Why Green Deal Opponents Spread Fear of Food Shortages?
With growing efforts to curb climate change and the introduction of new environmental requirements for agriculture, misinformation about these issues is also on the rise. Both social media disinformers and populist politicians are exploiting the topic, mainly by spreading fear that farmers will be unable to meet these requirements, supposedly leading to food shortages. Why are such messages becoming increasingly widespread?
Despite decades of disinformation, the majority of Europeans believe in climate change and support measures to combat it. In a Eurobarometer survey conducted this spring, around 80% of respondents expressed support for the European Green Deal’s goal of a EU climate neutral by 2050. However, about half also admitted that they find it difficult to differentiate between reliable information and disinformation about climate change.
Who is spreading misinformation about the Green Deal and how?
Right-wing populist parties have long opposed the EU’s climate targets, known as the European Green Deal. Some claim that climate change is a made-up problem, while others insist on doing little or nothing because green policies could harm local economies. Agriculture accounts for roughly 11% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from cattle farming and the use of mineral fertilizers. Intensive farming also reduces biodiversity and degrades soil, weakening nature’s ability to fight climate change and its impacts. The Green Deal aims to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 by drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions and implementing measures to facilitate natural carbon absorption.
Claims that any restrictions or additional requirements will threaten local farmers, the so-called traditional way of life, and even food availability are an easy way to reach the public. And populists are taking full advantage of this.
A good example is Poland, where around 40% of the population live in rural areas and agriculture is an important part of the economy. A month before the 2024 European Parliament elections, leader of the main opposition party Law and Justice Jarosław Kaczyński claimed that the European Green Deal would spell the end of Polish agriculture. The deal was also a central part of the rhetoric of Karol Nawrocki, who was elected Poland’s president this year. He criticized it heavily, arguing that the Green deal meant high electricity prices and thus threatened Polish agriculture and business. Meanwhile, he presented coal, which is still widely used in Poland, as “black gold” that must be preserved.
Similar trends also appear elsewhere. France’s National Rally leader Jordan Bardella has said that the Green Deal prevents thousands of farmers from earning a living. Thierry Baudet, head of the Dutch Forum for Democracy, has warned that “absurd climate plans” endanger Europe’s food supply. Other right-wing populist parties – such as Netherlands’ Farmer–Citizen Movement, Spain’s VOX, and Germany’s Alternative for Germany – have echoed the same talking points. Lobby organizations representing the interests of chemical manufacturers are also involved in spreading this message.
Why do populists appeal so well to farmers?
Populism’s defining feature is the opposition between “the people” and some kind of elite. In recent years, far-right movements have increasingly emphasized the divide between rural and urban populations, and their often differing views on climate change. They exploit rural concerns about the ever-increasing corporate control of farming, rural poverty, and people leaving the countryside.
A sociologist at the University of Helsinki, Piotr Żuk, who has researched right-wing populism in his native Poland, explains to Re:Baltica that right-wing populists present the Green Deal as an invention of “cosmopolitan elites in Brussels”. It’s an invention that supposedly contradicts national interests and traditions of individual countries.”Rural areas – whether in Poland, France, or the Czech Republic – tend to be more conservative, nationalist, and religious,” notes the researcher. Therefore, opposition to the Green Deal resonates more with them than with urban dwellers.
Żuk has previously written that right-wing populists gained farmers’ support by portraying themselves as their only defenders. They have framed farmers’ difficulties – from EU environmental standards to the import of Ukrainian grain – as external attacks on Poland. In the 2023 elections, support for the Law and Justice party among Polish farmers was nearly twice the national average. Żuk argues that Poland lacks strong left-wing parties and unions to defend farmers. This leaves a vacuum that right-wing populists have filled by incorporating rural frustrations into their “us versus them” narrative. Dissatisfied farmers no longer direct their anger at unjust economic systems or capitalists, but at perceived threats to national sovereignty, such as foreign powers, “moral decay,” migrants, and minorities.
Other researchers also point out that right-wing populists skillfully identify problems within the country, but they offer false solutions and focus on finding scapegoats. Experts also point out that when opposing right-wing populism, one must take into account the specifics and social context of each country.
The lack of clear communication and society’s inability to navigate EU policies are also exploited by the agricultural organizations. For example, two years ago, Latvia’s largest farming lobbying group Zemnieku Saeima falsely claimed that the back then not yet adopted EU Nature Restoration Law and requirements to restore peatlands would take away half of Latvia’s farmland used for food production. The messages of these organizations – although presented in a much more cautious way – often echo the conspiracy theories frequently spread on social media, claiming that the EU wants to harm or even destroy traditional farming. Conspiracy theorists claim that we will be forced to eat imported products or even insects instead – and many people believe them. The allegedly excessive environmental requirements are also framed as a way to ban the farming of private land or even to nationalize it.
