It is now up to the European Parliament to decide on the future of the trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur countries, following its adoption by a qualified majority of the permanent representatives of the EU Member States. When making their individual choices, MEPs will have to take into account not only the geopolitical and economic issues highlighted by the European Commission to speed up ratification, but also the serious consequences of this agreement for European agriculture. The latter currently lacks the tools to stand up to competition from Latin American countries. 

The measures taken by the European Commission in recent days do not restore the balance and could not justify any change in position on the agricultural aspects of this agreement, which is detrimental to European farmers:

• Lowering the monitoring threshold for activating the safeguard clause for agricultural products to 5% does not change the situation. This safeguard clause is purely cosmetic. It provides no additional guarantees to those negotiated in the agreement itself. Furthermore, the real, automatic and robust reciprocity clauses initially proposed by the European Parliament have been discarded. Under these conditions, European farmers would indeed face unfair competition, caught between European rules, with a strong impact on their competitiveness, aimed at protecting the environment and EU consumers on the one hand, and imported products that flout these same standards on the other. The finalisation of this agreement would deal a fatal blow to the credibility of the rules put in place within the EU over the last 20 years to regulate agricultural activity. 
• As regards the recent budgetary statement on the CAP of President Ursula von der Leyen, it does not in any way constitute a guarantee for European farmers. Although the European Commission has recognised that at least €400 billion would be needed to preserve the CAP budget, rather than the €300 billion in the protected envelope, the recent letter from Ursula von der Leyen does not provide any guarantees at this stage nor the necessary visibility for European farmers. On the contrary, the President of the European Commission is leaving harmful doubts hanging over possible distortions of competition, not only from third countries, but also within the internal market itself, depending on the choices that Member States may make after 2027 in implementing their national programmes. Moreover, the Commission is confronting national leaders with an unsolvable financial equation, having slashed the CAP by 20%, cohesion by 40% and the European Social Fund by 100% within the proposed single fund. Under these conditions, how can the EU ensure calm arbitration and offer farmers clear prospects after 2027 within a common framework? 

In the coming days, MEPs will therefore face one of the most important choices of the current term: whether or not to support the Mercosur agreement. At this stage, such support would be misunderstood by almost all farmers in the European Union. It would sow the seeds of a major rift between Europe and its agricultural community, one of the most committed to this project, which has, until now, enabled the EU to become an agricultural powerhouse. The EU finds itself at a crossroads, in an extremely fragile position, at a time when world powers are turning agriculture into a major geopolitical weapon of the 21st century. 

The agreement negotiated by the European Commission with Mercosur is outdated in this respect. It follows in the footsteps of all those negotiations in which European agriculture has been the banker, the losing sector, whenever a potential overall benefit for the Union was expected. 

At a time when European sovereignty is a leitmotif repeated ad nauseam by European and national political circles, this sovereignty depends first and foremost on our ability to increase our agricultural production in order to meet our food security needs, our ability to supply our importing partners, and our assurance that we can build an autonomous foundation for our emerging bioeconomy. the sincerity of its use by some remains to be seen, unless it is a symptom of a Europe without an economic compass, negotiating agreements, measures and countermeasures according to particular interests, without a strategy to place Europe and Europeans at the forefront of Community action.

European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, made major analytical mistakes in 2025, underestimating the despair and expectations of farmers with regard to the European project. She accumulated unfavorable decisions, antagonistic with her own vision of European agriculture, or at least the one presented by her Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, at the beginning of the mandate, which was initially promising. 

Over the last few months, there has been multiple superficial and insubstantial debates on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, focusing mainly

• on a cost cutting policy under the pretext of focusing ‘on those who need it most’ ;
• a pretended simplification in the form of renationalisation that does not say its name and carries within it the seeds of fragmentation of the European market and its transformation into a battlefield ;
• not to mention the trade aspect, on which no serious dialogue has been possible to guarantee the credibility and sustainability of the EU trade policy toward its own Citizens. 

At the end of this necessary and unavoidable day, which puts agriculture back at the heart of the European debate, Farm Europe reaffirms its willingness to formally cooperate and put forward proposals that offer hope for a European agriculture that regains its strength and competitiveness in a world where agricultural sovereignty is a major strategic lever. If this cannot be achieved with the current Commission, this will have to be done by the co-legislators, fully assuming their responsibilities. 

It is to be hoped that this most needed debate, focusing on solutions to promote an ambitious vision of agricultural sovereignty, will finally begin, so as to prevent the current mandate from turning into a Berezina for Europe, its agriculture and its food value chain.

Farm Europe and Eat Europe welcome the Commission’s package as an important starting point to strengthen food safety, enhance the resilience of the agri-food system and support innovation, while ensuring that the framework is workable for farmers and delivers a high level of protection for consumers.

The package presented today by the European Commission on food safety, including the Biotech Act and the Food Safety Omnibus, sends a clear signal that the European Union recognises the need to reinforce food safety, boost competitiveness and simplify regulatory procedures, while fostering innovation.

At the same time, it is essential to begin work immediately—also in close cooperation with the European Parliament—to improve and fine-tune several elements of the initial proposals. Only in this way can the stated objectives translate into tangible benefits on the ground, making life easier for farmers and ensuring food remains safe for consumers.

We particularly welcome:

• the recognition of the role of biocontrol products as an important tool for crop protection, while acknowledging that they are not a stand-alone solution;
• the intention to simplify procedures, in particular when it comes to mutual recognition of authorisations, which should be further strengthened, especially with regard to harmonisation between Member States on emergency uses;
• the openness to new technologies such as drones, which are essential for more precise, efficient and sustainable farming practices – hoping that this could open the way to always more effective use of digital and precision farming tools.

