In the Shadow of Mad Cow Disease: How a César Award-Winning Film Depicts the Plight of Small-Scale Farmers

One of the most significant recent news stories from Europe has seen farmers across the continent taking to the streets to protest against EU trade and land management policies, with France serving as the epicentre of the unrest.

According to leaders of the primary French agricultural unions involved, extreme weather and rising production costs this year have placed a heavy burden on farmers. Yet, under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), farmers are required to leave at least 4% of their land fallow.

Those who opt not to leave land fallow must instead dedicate 7% of their land to nitrogen-fixing or cover crops (typically sown after the main harvest to prevent soil exhaustion) in order to restore soil fertility and biodiversity. Protesting farmers argue they can no longer withstand the drop in income resulting from reduced production, claiming they are on the verge of insolvency.

● French farmers using tractors to block motorway exits in protest. The French text in green translates literally as “Do not import products that are banned in France”, likely referring to the EU-Mercosur trade agreement currently under negotiation. Image source: Reuters

Another concern for the protesters is the EU’s ongoing agricultural import negotiations with South America, which European farmers fear will further drive down produce prices.

This is not the first time European farmers have taken to the streets under economic pressure. Similar protests have occurred frequently over the past few years, highlighting the systemic contradictions farmers face: while free trade lowers produce prices, farmers are forced to expand their operations to reduce unit costs, which in turn leads to higher debt and greater environmental strain.

By coincidence, I recently came across the 2017 César Award-winning film *Petit Paysan* (The Little Farmer). By focusing on an ordinary French family farm and the story of a farmer named Pierre struggling with the fallout of Mad Cow Disease, the film provides a poignant contrast to the events currently unfolding.

● The film’s original French title, *Petit Paysan*, literally means “small farmer”, though in certain contexts it can be translated as “country bumpkin”. This derogatory connotation subtly reflects the neglect and injustice that small-scale farmers face under mainstream agricultural policies.

I. Dream Cows

The protagonist, Pierre, is a small-scale farmer who inherited twenty-odd dairy cows from his parents. He spends his days rushing between the farm and his parents’ house, pouring all his energy into caring for the cattle.

The film opens with a dream sequence in which Pierre struggles to make his way through the herd, checking the health of every single cow. When he finally returns to the kitchen for a coffee break, he is still crowded by several cows. The cattle are omnipresent; from the production space to his private quarters, they occupy every corner of his life.

● Pierre’s dream. Swann Arlaud, who plays Pierre in *Small Farmer*, also starred in the Cannes Palme d’Or winner *Anatomy of a Fall*, which opens in mainland China today.

Upon waking, Pierre begins his workday, repeating the same routine: letting the cows out into the pasture to graze on hay the night before, then bringing them back the next morning to be fed and milked before heading out again.

One day, Pierre notices that one of his cows is showing symptoms of Mad Cow Disease. Searching for information online, he discovers that the government’s approach to the disease is one of zero tolerance—preferring to slaughter a thousand by mistake than let a single case slip through. Once a case is detected on a farm, the entire herd must be culled.

To protect his cows, Pierre takes a series of extreme measures, revealing a farmer’s psyche and a micro-social environment that are profoundly thought-provoking.

II. The Sick Cow

In literature and film, the relationship between farmers and their livestock is typically depicted through two stereotypes: one romanticises the farmer’s affection for the animals, while the other portrays the cold callousness of industrial agriculture. *Small Farmer* presents a more nuanced layer.

● Upton Sinclair’s *The Jungle* vividly demonstrates the coldness with which industrial farming treats animals, as well as the appalling labour and production conditions in slaughterhouses. The image on the left shows a Chicago slaughterhouse in the early 20th century. Source: Internet

Pierre’s affection for his cows is profound. He has given each one a name and always refers to them as “my girls”.

He is exceptionally sensitive to their physical condition—a sensitivity born from his deep familiarity and care for them. Consequently, he notices abnormalities in the cows’ health far sooner than the veterinary inspectors.

