A sharp drop in crop prices coupled with rising production costs is set to slash U.S. net farm income this year, though inflation may be masking the significance of these price and income declines, especially in relation to past years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture last week forecast 2024 net farm income at $116 billion, down from $156 billion in 2023 and a record $186 billion in 2022, all in nominal dollars. That would be the fifth-highest on record after the past three years plus 2013.

But inflation-adjusted, the 2024 forecast is 4% below the 20-year average and down 41% from 2022. That would mark the biggest two-year decline in net farm income by percentage since 1983, when the U.S. rural economy was caught in a major agricultural crisis. Net farm income of $116 billion in 2024 would be down 27% from the inflation-adjusted 2023 total, and would represent the largest annual decline since 2006.

Some inflation-adjusted commodity prices are not far off 2020’s low levels, and 2020 would have been an extraordinarily difficult year for farmers if not for massive government payments for both trade war- and pandemic-related losses. Direct government payments were responsible for about 48% of U.S. net farm income in 2020, the highest share since 1983. Discounting government payments, total inflation-adjusted net farm income in 2020 was the lowest since 2002.

Trade war dollars could become relevant again in 2025 pending the outcome of the U.S. presidential election later this year, as candidate and former President Donald Trump earlier this month pledged to enforce steep tariffs on Chinese goods if elected. USDA’s forecast implies direct government payments will account for nearly 9% of net farm income in 2024, a three-year high but well below average, pre-trade-war levels.

Terms for the integration of Ukraine’s agricultural sector into the European Union will be determined during negotiations, two ministers said in mid-February, denying that Kiev was considering easing the EU’s green deal. However, a senior official earlier told Reuters news agency that Ukraine could consider giving up EU farm subsidies in exchange for a softening of the green deal during accession talks starting in March.

“The terms of Ukraine’s agricultural sector’s accession to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will be determined during the negotiation process,” Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna and Farm Minister Mykola Solsky said in separate statements. “There can be no talk of any abandonment of subsidies and grants, as the rules should be the same for everyone,” they said.

Ukraine, which has a huge agrarian complex capable of feeding hundreds of millions of people, was invited to join the EU last year and will start sectoral talks on its accession in March to harmonise its legislation with EU requirements. Integrating Ukraine’s vast agricultural sector, which before Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 was the world’s fourth-largest supplier of grain, into the EU is likely to be highly sensitive, both politically and economically. Kyiv could be eligible for 96.5 billion euros ($104 billion) in subsidies from the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over seven years, if current rules are applied to an expanded union.

“It seems to me that the ideal negotiating strategy (is to achieve) fewer restrictions on trade, fewer restrictions on the environment (for Ukrainian farmers) and we are willing to trade this for subsidies,” the official said. The official requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. A European Commission spokesperson didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

The talks come at a sensitive time, with farmers across Europe taking to the streets in protest in recent weeks at the EU’s Green Deal regulations on animal welfare and pesticide use, as well as the need to leave 4% of farmland fallow. The subsidy payouts to Kyiv could also force cuts in farm subsidies to existing member states of about 20%, the Financial Times reported last autumn. The EU’s decision to waive import duties on all Ukrainian food in 2022 has already fuelled protests in neighbouring bloc members as farmers struggle to compete with cheaper Ukrainian farm products.

The European Commission last month said it would extend the suspension of its import duties on Ukrainian exports. But it also proposed measures to limit agricultural imports from Ukraine and offer greater flexibility on rules for fallow land in a bid to quell protests by angry farmers in France and other EU members.

As the farmers protests in the European Union intensify, the European Commission has cracked and made some concessions to try and ease the situation. Following protests in Germany earlier this year, thousands of farmers blocked the main roads in France with their tractors. And in the first days of February, thousands of Belgian farmers with around 1,300 tractors blocked the road in front of the European Parliament in Brussels. These most recent protests have seen dozens of farmers in France arrested as they tried to block off Rungis, a main food distribution hub that feeds 12 million people. The French government had previously warned the farmers that any disruption at Rungis would cross a red line and posted hundreds of riot police there. In Brussels, farmers threw eggs at the Parliament buildings and lit many fires across the region. Slurry and farmyard manure was also spread across many of the European Parliament buildings in France and Belgium. The farmers are angry the European Commission continues to cut financial support for agriculture from the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy), designed to protect farmers from falling prices and cheap imports. They are also seething that more environmental regulations are being introduced which they argue are impossible to meet, while trying to produce food for a fast-growing world population.

Isabel Proost, a farmer from Flanders in Belgium, said: “We are here to defend our agriculture. For 3 years, we have been unsuccessfully trying to draw the attention of the Belgian government to our issues. We must finally wake up and, together with all of Europe, fight for a common cause: the ability to pursue the profession of farming for us and our children.” A major bone of contention for the farmers is the European Green Deal, which aims to make Europe carbon-neutral by 2050, and the law on nature restoration, designed to “improve biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems”. Another farmer in Brussels, Bart van Rooyen, said: “The CAP is designed to support us financially to ensure we can continue producing food that is affordable by consumers. However, the European Commission continues to hit our pockets by reducing subsidies, making it impossible for us to compete with cheaper imports. These factors, together with endless environmental regulations, more red tape, and a continuance to hammer farmers, means we have to take decisive action. Enough is enough. The Commission must hear us.”

