodiversity, and who farm in a way that protects the ecosystem. Further, the SUD should play a critical role in encouraging more EU farmers to switch to agroecological practices, and thus reduce the overall volume of pesticides used in the EU. This is in line with the ECI “Save Bees and Farmers” which demands not only a phase out of synthetic pesticides but also for adequate support to be given to farmers, including support for research to be conducted on pesticide free and GMO free agriculture. For further reading on Slow Food’s position regarding pollinators and pesticides, please find our position paper in attachment.
Read full response

Meeting with Stella Kyriakides (Commissioner) and European Environmental Bureau and

5 Jun 2020 · VC Meeting - Farm to Fork

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

7 May 2020 · Sustainable food systems

Response to Farm to Fork Strategy

16 Mar 2020

Slow Food strongly believes that a comprehensive transition towards sustainable food systems is needed , to address some of the existential threats we face. Together with other civil society organisations, Slow Food believes that the Farm to Fork Strategy represents an important opportunity to deliver a coherent response to food-related challenges and pave the way towards an integrated, sustainable food policy for the European Union (EU) by: • Developing an inclusive and transparent governance and regulatory framework for policy coherence and transformation; • Supporting a transition to food production that safeguards the environment, the climate, and our health; • Driving a transition to sustainable, healthy diets by creating enabling food environments; • Establishing a socially and economically just food system; • Ensuring the welfare and health of farmed animals; • Promoting participatory research and knowledge exchange for sustainable food systems; • Driving global action for sustainable food systems; In response to the consultation of the European Commission on the Farm to Fork Strategy we want to focus our attention on the following elements: • The need to fundamentally change paradigm and move beyond the “feeding the world” narrative • The importance of three principles that echo Slow Food’s mission to ensure everyone has access to good, clean and fair, namely: o Protect and promote agrobiodiversity o Promote the development of agroecology o Establish fair supply chains and fair working conditions for all farmers, farmworkers, food artisans and in particular for migrant farm workers, youth and women Please see the document attached for our full response to this consultation.
Read full response

Meeting with Jorge Pinto Antunes (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski) and Greenpeace European Unit and Friends of the Earth Europe

4 Mar 2020 · Transition Towards Sustainable Food Systems and European Green Deal

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and

20 Feb 2020 · Sustainable food systems

Meeting with Annukka Ojala (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Giorgos Rossides (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides), Roberto Reig Rodrigo (Cabinet of Commissioner Stella Kyriakides) and

19 Feb 2020 · Farm to Fork

Response to EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy

20 Jan 2020

Slow Food welcomes the EU consultation on the “Biodiversity Strategy to 2030. SF has always warned about the effects of a globalised and industrial food system on the planet’s wild and domestic biodiversity. The overarching goal of our projects is to save indigenous breeds, plant varieties and artisan-processed products and know-how at risk of extinction, referred to as “agri-food biodiversity”, which is essential to guarantee our food security through the production of climate resilient low input food products. The protection of agri-food biodiversity globally is our main distinguishing feature. Over the years we have: 1) catalogued over 5000 food products and traditions with the “Ark of Taste” (a mapping of products, including animal and vegetable varieties as well as traditional production techniques considered at risk of extinction) 2) launched more than 500 communities of producers who jointly establish production rules and ways of promoting their products at risk of disappearing, using sustainable production practises 3) created networks of cooks (Cook’s Alliance) and producers (Earth Markets) who raise awareness about the importance of safeguarding biodiversity through markets and events 4) set up school gardens as powerful instrument to raise awareness on the importance of biodiversity and the environment in schools. Close to its deadline, the Biodiversity Strategy 2020 has failed in many of its objectives: the EU has not halted biodiversity loss on its territory, which has worsened for agricultural and forest ecosystems. Among the causes are lack of high-level political commitment, policy incoherence among sectors and the inability to integrate biodiversity objectives in key policies. Political momentum is building in the EU with the European Green Deal, of which the Biodiversity Strategy will be a critical component. At the CBD in China, autumn 2020, the EU must pave the way and lead on policies for biodiversity protection including the protection of agri-food biodiversity, and restoration of nature which provides essential ecosystem services and non-material benefits. Biodiversity Strategy to 2030 to: Acknowledge the essential role of domestic biodiversity alongside wild species, and make sure this is strongly protected too. Combine the preservation of natural environments and wild species with the safeguard of agricultural biodiversity. Effectively mainstream Biodiversity across all EU policies and economic sectors. Promote dialogue and cooperation between the “environment”, “farming” and “fishing” sectors. Prioritise nature-based solutions in adaptation policies to climate change. Ensure that agricultural land becomes part of the solution to address the biodiversity crisis, by providing support to farmers in the transition to agroecology. Give more recognition to HNFV areas and practices and establish targeted agricultural and environmental measures to support. Sustain small-scale producers who use traditional and environmentally friendly practices and acknowledge their role as guardians of biodiversity and landscapes. Incentivize the adoption of sustainable agroecological farming practices. Ensure that the Directive on pesticides use is fully implemented, to drastically reduce the use of pesticides and guarantee the protection of pollinators. Protect soils from erosion and degradation and re-build healthy soils. Commit to fishing practices that do not harm biodiversity. Make EU aquaculture sustainable and independent from wild-caught fish as feed source. Ensure that EU trade does not harm nature: establish clear liability rules for importers, processors and retailers to clean supply legislation. Support and promote consumption of foods that are produced with respect to the environment and natural world. Ensure the registration of seed varieties in public registers to safeguard endangered crops and make them available. Slow Food is available for further information and collaboration on food biodiversity.
Read full response

