Jean-David Zeitoun is a medical doctor, graduated from Sciences Po, and doctor in clinical epidemiology. His latest book,
Suicide of the Species
(Denoël), was published last year.
There are not many crises in which everyone can emerge a winner, but the farmers' social movement perhaps provides an example.
Today, there are many losers, especially if we realize that the food system is inseparable from two enormous proven risks, environmental risk and epidemiological risk.
The news shows us the visible part, the farmers and breeders who are not getting by.
But there is the rest, namely that farmers are also among the first to be confronted with the effects of CO2 emissions and pollutants which cause them diseases.
In addition, the evolution of our diet since the 1970s has led to chronic diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases and cancer, the growth of which exceeds that linked to demographics.
These chronic diseases, most of which are partly of food origin, take up two thirds of the healthcare costs reimbursed by Health Insurance, or more than 110 billion euros per year.
Also read: Anger of farmers: wanting low food prices, a dangerous game
To sum up, professionals do not earn their living, especially when they do healthy work, the environment is affected in problematic proportions and the French cannot afford quality food, which proves that almost nothing is wrong with this. walk.
The consequences of the global food system are monumental and largely negative, but have limited and obvious causes.
There is a huge market gap, which means that foods that are bad for health and the environment are not expensive, while neutral or good foods are much more expensive.
If foods that cause disease seem so affordable, it's because they don't incorporate the real price they impose on society, through the expense of fixing (or mitigating) the problems.
This phenomenon is a classic of economic science.
The national food transition involves an evolution of our model that will reverse its environmental and epidemiological impact, and benefit the economy overall.
Jean-David Zeitoun
Political leaders have had only one idea for decades, which has been to shift the burden of making the right choice onto individuals.
This approach has objectively not worked for obvious economic reasons, and obesity is decreasing in zero countries in the world.
We know that the same approach experiences the same failures in terms of the environment and carbon footprint.
As long as polluting or emitting products are cheaper, we cannot expect a massive change in behavior.
However, there are two effective means against environmental or epidemiological risks, which have made it possible, for example, to curb previously ubiquitous lead pollution or to reduce (too slowly) tobacco use.
These are law and economics.
These two means have not been tried to address food risk.
Manufacturers can sell and market what they want, without limitation on processing processes or quantities of sugar for example, and food is not taxed based on its effects on health.
Some political leaders have wholeheartedly supported Nutri-Score, a French invention recognized by international scientific societies, and yet, they have not made it compulsory, which would be the minimum.
Also read Jean-David Zeitoun: “The essential food transition to save our species from suicide”
Only the law and the economy, through a game of tax breaks and taxes, have the necessary capacity to change the global food system, with the non-negotiable condition that the equation must be neutral for the poorest and even the poorest classes. averages.
Obviously, there will be changes in consumption trends but everyone knows that it is necessary, for example in France we eat 1.4 times too much animal protein.
These changes will be more acceptable if people know that they are being made in a fair and coherent overall transition.
New consumption calls for changes also upstream in the agricultural sector, which cannot be made in current market conditions, unless the human situation of professionals is worsened.
State intervention is inevitable, which it already does in other sectors to make demand profitable and establish a quality market.
He did it for vaccines and will probably do it soon for antibiotics, for example.
It must do it for the food system, especially for the smallest supply players.
Manufacturers will adapt as they have already started to do, often without saying it, because companies are like humans, they do not want to die.
Serious work has shown that a transition was possible for the agricultural sector, which would ultimately only bring benefits.
Investments will be temporarily necessary but on the one hand, the return is certain and on the other hand, the taxes levied on ultra-processed products can finance these investments.
The national food transition involves an evolution of our model that will reverse its environmental and epidemiological impact, and benefit the economy overall.
It is a relentless and simple reality.