How to transform food systems? Consensus, crisis, and (de)politicisation in the CAP reform policy process
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7247-3681
Abstract
In 2024, a wave of farmers’ protests shook policymaking in the EU. The protests began in reaction to national policy measures and soon coalesced into a unified movement across Europe, directed against the CAP reform (into force since January 2023). The protests took an anti-European tone and were supported by anti-system political forces. In response, European Institutions modified salient environmental aspects of the reform and withdrew, or blocked policy measures proposed within the Farm to Fork strategy. The Head of the EU Commission initiated a “strategic dialogue” with key stakeholders to develop a common vision for the future of the EU agriculture and food sector. This paper examines the relationship between crisis, (de)politicization, and polarization in the CAP reform process, with a focus on how actors mobilize strategies to politicize, depoliticize, or polarize policy debates. Drawing on a conceptual framework that integrates recent literature on (de)politicization and consensus-building, and a thematic analysis of policy discourse from 2021 to 2024, we explore how institutional dynamics and stakeholder interactions shape the prospects for transformative food system change. We argue that consensus or compromise-building is a crucial mechanism for transformational change and the very process of creating it is at the heart of debates on (de)politicization vs (de)polarization. We conclude that deliberative arenas and independent science and media can play a complementary role in this debate, by fostering dialogue, highlighting trade-offs and establishing the basis for finding compromises.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Politicisation, Polarisation, CAP reform, agri-food systems, consensus
Axelrod, R., Daymude, J.J. and Forrest, S. (2021) ‘Preventing extreme polarisation of political attitudes’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(50), p. e2102139118.
Brunner, G., Carzedda, M., Iliopoulos, C., D’Haese, M., Lanfranchi, M., Lerro, M., … and Troiano, S. (2024) ‘Has transformation of food systems reached an impasse? Considerations on the role of agri-food research’, Agricultural and Food Economics, 12(1), p. 26.
Buller, J., Dönmez, P.E., Standring, A. and Wood, M. (eds) (2019) Comparing Strategies of (De)Politicisation in Europe: Governance, Resistance and Anti-politics. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Deconinck, K. (2023) ‘Facts, interests, and values’, in: Resnick, D. and Swinnen, J. (eds) The Political Economy of Food System Transformation: Pathways to Progress in a Polarized World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. [Include page numbers if available].
Feindt, P.H., Schwindenhammer, S. and Tosun, J. (2021) ‘Politicisation, depoliticisation and policy change: A comparative theoretical perspective on agri-food policy’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5-6), pp. 509-525.
Flinders, M. and Buller, J. (2006) ‘Depoliticisation: Principles, tactics and tools’, British Politics, 1(3), pp. 293-318.
Flinders, M. and Wood, M. (2015) ‘When politics fails: Hyper-democracy and hyper-depoliticisation’, New Political Science, 37(3), pp. 363-381.
Hay, C. (2007) Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lovec, M. and Erjavec, E. (2015) ‘The co-decision trap: How the co-decision procedure hindered CAP reform’, Intereconomics, 50, pp. 52-58.
Matthews, A. (2024) ‘Farmer protests and the 2024 European Parliament elections’, Intereconomics, 59(2), pp. 83-87.
Matthews, A., Candel, J.J.L., de Mûelenaere, N. and Scheelbeek, P.F. (2023) ‘The political economy of food system transformation in the European Union’, in: Resnick, D. and Swinnen, J. (eds) The Political Economy of Food System Transformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 310-337.
Maye, D. and Kirwan, J. (2013) ‘Food security: A fractured consensus’, Journal of Rural Studies, 29, pp. 1-6.
Maye, D., Kirwan, J. and Brunori, G. (2019) ‘Ethics and responsibilisation in agri-food governance: The single-use plastics debate and strategies to introduce reusable coffee cups in UK retail chains’, Agriculture and Human Values, 36, pp. 301-312.
Mouffe, C. (2005) On the Political. Abingdon: Routledge.
Newman, E., Paris, R. and Richmond, O. (2009) New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E. and Moules, N.J. (2017) ‘Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), pp. 1-13.
Rostbøll, C.F. (2024) ‘Polarisation and the democratic system: Kinds, reasons, and sites’, Perspectives on Politics, pp. 1-17. [Online ahead of print]
Schimmelfennig, F. (2021) ‘Politicisation management in the European Union’, in: Strategic Responses to Domestic Contestation. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 14-33.
Sheingate, A. and Greer, A. (2021) ‘Populism, politicisation and policy change in US and UK agro-food policies’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5-6), pp. 544-560.
Skogstad, G. (2021) ‘Political parties and policy change in Canadian agricultural marketing institutions’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5-6), pp. 561-575.
Sotte, F. and Brunori, G. (eds) (2025) European Agricultural Policy: History and Analysis. Cham: Springer.
Sunstein, C.R. (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Swyngedouw, E. (2022) ‘Climate change consensus: A depoliticized deadlock’, in: Handbook of Critical Environmental Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 443-455.
Törnberg, P., Andersson, C., Lindgren, K. and Banisch, S. (2021) ‘Modeling the emergence of affective polarisation in the social media society’, PLoS ONE, 16(10), p. e0258259.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2020) ‘Farmers’ upheaval, climate crisis and populism’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(3), pp. 589-605.
van Middelaar, L. (2019) Alarums and Excursions: Improvising Politics on the European Stage. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing.
van Zanten, H.H., Duncan, J., van Meijl, H. and Heimovaara, S. (2025) ‘Scientific reflection on the European Commission’s vision for agriculture and food’, Nature Food, pp. 1-4. [Online ahead of print]
Vogeler, C.S. (2021) ‘Politicizing farm animal welfare: A comparative study of policy change in the United States of America’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(5-6), pp. 526-543.
Wamsley, D. (2024) ‘Revisiting the theoretical foundations of depoliticisation: A Gramscian state theory approach for an era of crisis’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Epub ahead of print 21 May 2024. DOI: 10.1177/13691481241305976.
Wiesner, C. (ed.) (2021) Rethinking Politicisation in Politics, Sociology and International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, J. and Swyngedouw, E. (eds) (2015) The Post-political and Its Discontents: Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Zöllmer, J. (2025) ‘Race to the top of farm animal welfare policies in US states: What can explain the new development? A qualitative comparative analysis’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, pp. 1-19. [Online ahead of print]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.