However, the European Commission insisted it was listening and allowed some concessions to farmers such as allowing them to bring land that was dedicated as fallow, for environmental purposes, back into production again. Under pressure, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said a proposal to work on reducing administrative burdens would be presented at an upcoming meeting of EU ministers. Janusz Wojciechowski, EU Commissioner for Agriculture, said: “In proposing this temporary derogation, the Commission demonstrates flexibility and solidarity with European farmers in the face of exceptional difficulties. By enabling the production of nitrogen fixing crops and catch crops, without the use of plant protection products, this derogation strikes a balance between the short-term necessity of supporting farmers and the long-term need to protect our climate, soil health, and biodiversity.”

At the beginning of February, the joint farm lobby groups Copa-Cogeca sent a letter to Von der Leyen, outlining the Commission’s shortcomings. It said: “We must listen to the echoes that are reverberating throughout our countryside from the west to the east of Europe. Farming communities are facing enormous challenges and pressures, which have only accumulated in recent years. Economic burdens and bureaucracy are strangling farmers across the EU. The effects of climatic and geopolitical crises are impacting our farms considerably. And all this with the feeling that more constraints and more European regulations are going to be imposed on farms with severe and irreversible consequences on productions, income and increase of imports with less environmental and social standards. “Over the last few years, we’ve spoken out vigorously, but we haven’t been heard! As a result, the situation is currently very tense in many member states, with farmers taking to the streets, as the survival of the European family farming as it is known today, is in danger.” All eyes will be on the politicians as European Parliament elections are set for June this year. MEPs are concerned far right parties, which are attracting more farmers, could possibly make gains in the voting.

Meat has been and continues to be an important food source, delivering a wide range of valuable nutrients our bodies can easily absorb.

Along with other animal-source foods like fish, eggs and milk, it also plays an important role in several European cultural traditions and recipes. People are biologically adapted to a diet that includes meat, which is important in a healthy and balanced diet. Some nutrients in meat and other animal-source foods are not always easily obtained or obtainable from plant-based foods.

Meat is an excellent source of vitamins, minerals, and essential micronutrients the body can absorb easily. A 100g portion of red meat, for example, will provide around 25% of the recommended daily allowance for riboflavin, niacin, vitamins B5 and B6, and two-thirds for vitamin B12. Diets poor in animal-source foods can lead to various nutritional deficiencies. Studies have shown that low-meat diets may risk brain and reproductive system development. Indeed, it is recognised that animal-source foods are essential in an infant’s first 1,000 days of life and for the skeleton and brain development of pre-adolescents.

There are several important bioactive compounds in meat and processed meat products, such as vitamin B1, iron, zinc, choline, L-carnitine, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), glutathione, taurine and creatine, which have been studied for their physiological properties. Conjugated linoleic acid, for example, has drawn significant attention in the last two decades for its biologically beneficial effects. CLA modulates immune and inflammatory responses and improves bone mass, while carnosine possesses strong antioxidant and anti-genotoxic activities, including the anti-ageing of cells.

From an evolutionary perspective, we have developed as omnivores, and meat has been a central component of our diet for millions of years. Claims about the health dangers of meat are not only improbable in the light of our evolutionary history, but they are also far from being supported by robust scientific evidence. The majority of evidence linking red and processed meat consumption with colorectal cancer and pathologies is observational and based on intakes of red and processed meat that exceed most European countries’ average intakes.

Interestingly, a study in the UK found similar rates of bowel/colorectal cancer in vegetarians and meat-eaters, suggesting that meat consumption in general isn’t a major cause of this disease. The correlation between food, meats and cancer is very difficult to study because there are many elements, real or perceived, that may favour the onset and the development of cancer. National authorities have based recommendations on the studies developed by the International Agency for Research Studies on Cancer (IARC) that highlight and classify the considered agents that are certainly or presumably responsible for cancer onset.

“Carcinogenic” is the term given to something that can cause cancer. The problem, in terms of communication to the public, is in the verb “to cause”. It is not possible to give a determined cause-effect interpretation in this instance. In other words, it is not possible to say, “If you eat processed meat, then you will surely get colorectal cancer”. In the same way, it is not possible to say that if someone is exposed to a carcinogenic agent, they will certainly get cancer. Scientists hold to the premise that “carcinogenic” is something that, taken in certain doses and for a certain period, can increase the risk of developing a certain type of cancer throughout life. However, when such information is shared with the general public, the interpretation is often that if a substance or a food is carcinogenic, it most certainly causes cancer.

A consequence of this miscommunication is that some people will believe that if we do not eat a specific food or something with a carcinogenic substance, then surely we are safe from cancer. Unfortunately, this is not true. We may get, and statistically it happens, lung cancer even if we do not smoke and colon cancer even if we are strictly vegan. No one can say with certainty whether, even eating processed meat every single day, we will get colorectal cancer or not. But this does not mean that eating a certain food or not eating it would expose someone to the same risk.

Going back to the IARC monography, the various agents are not classified based on how carcinogenic they are, nor does the report deal with estimating the risk, individual or collective, of an exposure to a given agent once established to be carcinogenic. This means it is incorrect to treat all carcinogenic agents in the same way. Stating that “processed meat is like smoking or asbestos” is deeply wrong, and certainly, it pays no service to public opinion or knowledge. Carcinogenic agents are different, but it is not the IARC’s task to classify this aspect. There is also an interesting point regarding the consumption amounts investigated by the IARC, which are 50 grammes of processed meat or 100 red meat per day. This level of consumption is much higher than that of European consumers and, in general, of the rest of the world. For all these reasons, meat and processed meat products can be safely consumed as a part of healthy and balanced diets, but the most important thing for authorities to keep in mind is to communicate these concepts clearly and properly.