Meeting with Helena Braun (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

14 Nov 2019 · discussion on sustainability and food system

Meeting with Anne Bucher (Director-General Health and Food Safety)

13 Nov 2019 · issues concerning an EU vision for sustainable food systems

Response to Establishment of a methodology of measurement of food waste

4 Apr 2019

We support the Commission’s recognition of food waste as an urgent issue which needs to be addressed to ensure environmental sustainability – and the obligation on member states to measure food waste is an excellent step in this direction. However, there is more to food waste than what the current definition includes. We are concerned that food that is ploughed back in, or left to rot in fields has been excluded from EU measurement. Harvest food waste is food that is mature enough to be ready for harvest, but wasted at the harvest stage by being left to rot or ploughed back into the field. As far as we know from both small and large food producers, this represents a significant part of the overall amount of food waste, one which should not be excluded from the measurement of food waste. Harvest food waste represents the food that is planned and grown but not sold nor passed on into the food chain, due to a combination of factors including contract requirements and the seasonality of farming. During discussions Slow Food has had with farmers and farmers’ union representatives, we were informed that a contract farmer working for industrial food production or wholesale needs to produce 100% of the food agreed upon in order to fulfil his contract but is only required to harvest 67.3%. This is a clear indication that Harvest food waste is expected and accepted to occur. In fact, between 11-34% of EU’s food waste occurs at primary production level, and the majority of this is left in the field. It is vital that the EU provides guidelines to enable member states to at least voluntarily report their harvest food waste. Additionally, the Commission needs to urgently clarify that food wasted at later stages of the supply chain, but then returned to their agricultural suppliers to be ploughed back into the field, should be measured as food waste at the stage of the supply chain where it is wasted, before it is returned to the farm. Otherwise, this is a significant loophole which could perpetuate and worsen the current situation of companies dumping food waste on their agricultural suppliers. If it is not legally possible to include harvest food waste in compulsory measurement, the Commission should: • Add harvest food waste as an additional point (f) under Article 3 which member states can voluntarily report on – defined as edible food that is mature and ready for harvest but wasted at the harvest stage by being ploughed back in or left to rot in the field • Provide examples of some means of harvest food waste measurement in Annex III and IV – such as physical measurement, crop-cutting surveys or visual assessments. • Recommend as best practice to member states that they measure and report harvest food waste • Fund several member states to conduct pilot studies of harvest food waste in their countries Please find in attachment a policy paper produced by Feedback and Safe Food Advocacy Europe, detailing the argumentation supporting our view on this draft. There are many cases of farmers who are forced to plough whole fields of produce back into the soil, or leave thousands of tonnes of their produce in the field due to factors like cosmetic outgrading and last minute order cancellations from retailers each year. Measuring harvest food waste would help EU farmers avoid the costs of food waste, reduce Unfair Trading Practices and carbon emissions, liberate nutritious food for EU food security, and save valuable land. Separating farm food waste from the Waste Framework Directive would force member states to treat farm food waste in silo, punishing farmers for food waste which is often the result of retailer policies. Not providing guidelines for measurement of harvest food waste will send the message that this is insignificant, inhibit member state measurement and reduction of this food waste, and harm farmers and the environment. Yours sincerely, Slow Food
Read full response

