Big Agriculture Flexes Its Lobbying Muscle, Shielding Profits From Climate Action

Farming groups worldwide wield significant influence, securing subsidies and delaying environmental regulations, according to a Financial Times investigation.

From the sun-drenched fields of Brazil to the rolling pastures of Europe, a powerful force is quietly shaping the future of agriculture – the lobbying might of Big Agriculture. A recent investigation by the Financial Times reveals how agricultural industry groups, armed with vast financial resources and deep political connections, have successfully stalled climate action and maintained favorable policies, often at the expense of smaller farmers and the environment.

Big Agriculture has built a sophisticated lobbying machine that rivals – and in some cases, surpasses – that of the energy and tobacco industries. In the United States, for example, agricultural lobbying expenditures have even overtaken those of the oil and gas industry. The sector’s spending on US lobbying soared to $177 million last year, exceeding the total spent by big oil and gas, according to an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The Financial Times investigation highlights several key tactics employed by this influential lobby:

• Greenwashing: Promoting often-limited sustainability initiatives to deflect criticism and delay regulations.
• Delaying Tactics: Urging governments to postpone environmental rules, citing voluntary industry action.
• Political Muscle: Deploying hefty political donations and sophisticated lobbying campaigns to sway policymakers.
• Manufacturing Doubt: Funding research that downplays the environmental impact of industrial agriculture or casts doubt on scientific consensus.

These strategies have proven remarkably effective in shielding the agricultural sector from the kind of sweeping climate action seen in other industries. For instance, agriculture remains largely exempt from carbon emission schemes in both the EU and the US, despite its significant contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, agricultural subsidies, often criticized for promoting environmentally damaging practices, remain firmly in place. The Financial Times cites estimates that governments worldwide spend over $520 billion annually on such subsidies.

This influence raises concerns about the industry's commitment to addressing its environmental impact and its potential to stymie efforts to create a more sustainable and equitable food system. While farming groups argue that their lobbying efforts aim to protect farmers and safeguard food security, critics argue that these actions primarily serve to protect corporate profits and maintain the status quo.