How can we eat healthily when food is the main adjustment variable for low-income households? How can we produce food that respects the environment and at the same time generate decent income for farmers? It is about charting a path of reconciliation Amid these seemingly contradictory objectives, several solidarity associations (Secours catholique), health associations (French Federation of Diabetics) and farmers’ support associations (Solidarité Paysans and the Civam network, the Centres for Initiatives for the Promotion of Agriculture and the Rural Environment) published a comprehensive study on Tuesday 17 September on the real price of food in France, focusing on all public spending on the table to support the agri-food model and to repair or compensate for some of its effects.
“Each of our associations is acutely aware of the difficulties of the people they support, be it the extent of food insecurity, the health impacts of food and the income problems of farmers.explains Marie Drique, who coordinated this study for Secours catholique. We know that we cannot solve our various problems alone. » While in France at least 2 million people use food aid (estimates vary according to sources) and 18% of farmers live below the poverty line, the associations wanted to find possible solutions through the prism of prices. “We want to show that the evils we fight against have no opposition”continues Marie Drique.
This study was supported by Basic, a consultancy specialising in environmental issues, as well as by the Institute for Climate Economics (I4CE), and was supported by a scientific advisory board that guaranteed the rigour of the process. The notion of “hidden costs” is the subject of a growing scientific literature. In November 2023, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Agency estimated these costs at 10% of global gross domestic product. Most of these assessments are based on theoretical figures that reflect, for example, the impact of diabetes or pollution on lost productivity.
The approach of Secours Catholique and its partners differs in its methodology: associations and researchers have chosen an accounting approach, based on public expenditure actually incurred. “We are not evaluating theoretical costs, but rather the real expenses of the State.specifies Charlie Brocard, researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, member of the scientific council. It is even more interesting to realize what is actually put on the table; there is a reality effect. » It was also decided not to quantify what, in essence, cannot be replaced by a monetary value, such as the irreversible loss of an animal species.
You have 60.19% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
