The Minister of Consumption, Alberto Garzon, has declared to the prestigious British newspaper ‘The Guardian’ that the intensive livestock farming practiced in some parts of Spain is inconvenient, harmful to the territory, harmful in the face of climate change and that, in addition, the meat produced on these farms is of poor quality. Garzón’s opinions are debatable, although it is quite true that many experts believe extensive livestock farming is more of a future than that practiced in crowded spaces. And in fact, several Autonomous Communities, and the Ministry of Agriculture itself, have taken initiatives to limit these farms without much noise.
What is then the problem with statements of Garzón? The first is that there job in that activity. And that those who listen to these negative judgments are not going to distinguish between the meat produced in the extensive cattle ranching -which Garzón defends- and that of the intensive farms. Say that there is poor quality Spanish meat and that it violates ecological criteria harms the entire Spanish meat industry that generates wealth and employment and is a non-irrelevant part of Spanish exports from the food sector.
The second problem is that Garzón is not a normal citizen who expresses more or less well-founded opinions but is a minister and his obligation – if he believes that intensive livestock farming is harmful – is to convince the Government and the advisers of the branch of the Autonomous Communities to accelerate a process, which in part is already underway, to change the things. What would be appreciable in a columnist or talk show – the denunciation of harmful practices – becomes debatable and even counterproductive when the person doing it is a high authority. His role is not to criticize, but to get the government of which he is a part to take the appropriate measures. And, if necessary, if the Government does not do so (many of these powers belong to the CCAA), it is free to resign and explain your reasons. What seems incoherent is to act both as a prosecutor in the (foreign) press and to continue sitting on the blue bench.
And the statements are even less understandable because they are made with elections called in Castilla y León, a community where agriculture and livestock have more weight than in the Spanish average. An election where the left starts with bad expectations and the leader of the right, Pablo Casado, raises as the first link of his victory in the general elections of 2023.
The PSOE, which was the first party in the autonomous community in the last elections but could not govern due to the PP-Cs pact, has come out to defend livestock and the meat industry. And in an electoral campaign, specifying the quality of the different meats produced in Spain does not seem the most appropriate. Later, some ministers of Podemos have felt obliged to defend Garzón from socialist “insolidarity.”
Related news
A) Yes, the damage caused is double. On the one hand, it gives rise to criticism that the Government attacks an important economic activity in the community. On the other hand, it is confirmed -for the umpteenth time- that there is strong tensions in the government which undermines your credibility. And more so when the poll by ‘El País’ on Sunday says that no less than 67% of those surveyed think that the Government is divided and 60% believe it unstable.
Some ministers – Garzón is not the only one – should have already learned that governing is something more complex – and in short, less gratifying – than expressing more or less well-founded opinions with total freedom.
.
ttn-24