Reversing earlier positions that sought primarily to accelerate the authorisation procedures for biotech foods—particularly lab-grown and precision-fermented products—MEPs have now agreed on key principles: that the EU’s high standards for food safety and consumer protection must be upheld; that impacts on sustainability and circularity must be assessed; and that food innovation must take into account social, ethical, economic, environmental and cultural aspects.

We also welcome the European Parliament’s alignment with the position we have long advocated, and which was clearly reiterated by the EU AGRIFISH Council in January 2024: to protect citizens’ health, any such biotechnological applications must undergo proper scrutiny before being authorised or placed on the EU market. This includes the requirement for clinical and pre-clinical studies.

This position is fully in line with the letter we sent months ago to the European Commission, where we questioned whether the current “Novel Foods” Regulation is fit for purpose. We called for consideration of future revisions that would better align the safety evaluation of lab-grown foods with that of medicines—specifically by including pre-clinical and clinical studies as key safety criteria. We also urged the Commission to ensure proper alignment with GMO legislation and to address the ethical implications of these technologies.

The EU ministers for agriculture sent, today, a very clear signal to the European Commission on the need to urgently protect meat denominations. The request, tabled by Czech Republic, to call the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal to protect the names of food of animal origin, was strongly backed by 18 Member States (CZ, IT, FR, HU, AT, SK, ES, RO, MT, IE, CY, LT, BG, EL, PT, LU, HR & BE), without a single voice against. 

This broad position taken by ministers sends a strong signal ahead of the trilogue talks on the Common Market Organisation to negotiators and, in particular, to the future Danish Presidency of the EU, which will have to take into account this broad call from most ministers in the negotiations.

Farm Europe and Eat Europe very much welcome this request which respond to the urgent need to stop the discrimination between meat and meat substitutes and imitations and insure effective protection of EU consumers. 

Today, when it comes to meat, there are very precise rules on what, for example, the French “steak haché” or “escalope hachée” must contain : at least 99% meat and less than 1% salt! It is a lightly processed product, with mainly one ingredient. We therefore call on European Commission to respond to the call from the AGRI Ministers and intervene as quickly as possible to put order on the shelves and in the internal market! 

All those willing to support this initiative can support our campaign “Words Matter” following The QR Code below :

Ahead of the final trilogue negotiations, Farm Europe and Eat Europe, with the farmers organisations representing the European rice producers from the main EU producing countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, France and Romania) send a clear message to EU institutions to reject any attempt to weaken the concept of automatic safeguard clause provided for under Article 29 of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Regulation. Automatic, swift and effective safeguard mechanisms should be the norm in any trade agreement concluded by the EU, to ensure the competitiveness of European farmers and a level playing field that upholds economic, environmental and social sustainability standards. This is the only effective tool to protect rice production.

The proposal currently circulating – and unacceptable for the rice producers – foresees an automatic trigger for the launch of a surveillance mechanism, not the safeguard clause. Moreover, it includes criteria that significantly delay the process and risk providing grounds to avoid suspending preferential tariffs.

On the contrary, we call for the reference percentage to be set at 6%, if the proposal is to change the calculation method, using total EU imports as the denominator instead of imports from only GSP Countries. Moreover, we ask tight timelines for surveillance and verification, with the percentage as the sole parameter to be assessed and the deletion of paragraph 2 of Article 31.

There are only two alternatives that the sector considers viable in case these proposals should not be put forward: referring back to the European Parliament’s initial negotiating mandate or halt the trilogue.

EU rice producers cannot keep dealing with imports increases like in last years: in the most recent marketing year, European farmers have faced a veritable invasion of zero-duty Asian rice, with imports from Cambodia and Myanmar already showing a +13% increase by 1 June 2025 compared to the same period of the previous year, and a 40% surge in Indica rice alone. 

Beyond automatic safeguard mechanisms, the application of the principle of reciprocity must be fully implemented in all agreements, aiming at protecting not only the supply chain but also European consumers, from products that fall far below EU environmental, social and quality standards.

Words matter! Farm Europe and Eat Europe have sent a joint letter to EU Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Olivér Várhelyi, and to EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Christophe Hansen, to call for clear and harmonised EU rules on meat denominations, currently missing, thus undermining the right of consumers to have transparent information when it comes to food choices.

While dairy-related denominations are already protected under EU law, the same level of clarity must be provided to meat products. The current regulatory gap enables alternative products made from mushrooms, insects, or lab-grown components, as well as plant-based products — very often the result of high levels of processing, with the addition of chemical substances — to use traditional meat terminology, to mimic the appearance, taste, and texture of animal-based foods, despite significant differences in nutritional profile. The absence of legal protection leads to confusion among consumers and to unfair competition for livestock farmers.

The topic of meat denominations was already introduced during the last Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. Despite a strong interest, the discussions did not lead to concrete action at that time. The letter to the Commissioners, sent by the Presidents of Farm Europe and Eat Europe, underlines the growing demand for clearer rules to ensure that consumers are not misled and that product labelling reflects the true nature of food items being sold. Consumers deserve transparency, and producers deserve a fair marketplace.

This initiative comes as discussions bounce back in the European Parliament regarding the use of meat-related terms for plant-based and alternative protein products. The issue has gained renewed momentum with the recent amendment proposed by MEP Céline Imart, aiming to ensure that names such as “steak”, “sausage”, “burger”, and others are reserved exclusively for products derived from animal meat.

