EU Green Deal Falls Short of Food System Breakthrough

The European Union’s ambitious agenda to transform its agricultural and food systems, articulated most notably through the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies, was heralded as a watershed moment in environmental and food policy. These directives, forming a key pillar of the broader Green Deal initiative, aimed to reconcile agro-food production with urgent climate, biodiversity, and public health goals. However, emerging political realities and institutional dynamics have cast doubt on whether this bold agenda truly represents a paradigmatic shift or post-exceptionalism in EU agri-food governance. Recent scholarship, particularly the incisive work by Candel and Daugbjerg, rigorously interrogates these developments, revealing a complicated landscape where progressive visions meet entrenched institutional and political inertia.

The Farm to Fork strategy, launched with the promise of fostering sustainable food systems across the continent, sought to reduce environmental footprints, improve animal welfare, and enhance food safety and nutritional outcomes. Complementing this, the Biodiversity strategy emphasized restoring natural habitats, halting species decline, and promoting ecosystem resilience. Together, they encapsulated a holistic vision for a more sustainable, health-oriented food system that could inspire policy innovation and cooperation across member states. Early reactions from environmentalists, academics, and international bodies suggested these strategies might indeed reflect a post-exceptionalist breakthrough—shifting agri-food policy away from isolated regulatory frameworks typical of earlier periods, towards integrative, cross-sectoral governance approaches.

Post-exceptionalism, conceptually, denotes a transition from narrowly defined, sector-specific policy-making typically dominated by parochial agricultural interests, towards a model that integrates environmental, social, and health concerns more comprehensively. In theory, this transformation entails expanded institutional participation, diversification of policy ideas, and greater pluralism among political actors. In this light, the EU’s nascent sustainability agenda appeared revolutionary. Yet, an empirical examination of practice reveals that while discursive broadening occurred—the range of sustainability issues considered did expand—the material institutional and political bedrock remained largely steadfast, preserving significant elements of traditional exceptionalism.

.adsslot_9Gaf1kdWMY{ width:728px !important; height:90px !important; }
@media (max-width:1199px) { .adsslot_9Gaf1kdWMY{ width:468px !important; height:60px !important; } }
@media (max-width:767px) { .adsslot_9Gaf1kdWMY{ width:320px !important; height:50px !important; } }

ADVERTISEMENT

Candel and Daugbjerg’s systematic assessment highlights four crucial dimensions where post-exceptionalism might manifest: ideas, institutions, interests, and policies. On the level of ideas, the EU debate showcased increased recognition of multifaceted sustainability challenges. Traditional economic productivity imperatives began to coexist, at least rhetorically, with concerns about ecosystem services, climate mitigation, and public health nutrition. This intellectual broadening signals potential conceptual evolution. However, the authors note that such discursive openness, while necessary, is insufficient alone to drive fundamental policy reform without corresponding institutional and interest-based realignments.

Institutionally, the picture is ambivalent. The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies invited broader stakeholder engagement and signaled an intent to remodel governance arenas to be more inclusive. Nevertheless, the ingrained power structures sculpted by decades of agricultural exceptionalism continue to constrain meaningful institutional transformation. Established bodies representing agricultural producers and agro-industrial sectors retain disproportionate influence. The procedural inclusion of environmental NGOs, consumer organizations, and scientific experts marked progress in form but did not decisively shift the power dynamic. Consequently, new governance arrangements remain layered atop, rather than replacing, traditional agri-food policy institutions.

Interest group dynamics reveal persistent cleavages emblematic of exceptionalism. Key agricultural lobbies and member states with major farming sectors maintain cautious or oppositional stances toward ambitious Green Deal objectives, fearing competitiveness losses, structural disruptions, and socioeconomic fallout in rural regions. The divergent interests complicate consensus-building and policy implementation. Meanwhile, emerging voices advocating for sustainability face uphill battles to sustain political momentum amid backlash and rhetoric framing these reforms as threats to food security and sovereignty. The contentiousness around pesticide use, fertilizer reductions, and land-use regulations exemplifies the fraught nature of contestation in this field.

Policy outcomes remain modest relative to the initial scope and rhetoric of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies. Though some regulatory proposals and voluntary measures advance sustainability, substantive transformations in production methods, market structures, and consumption patterns lag behind ambitions. The authors emphasize that incrementalism persists, shaped by pragmatic compromises and political expediency that dilute transformative potential. Institutional resilience and vested interests collectively limit the scale and pace of reforms, resulting in policy packages that balance aspirations with entrenched exceptionalist elements.