Response to Multiannual Financial Framework - CAP Strategic Plans

27 Jul 2018

Slow Food would like to express concerns about the new CAP proposal, but also its willingness to collaborate to provide valuable and constructive inputs to the legislative debates. Unfortunately, as other organisations have already remarked, the new CAP proposal does not seem to be the answer to the citizens’ request (representing around 80% of the responses to the 2017 public consultation) for a radical transformation of the CAP towards sustainability; rather it raises several questions about the possible impact, in terms of environmental, economic and socio-cultural sustainability of the food system, of a reform based on a delivery model that is untested and potentially full of loopholes. RETHINK THE PAYMENT SYSTEM Even if the model is presented as new because of the introduction of the CAP strategic plans, it is still based on the previous II pillars-systems and pillar I is mainly still based on the ‘basic payment’ per hectare (with an attempt to balance the payments through an unclear capping and redistribution system). Ideally the CAP strategic plans could be a good tool, but they should be connected to a new payment system. The current “payment per hectare” systems contributes to ever larger farms, reducing the possibility for small-scale agroecological farmers to enter the market. Producers who are committed to cultivate and farm agrobiodiversity, to preserve the traditional agricultural landscape (e.g. old vineyards), know-how (e.g. milling and slaughtering) and architecture (water mills, mountain dairies, old wood ovens etc.), to work in marginal areas, to create associations and cooperatives should be rewarded. INDICATORS AND EVALUATION While the intention to give MSs more flexibility to better respond to local needs is good in principle, for this to really “improve the sustainable development of farming, food and rural areas” it must be accompanied by credible and strong accountability mechanisms that the 27 CAP strategic plans will contribute to common policy objectives. These necessary accountability mechanisms seem extremely weak and many MSs could not be prepared (or willing) to deliver quality plans. In addition, the new model has been defined as “results-based”. Again, while we welcome the shift from a compliance-based to a performance-based approach, we express our deepest concerns for the lack of common targets; for the selection of the indicators identified in Annex I and for the evaluation mechanism put in place that will measure the MSs annual performance on the basis of result and output indicators that do not say anything about the quality of the interventions. Therefore, based on the proposed evaluation system, it will be hard to measure, identify and smoothly correct a low performance or award a good performance. With this in mind, we call on the European Commission to immediately start a participatory process to identify appropriate impact, results and outputs indicators. This could include both the involvement of experts (identified through a transparent and open process) in dedicated consultative platforms and the allocation of dedicated resources for new research in those areas where a lack of appropriate indicators, data and methodology is identified. KNOWLEDGE TO HELP THE AGROECOLOGICAL TRANSITION CAP funding should ensure effective and independent farm advisory services to ensure that farmers and agricultural workers have the knowledge and tools to continue or start the transition towards agroecological farming systems and, therefore, contribute to the shift towards more sustainable food systems in Europe. More comments and questions are included in the file uploaded. We encourage the European Commission to reply to these questions and to take in due consideration our concerns as part of their summary to be presented to the European Parliament and Council with the aim of feeding into the legislative debate.
Read full response

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

19 Jun 2018 · Preparation of mission to Terra Madre Salone del Gusto 2018 (Turin, Italy, 20-24 September)

Meeting with Anthony Agotha (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

21 Nov 2017 · Exchange of views on the future of food and farming

Meeting with Elisabetta Siracusa (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

20 Nov 2017 · Ongoing debates (including the public consultation) on the future of the CAP and of food policies in Europe

Meeting with Szabolcs Horvath (Cabinet of Commissioner Tibor Navracsics)

20 Nov 2017 · Food and Culture

Meeting with Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

24 Jan 2017 · Business discussion

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

17 May 2016 · Commissioner's participation in Turin event

Meeting with Marco Valletta (Cabinet of Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis)

12 Feb 2015 · Milan Expo

Meeting with Vytenis Andriukaitis (Commissioner) and

30 Jan 2015 · The Food Chain, Innovation and Challenges, Food Information to Consumers, Nutrition, and Food Waste, Animal Health, Animal Welfare and Plant Health