During a routine check, Pierre expresses his concerns to the vet, Pascale—his own sister—about the health of a cow named Topaze, fearing she may be ill. Although the vet finds no symptoms in the earliest stages of the disease, Pierre’s intuition tells him something is wrong.

He proves to be right. Three days later, the cow exhibits symptoms of Mad Cow Disease.

However, once he confirms the diagnosis and the illness begins to spread, he does not hesitate to slaughter and bury the sick cow. At one point, he even contemplates concealing the herd’s medical history and selling the remaining cows to another farmer to recover his financial losses.

Between Pierre and his cows, there is both a moral coexistence and an economic symbiosis—the latter serving as the foundation for the former. When survival is threatened, moral responsibility becomes precarious. It sounds remarkably similar to the relationships between humans.

III. The Slaughter

The series of events surrounding Pierre demonstrates that farm life is far from a pastoral idyll; modern management techniques have permeated every aspect of agriculture.

As established in the film, the French Ministry of Agriculture regularly tests the quality of milk from various farms, with fat content and somatic cell count in raw milk serving as key parameters for quality assessment.

Every cow on every farm is registered with the veterinary station and assigned a unique identification number; no cow is permitted to appear or disappear without explanation. Every birth, illness, and death must be reported to the government.

When Pierre attempts to cover up the slaughter of the sick cow, he lies to the inspectors, claiming the animal went missing. However, the situation escalates until the police intervene, demanding Pierre explain the cow’s whereabouts—a testament to the strictness of EU animal management.

This management philosophy is shared not only by the government but also by Pierre’s own family, including his sister Pascale. As a vet, upon discovering that her brother secretly slaughtered the sick cow, she tells him that she can turn a blind eye this once, but if she finds another sick cow, she will report it to the authorities immediately.

I had expected the sister to prioritise family ties over the law and help her brother save the herd, but in reality, her position remains aligned with the authorities: any case must lead to a total cull. It shows just how deeply the legitimacy of official measures has taken root.

IV. The Theft

The film also depicts the conflict between small-scale farmers and industrial agriculture.

To thwart the police investigation into the missing cow, Pierre visits the automated mega-farm of his friend Fabrice under the cover of night and stealthily leads a cow away.

● Pierre steals a cow from his friend’s automated farm to pass it off as the deceased cow.

Compared to Pierre’s two small barns, Fabrice’s modern facility is as large as a football pitch and remains brightly lit throughout the night. Hundreds of cows are kept together in orderly fashion. Everything is so dependent on automation that Pierre can walk openly among the herd without being detected.

When Fabrice discovers a cow is missing, he reports it to the police but remains entirely nonchalant. When inspectors ask why he is so indifferent to the loss of an animal, he replies that some people are not used to or simply dislike new technology, and that some do not wish to see him run his farm this way—something he finds understandable.

In just a few sentences, the film outlines a latent conflict within the rural community and the almost instinctive distrust small farmers feel toward modernised cattle farms.

Once, while out hunting with friends, Fabrice produces his phone and smugly shows off the “high-tech” equipment of his farm, claiming the machines can read all the cows’ data, recording daily milk yield, quality, and cell counts.

● Left: Fabrice showing his “high-tech” to Pierre. Right: Pierre preparing to steal a cow in front of the automated milking equipment.

Pierre, utterly unimpressed, shot back: “But can it tell you if your cows are happy?”

Fabrice didn’t grasp Pierre’s point, confidently replying that if a cow fell ill, the machines would certainly let him know—after all, the equipment was imported from the Netherlands.

Between small-scale farming and the modern industrial farm, which approach is superior? The director doesn’t state this explicitly, but subtly reveals his preference throughout the film.

In the French Ministry of Agriculture’s regular milk quality tests, Pierre frequently ranked first locally, earning him the nickname “The Cow Prince”. Fabrice, meanwhile, ranked forty-second. It is little wonder that local smallholders were unconvinced by these fully automated systems and the massive investment they required.

V. Mad Cows

While the film focuses primarily on Pierre’s state of mind, the backdrop—the struggle of smallholders to survive within the EU’s free-trade framework—is ever-present.

