A new analysis concludes that conventional agriculture is a loss-making enterprise for Denmark.

Despite an annual profit of one billion kroner, conventional agriculture is a loss-making business for Denmark. The calculation only gets worse when public agricultural subsidies are included. This is the conclusion of the new think tank Red-Vandet, which has published a so-called white paper on the "forgotten" costs caused by conventional agriculture. The large livestock production, emissions of nutrients, greenhouse gases, and pesticides impose a bill on the rest of society, which is many times greater than the earnings and gross value added contributed by the industry, the assessment states. While agriculture contributes 23 billion kroner annually in gross value added, it also receives about 12 billion kroner in annual support—an amount that exceeds operational income—and additionally causes environmental and climate damages of 60-120 billion kroner each year, resulting in a loss-making enterprise. "The white paper compiles documentation of the extensive costs of current conventional agriculture. When environmental, natural, and health costs are included, agricultural production results in a significant economic deficit that must be borne by society," says Jens Christian Refsgaard, co-author of the white paper, in a press release. He also reminds us that Denmark is heavily dependent on importing feed for its large livestock industry, especially the pig industry, and thus imports more proteins than the agriculture sector produces itself: "This means that Danish agriculture does not actually contribute to global food security," he states. A similar analysis from the Netherlands last year also showed that Dutch agriculture was a loss-making enterprise for the country but could be turned into a profit by switching to organic farming and reducing livestock production. Organic farming has a lower environmental burden The authors of the new white paper explain that they have not made separate calculations for conventional and organic farming, but since organic farming accounts for only about 11-12% of the agricultural land, the overall economic figures will predominantly reflect the conditions in conventional agriculture. "Especially regarding environmental costs, there are significant differences between the two farming systems, where organic farming has less pollution per unit area than conventional farming for nutrients and, in principle, no pollution from environmental contaminants. The report's conclusions thus apply to conventional agriculture and do not cover organic farming," the authors write. They also argue that conventional agriculture receives indirect government support that is far higher than direct government subsidies because they do not pay for pollution, so the costs are instead borne by Danish society. "This creates a severe distortion of competition compared to, for example, organic foods, which have far fewer environmental costs," the authors state. Therefore, they believe there is a need for a transition towards: - Less livestock production - More plant-based food production - More organic farming - More nature and forests - Better protection of water environments and biodiversity Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, chairman of Red-Vandet, says: "Our white paper shows that every time agriculture earns one billion kroner, it imposes costs of eight billion kroner on society. We cannot continue to run agriculture this way. We want clean water again, living nature, public health, and healthy ecosystems with fish in the fjords. The time has come to ensure that agriculture no longer has special status as an industry. Agriculture should be subject to environmental regulations just like industry and all others, so we can again get clean drinking water and clean streams and fjords." Former senior advisor: The calculations are sound Red-Vandet consists of a group of professionals with broad experience in environment, nature, water supply, administration, and agricultural production methods. They include Jens Christian Refsgaard, Dr. Scient. and Professor Emeritus in water resources; Erik Arvin, Professor Emeritus from DTU; Stiig Markager, Professor of Marine Ecology and Biogeochemistry at Aarhus University; and Lisbeth E. Knudsen, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Copenhagen. Also among the experts are representatives from environmental organizations, including Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, CEO of Greenovation and chair of the Council for Green Transition; Jens Andersen, former head of water and wastewater planning, now active in the Danish Society for Nature Conservation; and geologist Walter Brüsch, working with the Danish Society for Nature Conservation. Some of them are already active voices in the public debate about the footprint of conventional agriculture on Danish land, but Lars Gårn Hansen, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Copenhagen and former environmental economist senior advisor, believes the calculations are sound. He points out that agriculture in its current form is very likely a loss-making enterprise for Denmark. However, Agriculture & Food (L&F) is strongly critical of the analysis. You can read much more about this here, where Lars Gårn Hansen also elaborates on his assessment of the analysis, and the authors respond to L&F's criticism.