The debate is expected to move forward in the coming weeks, with amendments in the European Parliament scheduled to be discussed on June 30th. Farm Europe and Eat Europe stress that this is a timely opportunity to support our Call for Action, and encourage European institutions to take clear initiatives for a comprehensive legislative framework on meat denominations, in the interest of both consumers and farmers.This action follows the Call for Action “Words matter” launched by Farm Europe back in October 2024. You can read more and support this initiative following this link: https://www.farm-europe.eu/news/whats-true-for-milk-must-also-be-true-for-meat/

Producer countries’ organisations urge compliance with the European Parliament’s negotiating mandate ahead of a possible final trilogue

Ahead of the final trilogue negotiations, Farm Europe is calling on EU institutions to uphold the automatic safeguard clause provided for under Article 29 of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) Regulation. Automatic, swift and effective safeguard mechanisms should be the norm in any trade agreement concluded by the EU, to ensure the competitiveness of European farmers and a level playing field that upholds economic, environmental and social sustainability standards. This is the only effective tool to protect rice production.

In the most recent marketing year, European farmers have faced a veritable invasion of zero-duty Asian rice, with imports from Cambodia and Myanmar already showing a +13% increase by 1 June 2025 compared to the same period of the previous year, and a 40% surge in Indica rice alone. 

The organisations of the most important European producers’ countries stress that any alternative solution that does not involve an automatic suspension of preferential tariffs would fail to protect the sector. Therefore, the inclusion of the automatic safeguard clause must be considered a non-negotiable condition for the conclusion of the trilogue agreement.  Specifically, we are calling for the automatic activation of the safeguard clause whenever import volumes exceed a pre-established reference threshold, in order to prevent what would amount to dumping practices harming European farmers — through uncontrolled inflows of foreign products with no defence mechanisms in place. It is worth recalling that today, over 60% of rice imported into Europe benefits from reduced tariffs.

Beyond automatic safeguard mechanisms, the application of the principle of reciprocity must be fully implemented in all agreements, aiming at protecting not only the supply chain but also European consumers, from products that fall far below EU environmental, social and quality standards. For example, rice fields in several Asian and Mercosur countries still use tricyclazole, a powerful pesticide banned in the EU. The recent attempt by the European Commission to increase the Maximum Residue Level (MRL) for tricyclazole in rice from 0.01 to 0.09 mg/kg was fortunately averted.

On June 4 the European Commission unveiled its Water Resilience Strategy, pursuing the triple objective of: Restoring and protecting the water cycle; building a water-smart economy; Securing clean and affordable water and sanitation for all.

This strategy constitutes an essential tool to protect EU water resources and safeguard agricultural production and food security in the upcoming years. Indeed, it is paramount to acknowledge that EU farmers do not simply “consume water” but sustainably produce food for all, which they will no longer be able to do if they lack access to a sufficient quantity of good-quality water.

Today, it is clear that we need to produce more at the EU level in order to respond to the growing demand globally and internally, not only for food purposes but also to enhance the European bioeconomy through the supply of agricultural biomass. In particular, Farm Europe estimates that achieving the EU’s 2030 climate objectives will require a 13% increase in agricultural production, which will have to go up to 25% by 2050.

While the strategy rightly prioritizes reducing water use, improving efficiency, and protecting water quality, it lacks a balanced emphasis on granting concrete support for agricultural production and food security in the context of climate change and the necessary investments for mitigation and adaptation.

In sum, the strategy is missing a focus and concrete proposals on water use across sectors. The Commission treats water storage infrastructure too cautiously at a time where we need to guarantee access to water and better anticipate extreme climate conditions. It emphasizes the need to prioritise nature-based solutions and only conditionally supports man-made reservoirs, stating that such projects require “particular attention and careful planning and coordination since many economic sectors need a stable supply of water and often have different needs over the year”. The Commission calls for a thorough environmental impact assessment ahead of the construction of new dams and reservoirs. This cautious stance signals a reluctance to commit to the scale of investment needed to provide visibility and stability to farmers in increasingly volatile environmental conditions. Crucially, there is no mention of upcoming EU-financed projects for water storage aimed at reinforcing the availability of this resource for farmers. On the contrary, an EU-wide investment plan for water storage would avoid putting additional pressure on the CAP budget, already reduced by 54% in the period 2021-2027 due to inflation, decoupling infrastructure investments to CAP funds and National Strategic Plans. 

The “Water Efficiency First” principle underpins much of the Commission’s approach, setting a non-binding EU-wide target to enhance water efficiency by at least 10% by 2030—which actually implies a reduction target for water abstraction. Yet, despite calls from the European Parliament, it does not include any sector-specific targets to ensure that reductions are fairly and feasibly distributed across industries. While it is fundamental to improve the efficiency of water management across Member States, farmers need reliable access to water to maintain yields and meet the EU’s growing demand for biomass.

As for better water management, in its communication, the Commission exhorts Member States to make maximum use of water resilient farming practices. We welcome this perspective but emphasise that all farmers must be put in the position to do so: The authorization of new genomic techniques (NGTs) needs to be expedited, as several promising crop varieties are nearly ready and could deliver higher yields with reduced input and water needs. Furthermore, precision and digital farming, manure management and nutrients circularity stemming from sustainable livestock production, should be incentivised and rewarded. 

On financing, the Commission outlines promising tools such as the EIB Water Programme and the Water Resilience Investment Accelerator. Still, there is little clarity on how these will translate into tangible benefits for agriculture. Without designated funding for water infrastructure and climate adaptation at the farm level, the strategy risks leaving farmers underprepared and under-supported.

In short, the strategy offers a strong environmental narrative but falls short in delivering the practical measures needed to secure Europe’s agriculture sovereignty and productivity in a changing climate.