Can French Beetroot Be Saved? Yes, But We Must Stop Being 'Schizophrenic'

Can French beet still hold its ground? Within the European Union, Poland is nibbling away at its acreage and market share. In France, growers have fewer solutions than their neighbors against aphids. And tomorrow, Ukraine, which produces about 30% cheaper, could join the single market (read our article "Beet, oilseeds: biofuels to cushion the Ukrainian shock"), which would jeopardize an already shaky equation. If there is a solution, it begins, according to Alexis Patry, with "being able to speak frankly" and "not sweeping things under the rug": admitting that France will not be able to compete on costs with Ukrainian giants, and stopping the imposition of constraints on its growers that their competitors ignore. Three questions to understand what weakens French beet and what could save it.

Regardless of the possible arrival of Ukraine, is French beet competitive in Europe?

European beet production is mainly concentrated in three countries: France, Germany, and Poland, which together account for 75% of production. With Germany, we are more or less in the same boat, even though our production has lagged a bit in recent years. With Poland, it’s more complicated. Its labor costs and charges are structurally lower than ours. Moreover, Polish growers benefit from coupled aids, which we do not have in France or Germany. This income supplement for each hectare of beets enhances the attractiveness of the crop: Poland is gaining market share and acreage. Not everything is to be discarded: France retains a form of competitiveness.

Is France adding its own handicaps, such as the ban on acetamiprid?

Yes, this is a significant handicap compared to other member states. And let’s be clear: to date, beet does not have access to acetamiprid in France. It is the hazelnut sector that is affected. We would need it to play by the same rules as our neighbors. Especially since the alternatives proposed are either ineffective or generally more expensive. These are innovations that do not yet have economies of scale, but for the farmer, this is not satisfactory. Growers sometimes have to go through their fields multiple times. The additional cost varies depending on the years and the pressure from aphids, vectors of the disease, but at equal effectiveness, there is no comparison. The sector has long denounced this distortion of competition. The saddest part is that we are slowly putting one of the jewels of our French agriculture in jeopardy.

What would it take to save the sector?

First, coherence. It is impossible to ask French producers for efforts that result in increased costs while simultaneously allowing products from a cultivation method that is not at all what France wants to apply. We can no longer be schizophrenic. The consumer also has a role: the notion of "consumactor" makes sense.

Next, value. Imposing additional costs without creating value in return condemns the sector. For a commodity like sugar, moving up the value chain remains a pious wish. Telling farmers that their toolbox is shrinking, that their costs are rising, and that they are still paid the same or even less cannot work.

Finally, pride. We probably already have the most sustainable agriculture in the world: let’s know how to value it. The day this added value returns to farmers through additional remuneration for their efforts from the market – and not through generally short-lived support mechanisms – they will begin to be convinced.