Why might misleading messages spread even further?
Shortly before the 2024 European Parliament elections, mass farmer protests took place across several EU countries. The Green Deal was a recurring topic of disinformation in national elections as well. It is likely that EU climate policy will also be a hot topic before Latvia’s parliamentary elections in autumn 2026. The signs are already here – after several failed attempts, the Latvian parliament just barely passed laws enabling significant reductions in emissions.
The familiar slogans that Latvia is already one of the greenest countries in Europe and that green policies are too expensive have recently been joined by yet another narrative.
The right-wing faction Apvienotais Saraksts, which until recently was part of the government, has increasingly argued that green goals should be postponed because all financial resources must go toward defeating Russia in Ukraine and strengthening Latvia’s defense. This creates a false dilemma that both goals cannot be pursued at once.
Żuk also believes that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will increase the popularity of right-wing populism. EU countries are spending more on defense, energy prices are rising, and people feel less secure. “[They] are all strengthening nationalist and populist trends across Europe,” notes the researcher. He refers to the young people as the light at the end of the tunnel. In many countries, they are increasingly adopting ecological and left-wing political views. They are also more resistant to right-wing populist propaganda.
Various exaggerations and other misleading claims focusing on agriculture itself are also likely to increase. One reason is the European Commission’s recent proposals regarding the Common Agricultural Policy for the next period 2028–2035. The EC suggests lowering support caps for large farms, making it easier for new and small farmers to access funding, merging the two existing funds into one, and reducing overall funding. The reform also aims to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly farming, though several environmental organizations warn that in reality the focus is shifting away from the environment. The proposal has already sparked farmer protests in Brussels and Strasbourg. In Latvia, broader discussions are still to come, but the Minister of Agriculture has already announced on TikTok that he does not support the proposal, claiming it would mean that no one will be responsible anymore for ensuring people’s access to food..
According to Żuk, former Eastern bloc countries are less resilient to right-wing populism and authoritarianism. Therefore, in these countries, fear-mongering about the Green Deal may become more popular than in other parts of the EU. Part of the population is disillusioned with the economic liberalization of the 1990s, there is low social trust, and both media and civil society are weaker than in other member states. In the former Eastern bloc, there is also some dissatisfaction with the wealth and influence of Western countries. As a result, there is a tendency to emphasize culture and ideological identity in order to construct a sense of agency.
Why we shouldn’t fear an agricultural collapse or food shortages
To achieve climate-friendly farming and meet Green Deal targets, many farmers must change their practices, accept smaller yields, and face higher costs. But the goal of curbing climate change is to ensure food availability and to protect agriculture in the long run.
Farmers are directly affected by two Green Deal strategies. The first – Farm to Fork – promotes farming that captures more carbon from the atmosphere, for example by growing more legumes and planting trees. A quarter of EU farmland must be used for organic production, and the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and antimicrobial agents must be halved. Farmers must also reduce food loss, improve animal welfare, and combat fraud in the sector – all while ensuring people have enough affordable and healthy food.
Meanwhile, the Biodiversity strategy sets a target to legally protect at least 30% of EU land and sea areas by 2030. The EU must also restore at least one-fifth of its land and marine territories.
Currently, there are several research articles about the Green Deal’s impact on food production. Most conclude that crop yields would decline. For example, the Economic Research Service estimates a 12% reduction in EU yields. This is similar to what has been concluded by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. However, none of these studies predict famine or agricultural collapse.
These analyses do not consider what would happen if the EU did nothing, leading to even more severe climate change. The European Commission has criticized such studies for ignoring key aspects of the Green Deal, such as efforts to reduce food waste and shifts in dietary habits. However, these aspects have been taken into account by France’s National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE).
INRAE researchers analyzed several scenarios themselves, including one where Europe reduces food waste and its people eat less meat but more vegetables. In this scenario, crop yields could drop by nearly 12%, partly because less animal feed would need to be produced. Animal product output would fall by 13–15%. Vegetable farmers would earn more, but livestock growers would make a quarter less. For consumers, vegetable prices would stay nearly the same, while animal product prices could fall slightly. Overall, people would consume about 15% more calories and a similar amount of protein.
Abandoning the Green Deal would not mean the world stands still or that the EU would continue producing the same amount of food as it does now. Climate change is already harming agriculture and food security, and this will only intensify in the future.
This material was developed in 2025 for the Prebunking at Scale project, with support from the European Fact-Checking Standards Network.
INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM NEEDS INDEPENDENT FINANCING If you like our work, support us! LV38RIKO0001060112712
