The Minister of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty Francesco lollobrigida should not give great consideration to agriculture without pesticides. For the next three years his ministry will not invest the resources deemed necessary and strategic by companies. The negative numbers in the budget law have not escaped FederBio which judges them to be very low, equal to approximately 1,4% of the budget foreseen for 2024 alone.
We are not satisfied - says the organization together with the WWF - with everything it entails on Italian certified agri-food supply chains. A food sovereignty of Lollobrigida halved? It seems so, given that Italian productions are among the most appreciated on foreign markets. Furthermore, if we also want to grow the internal market we must "revive consumption of certified organic products at a time of economic difficulty for Italian families".
Insufficient measures and resources for the growth of organic farming
The call to review public appropriations contrasts with the market trend which invoice 5,4 billion of euros and in one year it grew by 9%. However, 2023 risks ending badly due to inflation and the reduced purchasing power of families.
The government's choices for FederBio affect the entire growth program of organic agriculture in our country and the possibility of reaching 25% of the agricultural surface used certified organic by 2027. Yet in the National Strategic Plan of CAP 2023-2027 and in the PNRR the focus is decidedly on non-infested crops. Therefore, the political accounts of a government super launched in the defense of the Italianness of cultures do not add up to the thousands of green companies. Probably something positive will be done in the end, but why watch these jokes?
A flaw in the ecological transition
It's still. How can the government win the battle on synthetic food if it doesn't support the organic one? “It is the main tool for a true ecological transition in agriculture” say the farmers. Unfortunately, even in Europe several lines are being compared, not without contradictions such as the recent extension to the use of glyphosate which goes in the opposite direction to non-pharmaceutical agriculture. A serious flaw that the Commission was unable to plug.
Although the FederBio-WWF protest relies on parliamentary initiatives to defend sector interests, the two organizations recall that studies and scientific research have highlighted how chronic exposure to pesticides"determines a significant increase in the risk of developing chronic-degenerative diseases".
The ecological transition also passes through these assessments which open paths along which investments and quality to be offered to consumers are measured. But why, one wonders, does it take pressure, parliamentary motions, amendments and "persuasive powers" to progress in a certain direction? It's true that prices to the retail of products from organic farming on average they are not very competitive with non-organic products. Many consumers look at them and move on. The increase in sales will have occurred only in certain segments of the population. If the government listens to organic farmers, will the benefits reach the shopping cart?
