According to a Nanos Research poll released on April 13, 2026, 57% of Canadians support joining the European Union (EU). This would be an unmitigated disaster for Canadian agriculture, food production, and food prices. The EU bans most of the technologies that have enabled Canadian farmers to become the most sustainable producers of crops anywhere on the planet, especially the production of canola, wheat, and peas. The loss of these technologies would contribute to even higher food prices in Canada, making all consumers worse off.
Canada has always relied on science-based regulations for the approval of new products and the renewal of existing ones. By establishing consistent, objective standards, science-based regulations provide certainty for developers to invest in the development required to get innovative products to market. In the initial research and development (R&D) period for genetically modified (GM) crops, significant amounts of this research was conducted in Europe. At this time, the regulations for the commercialization of GM was left up to individual Member States of the EU and both Spain and Portugal approved GM corn in 1998.
In 2003, the EU opted to take approval of GM crops away from the Member States and consolidate this mandate within the European Commission. Doing so completely restructured the risk assessment process for GM crops in the EU, shifting from science-based regulations to precaution-based regulations. By deliberately shifting regulatory development, the EU has ensured that innovative crop production products will not be approved for adoption by European farmers. Since 2003, the EU has approved only one GM crop. This was a GM potato variety that took 13 years to receive commercialization approval and was removed from the market after two years of production. By comparison, Canada has approved 159 different GM products since 1995. The divide has had significant detrimental impacts on European agriculture as between 1995 and 2019, crop productivity in the EU increased by a mere 7% compared to 28% in Canada and 35% in the USA.
The effects of precaution-based regulation have been devastating for R&D investments into new crop protection products in the EU. In the 1980s, the EU accounted for 33% of global R&D investments into new crop protection products. However, due to increased regulation and costs by 2005-2014 this plunged to 7.7%. Investment capital is fleeing Europe, heading to other countries and regions whose regulatory frameworks remain science-based. Based on R&D investments in the 2005-2014 period, it is estimated that at least $1 billion is annually no longer invested in the EU.
With the EU ban on the commercialization of GM crops and restrictive regulations on crop protection products, this dramatically impacted the production of some crops that rely on the use of banned products. In 2013, the EU moved to phase out the use of neonicotinoids, an insecticide that protects crops during germination and early stage growth. By 2016, neonicotinoid use was banned within the EU. This impacted the production of sugar beets in France, with yields plummeting by up to 80% and rapeseed production in the United Kingdom dropping over 50%. This results in lower profitability for farmers as they were forced to shift from growing high value crops to lower value ones. It also raises the costs for consumers as countries have to import those products from other countries as they have lower domestic production, and the added transportation costs result in higher prices for grocery store items.
The transition away from science-based regulations in the EU has begun to affect the ability of farmers to remain in business. Based on politically-motivated policy decisions, European governments are deciding that some farms are no longer capable of environmentally sustainable food production and have enacted policies to purchase farmland and take it out of production. The Netherlands government purchased 723 farms in 2025, deliberately closing them, and intends to purchase upwards of 3,000 farms in the near future. The cost of doing this in 2025 was €1.8 million (C$2.9 billion). In 2026, the Danish government approved spending €1 billion to forcibly purchase farms and take them out of food production.
The Irish government announced that it would have to cull 200,000 head of cattle, 3% of total cattle to comply with EU politically-motivated environmental legislation. This would have increased the price of dairy products as milk supplies would have decreased, as well as beef prices. In a rare instance of European policy maker sanity, this intended policy was stopped following farmer protests.
A further inefficiency is identified in the European Green Deal that will require 25% of all farm land in Europe to be organic by 2030, up from the current rate of less than 10%. This will have significant impacts on food prices as organic yields routinely are 30% lower than conventional agriculture and the reduced yields will increase food prices, especially for fruits and vegetables, where yields can be up to 70% lower.
The European Commission provides funding to environmental organizations, resulting in them having far greater policy influence and interference than similar groups in Canada. In 2026, the Commission is providing over €600 million in funding support. This results in policies that frequently lack an empirical basis of support and are more often aligned with public sentiments.
Canada currently has the highest rate of food price inflation of any of the leading industrial countries. This is partially due to the failure of the federal government to resolve long outstanding barriers that contribute to food price inflation like grocery market concentration and the costs of regulatory compliance.
Were Canada to join the EU, Canada would be forced into complying with EU environmental regulations that would ban GM crops, remove safe pesticides, and forcibly end thousands of farm businesses. All of these policy requirements would place increased, upward pressure on food prices in Canada. It’s a shame the survey that asked Canadians about their preference for joining the EU didn’t ask their willingness to do so if food prices were to rise by 10-20%. Perhaps when some facts were included in the question, a more realistic response might have been provided.
The DNA Series: Hello everyone, this is going to be a series of blog posts.… Read More
Part 1 What if the loudest concerns about Canadian agriculture are only half the story?Agriculture… Read More
Why Canada Needs a Productivity Solution Karen Churchill CSO Canada is having a familiar conversation… Read More
Following the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, many people in society became more… Read More
‘Slow Magic’ is the term coined for the economic returns on investment (ROI) in the… Read More
All chemicals that are applied during food production have impacts on the environment, regardless of… Read More
View Comments
I agree completely Stuart. Excess regulation in the EU hinders many industries, not just Agriculture. Having lived in France for 6 years my experience noted many things they did right, even more were misguided. The desired cultural experience is not a result of regulation, but these regulations are chipping away at the culture.