In the film, Pierre’s primary source of information on BSE is a Belgian farmer. Having discovered the first case of mad cow disease, the farmer immediately alerted health officials, hoping for a solution. Instead, the authorities essentially sentenced the entire herd to death; the day after the discovery, the farmer lost every single cow.

Despite government promises of financial compensation, months passed without word. In desperation, he posted a video of his ordeal online, declaring his intention to turn towards political extremism.

This subplot is almost a mirror of current reality.

● A satirical American take on the Department of Agriculture’s measures for managing mad cow disease, such as “mandatory testing”: too expensive; “positive thinking”: the outbreak will never spiral; “prayer”: recommended before every meal.

In Europe and North America, measures to combat mad cow disease never dared challenge industrial interests. Tracking systems were slow to materialise, and governments lacked the funds for comprehensive testing. Once a case appeared, the only response was total culling, with no one concerned for the losses suffered by the farmers.

*The Little Farmer* may not intentionally point to the root cause of the BSE epidemic. Yet, we must remember that the origins of mad cow disease in the UK during the 1980s were considered highly linked to the use of meat and bone meal from ruminants in industrial livestock feed.

With industrial farming rampant and public epidemic prevention lacking, it is profoundly unfair to force individual smallholders to bear the losses.

During the 2001 European BSE outbreak, an Irish news report noted that farmers were calling for greater government compensation.

Between 2003 and 2007, Canada suffered a BSE outbreak that devastated farmers’ livelihoods. Those affected sued the Canadian government, arguing that inadequate prevention measures allowed the disease to spread domestically and that they deserved financial compensation. The legal battle lasted until 2022, when the farmers’ claims were ultimately dismissed.

Simultaneously, farmers in the West, crushed by the pressure to survive, are becoming a vital voter base for far-right parties advocating anti-globalisation and populism. This demonstrates how industrial agriculture and globalisation have profoundly altered local social life, creating a web of intersecting conflicts for which there are no simple solutions.

VI. What Does it Mean to Be a Farmer?

For Hubert Charuel, the director of *The Little Farmer*, the story stems from deeply personal memories. His parents were dairy farmers who lived through the BSE epidemic—an experience that left a lasting impression on him as a boy. Consequently, the film was shot on his own family farm.

It is a deceptively simple family story, yet it earned a César nomination for Best Film, and Swann Arlaud won the César for Best Actor. Beyond the cinematography and acting, its success is tied to how it mirrors critical social issues.

Coincidentally, the director of the documentary *Das System Milch* (The Milk System), released the same year, also grew up on a dairy farm. That film offers a more systematic exploration of the negative social and environmental impacts of the European dairy industry.

● Posters for *The Little Farmer* and *Das System Milch*.

In *Das System Milch*, the director attempts to map the entire production chain of the European dairy industry, discussing the unbalanced power dynamics between large-scale capital and individual farmers.

The film depicts farm owners who treat animals with far more brutality; to maintain precise control over overheads, cows that cannot produce milk (including newborn bull calves) must be slaughtered immediately to save on feed. An even greater headache for these owners is manure management; with no infrastructure capable of handling the endless torrent of waste produced by industrial farms, they simply bury it on-site, overloading the land.

Once a farmer chooses the “track” of industrial scaling, they are forced into a cycle of constant expansion to lower production costs. Did Fabrice, who chose this path in *The Little Farmer*, foresee such an outcome?

Dairy production is already in surplus, a situation welcomed by the large agribusinesses that purchase the milk. This allows them to drive down purchase prices to boost “global competitiveness”, exporting European dairy products to every corner of the globe while threatening the livelihoods of local farmers.

Within the system of industrial farming and food empires, the farmers, the cows, and the land are all pushed to the breaking point. Pierre’s anxiety in *The Little Farmer* provides a tangible manifestation of this precarious existence—a life lived on thin ice.

Where, then, is the way forward for the farmer?

Foodthink Author

Li Shumeng

PhD in Sociology from Cornell University (USA) and Postdoctoral Fellow at the Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. Her research focuses primarily on value distribution and consumption ethics in food production.

Unless otherwise stated, images in this article are sourced from the internet

Editor: Zeen