This state of affairs prompts critical reflection on the trajectory and prospects of EU agri-food policy-making. The paradigmatic shift toward post-exceptionalism, while conceptually appealing and widely advocated, confronts formidable structural barriers embedded in the EU’s multi-level governance and political economy. The consumer-health-environmental nexus that the Green Deal sought to elevate clashes with the deep-rooted economic and social paradigms privileging agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods. The tension between innovation and continuity manifests in recurrent political pushback, stalling reform agendas and stirring polarized debates.

Moreover, the EU’s policy labyrinth is further complicated by geopolitical pressures, trade dynamics, and the ongoing challenge of achieving policy coherence across divergent member state priorities. The block’s regulatory capacity, though robust in many respects, is tested by the expansive and interdisciplinary nature of sustainable food systems governance. As the authors argue, navigating this complexity requires not only rhetorical commitment but profound institutional recalibration and an emancipatory reconfiguration of interest representation.

The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies can thus be seen as pioneering yet tentative steps toward sustainable transformation that illuminate the constraints of partial reform. Their performance illuminates a critical juncture: the EU faces mounting pressure to move beyond symbolic gestures and patchwork initiatives toward deeper, systemic overhauls that recalibrate power and legitimacy in agri-food policy-making. Without such adjustments, incremental progress risks entrenching a hybrid status quo where sustainability goals are compromised or slowed by enduring exceptionalist legacies.

Policy analysts and scholars following these developments will look closely at subsequent legislative proposals, implementation patterns, and the evolving political economy of EU agri-food governance. Monitoring how institutional reconfigurations unfold and whether interest coalitions realign will provide key indicators of the Green Deal’s transformative potential. Likewise, tracking the translation of policy ambitions into measurable environmental and social outcomes will prove essential to assess whether genuine breakthroughs materialize or aspirations dissipate.

The broader implications of this analysis extend beyond the EU as well. Globally, agri-food systems confront analogous challenges—balancing productivity, environmental stewardship, and social equity amid complex governance arrangements. The EU’s experience serves as a salient case study of the limitations and possibilities inherent in pursuing holistic, sustainability-rooted food system transformations within entrenched political orders. Lessons from this region’s journey toward, or away from, post-exceptionalism could inform strategies elsewhere contending with similar dilemmas.

At its core, the EU Green Deal agenda challenges conventional policy orthodoxy about agricultural exceptionalism by integrating crosscutting sustainability concerns into the regulatory fabric. Yet, realizing this vision demands transcending rhetorical commitments and initiating substantive reforms that recalibrate institutional configurations and interest constellations. As shown in the meticulous work by Candel and Daugbjerg, significant political tensions and resistance persist, underscoring the unfinished nature of the post-exceptionalist project in European agri-food governance.

Ultimately, this analysis calls for sustained attention, strategic policymaking, and inclusive dialogue among a broad array of stakeholders if the ambitious goals of the Green Deal’s food system agenda are to be realized. The path forward will require innovative governance mechanisms that reconcile growth and sustainability imperatives, balance competing interests transparently, and embed science-driven policy at the heart of decision-making processes. Without such shifts, the promise of a healthier and more sustainable EU food system remains aspirational rather than actualized.

For advocates of transformative food policy, this study delivers a sobering reminder that structural change is painstaking and contested. The initial enthusiasm surrounding the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies must be tempered with a nuanced understanding of political realities and institutional entrenchments. This does not diminish the importance of these strategies but rather emphasizes the necessity for deeper engagement, vigilance, and adaptive governance to overcome barriers that threaten the Green Deal’s credibility and impact in shaping future EU agri-food landscapes.

As the EU continues to grapple with conflicting interests and evolving ecological imperatives, the coming years will be critical for determining whether its food system agenda evolves into genuine post-exceptionalism or remains constrained by longstanding exceptionalist frameworks. The stakes of this policy evolution are profound, touching on climate change mitigation, biodiversity preservation, rural sustainability, and public health resilience—not only within Europe but as part of broader global sustainability transitions.

Subject of Research: Analysis of EU agri-food governance transformations, particularly regarding the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies within the Green Deal framework, and their relation to post-exceptionalism in policy-making.

Article Title: EU Green Deal’s food system agenda fails to deliver post-exceptionalist breakthrough.

Article References:
Candel, J., Daugbjerg, C. EU Green Deal’s food system agenda fails to deliver post-exceptionalist breakthrough. Nat Food (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01174-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

Tags: agro-food production and biodiversityBiodiversity strategy environmental impactchallenges to EU food policyclimate change and food policyEU Green Deal agriculture transformationFarm to Fork strategy implementationfood safety and nutritional outcomes in Europeinstitutional dynamics in EU governancepolitical inertia in EU environmental policyprogressive visions in agri-food governancepublic health goals in agriculturesustainable food systems in Europe