Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Agriculture

Farmers’ protests reach the heart of the EU as chaos unfolds outside European Parliament

Published

1 year ago

7 minute read

European farmers in Brussels

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

Protesting farmers blocked many roads with tractors, started bonfires, set off fireworks, and toppled a statue in front of the European Parliament.

Protestors have now blocked streets in Brussels with tractors and started bonfires in front of the European Parliament. 

On February 1, the Europe-wide farmers’ protest against policies threatening their existence reached Brussels, where protestors blocked many roads with tractors, started bonfires, set off fireworks, and toppled a statue in front of the European Parliament.  

“We want to stop these crazy laws that come every single day from the European Commission,” a Spanish farmer representing his country’s farmer’s union told Reuters. 

According to Reuters, the police used tear gas and water cannons against some protestors who tried to tear down barriers that were erected to protect the parliament. 

The protest in Brussels happened in the context of a continent-wide uprising, including in France,  where 10,000 farmers erected more than 100 blockades on important roads across the country. Farmer protests also took place in Spain,  Portugal,  Italy,  Greece, Germany,  Scotland  and Ireland. 

READ: How Dutch protests ignited a global backlash to the ‘green’ war on farmers 

“As far as the EU is concerned, the outside world and the inside world are clearly no longer in any meaningful relationship with each other: while more than 1,300 tractors are blocking the European Parliament and its burning forecourt outside, the 27 heads of state inside have not even put the farmers’ anger on their agenda,” he wrote. 

“The so-called common people, the farmers & workers, have often been the main driving force in European history. While those in office are, well, rather described as somewhat ‘retarding’.” 

“Vive la farmers’ revolution!” Sonneborn concluded. 

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio to the U.S., expressed his support for the farmer’s protests in a recent post on X. 

“The globalist criminal plan wants to destroy traditional agriculture, animal husbandry, and fishing in order to force people to eat artificial food produced by multinational corporations,” he wrote. “And it is the big investment funds and the Word Economic Forum that are lobbying parliaments to impose a devastating and inhuman ‘transition’.” 

“I express my complete solidarity with and encouragement to the farmers, ranchers, fishermen, truck drivers, and all those who support them.” 

“Let us accompany with prayer those who are fighting against the New World Order. May the Rosary be the spiritual chain that unites us. May the Lord accompany, protect, and bless those who are waking up before it is too late,” Viganò concluded. 

Foreign imports and ‘climate change’ policies threaten existence of farmers 

At the time of the protests, an extraordinary summit of the heads of state of the EU members took place in Brussels. During the meeting, the politicians approved a 50 billion euro aid package for Ukraine. 

One of the farmers’ concerns is the flooding of the European market with cheap Ukrainian imports that are meant to help the country with its war efforts. Since Ukraine and other non-EU countries do not have to adhere to the high environmental standards of the EU, the farmers view it as unfair competition that threatens their existence.  

For the same reason, the farmers also oppose a planned trade deal between the EU and the Mercosur bloc, a federation of countries in South America. 

One of the major issues for farmers is the so-called “green” measures imposed by EU bureaucrats that include higher taxes or cuts to tax subsidies as well as bans on necessary tools such as nitrogen fertilizer.  

The farmers have also been blamed for their greenhouse emissions and their alleged contribution to “climate change”. They are heavily affected by the EU’s plan to achieve “net-zero” emissions and make the bloc “climate-neutral” by 2050. 

The plan includes cutting fertilizer use by 20%, limiting the amount of land dedicated to agricultural use, halving pesticides by 2030, and doubling organic food production. 

While some of these measures may have a positive impact on food quality, they put immense pressure on farmers, especially smaller farms, whose numbers have been on the decline for decades. The EU’s plan to combat so-called “climate change” could lead to the majority of farmland being controlled by a relatively small elite. 

READ: No farmers, no freedom: Why globalists want to control the world’s food supply 

Part of the problem for smaller farms is the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP), a € 55 billion per year subsidy system that has been in place for over 60 years. The system “has historically been based on economy of scale: bigger farms, bigger holdings, common standards,” Jon Henley from The Guardian writes. 

This policy has led to a continuous decrease in small farms in Europe as they have become increasingly uncompetitive. 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 42 mins ago

BUILD CANADA NOW: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from Energy Leaders

Crime / 58 mins ago

Operation Take Back America Strikes Chinese Money Launderers in Charlotte Cartel Case

Canadian Energy Centre / 1 hour ago

Canada’s energy leaders send ‘urgent action plan’ to new federal government

Agriculture

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

Published on May 1, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois 

A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?

The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.

This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.

For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.

First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.

While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.

Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.

The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.

Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.

On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.

Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.

Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.

Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on  competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.

If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X