BRUSSELS — If love is a drug, the farmers of the European Union should be as high as kites.

After years of being elbowed to the sidelines of political debate, recent farmer protests have made agriculture almost sexy. So chic, in fact, that its practitioners received almost as much airtime as climate — the world’s most urgent challenge — during a debate among the leading candidates of pan-EU political parties on Monday night.

The words “farmers,” “farming,” “farm” and “agriculture” were mentioned 51 times during the 90-minute livestream of the Maastricht Debate, co-hosted by POLITICO, where eight candidates faced off in the first joust of the EU election campaign. That was second only to “climate” (53 instances).

Love, however, isn't always enough.

The candidates vaguely agreed that Europe needs farmers in its efforts to protect the environment and biodiversity — and vice versa. However, the speakers were less clear on how farmers might be brought on board with the Green Deal without diluting its ambitions.

“The real problem of our farmers is they don’t have a decent income,” European Green Party candidate Bas Eickhout noted during the debate. 

He urged European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who was representing the center-right European People’s Party, to “do something about our market model” instead of “pretending to help them [farmers] by just removing some green policies.”

Eickhout was referring to the EU executive’s controversial last-minute proposal to roll back environmental requirements linked to farming subsidies in a bid to appease anger among farmers ahead of the June EU election.

“Okay, Bas Eickhout,” a teasing von der Leyen replied. “Like you, I think that the farmers are the solution to fight climate change and to protect nature.” She then cited the Commission’s decision to exempt small farmers from environmental controls: “We trust you,” she added, referring to farmers.

Despite recent backtracking on greener farming policies, von der Leyen said that making agriculture capable of hitting its climate goals “is the program for the next mandate.”

Farmer associations, for their part, enjoyed the newfound attention and expressed optimism.

“The fact that agriculture got such a focus in a high-level debate as this one is a novelty to us —and a positive one,” said Peter Meedendorp, president of the European Council of Young Farmers. He added that pursuit of a consensus to work together with farmers “goes in the right direction.”

The deputy secretary general of Copa-Cogeca, Europe’s most powerful farmers' lobby, agreed that finding solutions should be a priority in the next term. This “change of approach ... leads us to consider that the current debate is deeper than a simple electoral perspective, and that it could constitute a baseline for the next mandate,” said Patrick Pagani.

Other candidates in the debate pledged an understanding of farmers’ concerns while avoiding direct confrontation.

“Farmers have protested because sometimes they have the feeling that their work is not respected,” stated Socialist candidate Nicolas Schmit, adding that the Green Deal and farming can go together.

Meanwhile, Liberal candidate Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann attempted to distance herself from the drama: “Farmers are not the enemies of climate like the left says, [and] they are not a tool to avoid climate action like the far-right ones [say].”

Despite the expressions of support, small farmers in particular were left wanting more.

“We have concrete solutions to offer,” said Andoni Garcia Arriola, a farmer and member of the European Coordination Via Campesina small farmers organization. He cited proposals such as amending market rules to ensure fair prices that cover production costs, and ending free-trade agreements.

“To date, despite many promises and some concrete progress, we see decisions are being made to the benefit of large industry actors, and not the farmers who were on the streets and will be heading to vote," he concluded.