On the other side we would have expected more determination when it comes to making clear references and consequent measures in line with to the recognised principle “no ban without alternatives” or in setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) for imports in coherence to rules and limits that apply for EU producers, to ensure effective reciprocity. 

Reciprocity rules play a central role and must be assessed in conjunction with the ongoing revision of EU customs legislation and the establishment of the EU Customs Authority. Reciprocity requires robust, uniform and credible controls on imports, overcoming the current situation in which inspections remain uneven and, in some major ports—including Rotterdam—clearly insufficient. The future EU Customs Authority must be empowered to ensure proper enforcement at EU borders and a genuine level playing field for European farmers.

We also acknowledge the ambition of the Biotech Act to strengthen Europe’s innovation capacity -also in view of the second part to be released later in 2026 and on which we hope farmers and food producers will be fully involved during the preparation process. 

However, with regard to the proposed amendments to GMO legislation—both in the Food Safety Omnibus and in the Biotech Act—it is crucial to avoid any acceleration to market based on regulatory shortcuts. In particular, fast-tracking the placing on the market of products derived from GMOs or GMMs through simplified procedures, or classifying such products as novel foods when, in practice, they are not, would undermine regulatory credibility and consumer trust.

In this respect, the Commission’s proposals aimed at promoting precision fermentation—especially where it competes directly with traditional production models, notably in the dairy sector—appear to broaden the definition of processing aids to include any GMO organism used in the manufacture of a product.

In the case of fermentation processes used for the production of synthetic milk and lab-grown dairy products, the GMOs involved are not processing aids. They are the actual producers of the final product, albeit supported by processing aids designed to ensure the feeding and development of the producing micro-organisms. The resulting product is therefore produced by GMO micro-organisms, not simply with the assistance of GMMs acting as processing aids to facilitate production.

Against this background, we welcome the reinforcement of the role of EFSA, but not aimed at accelerating procedures on file that could have long term unknown consequences on human health. Rather than introducing regulatory sandboxes—which, if applied to food, would risk moving in the opposite direction of consumer protection—EFSA should be tasked with reviewing and updating its guidelines to ensure robust, transparent and science-based risk assessments. EFSA provides scientific opinions, not legislation. It must also be ensured that assessments are not based on evidence and studies provided by the applicants themselves or entities linked to them, in order to avoid— as has recently been the case with glyphosate studies — final authorisations being based on false or misleading assumptions.

Today’s package offers an important starting point for discussion and improvements. We stand ready to engage constructively in the legislative process to ensure that the final framework delivers simpler, more harmonised and workable rules, safeguarding food safety while effectively supporting those who produce our food every day.

Today, the European Parliament voted on the safeguard clause linked to the Mercosur agreement. Unfortunately, in the context of Mercosur, the work on reciprocity was rushed through, as it was not taken on board properly by the negotiators from the European Commission, nor from the Council, during the negotiation itself. 

The vote and adoption of substantial amendments on reciprocity by the MEPs, with a broad majority, send a clear signal to the European Commission : no trade deal can be negotiated without a proper integration of a full reciprocity of norms and standards. This is a substantial political message that the European Commission should fully take into account for current and future negotiations as the level playing field is not negotiable, without damaging the trade policy of the EU itself. 

It is, however, regrettable that the discussions on reciprocity are coming retroactively when it comes to the EU/Mercosur agreement, shedding light on the weaknesses and imbalances of the EU position in this negotiation. In addition, the European Parliament also missed the opportunity to add an automatic triggering of the safeguard mechanism that would be the only way to prevent serious damages and timely actions when it comes to market stabilisation.

Safeguard clauses should be automatic and realistic to protect already fragile but strategic economic sectors such as agriculture, based on clear quantitative thresholds, and with reciprocity fully integrated in the agreement, especially for sectors connected to the use of natural resources. 

All trade agreements – and Mercosur makes no exception – should fully integrate  genuine and effective reciprocity measures. Without a level playing field in terms of rules, standards and controls, European competitiveness and the sustainability of EU production are at serious risk.

Today, the Council presidency and European Parliament’s negotiators reached a provisional agreement on the wine package, addressing challenges that wine producers face and unlocking market opportunities.

Farm Europe warmly welcomes the work of Commissioner Hansen alongside rapporteur Esther Herranz García, as well as the Danish Presidency on this crucial improvement for the EU wine sector, following the first and last trilogue.

​​This agreement represents a necessary and long-awaited positive response to the most pressing challenges faced by the European wine sector. It also addresses the related requests expressed by the High-Level Group on Wine.

The deal introduces clearer rules for de-alcoholised wines, in particular for the use of the terms “alcohol-free” and “alcohol reduced”. Wine producers will also benefit from greater flexibility in the face of natural disasters, plant disease, or pest pressures, with an additional year to plant or replant affected vines. EU funds may now be used for grubbing-up, and national payment ceilings for wine distillation and green harvesting are set at 25% of globally available funds per Member State.

The agreement also strengthens support for wine tourism and promotional initiatives. Producer organisations managing protected designations of origin (PDOs) and protected geographical indications (PGIs) will have additional support to promote wine tourism. Promotional campaigns targeting third countries will benefit from enhanced co-financing: up to 60% from the EU, with Member States able to provide additional support, and funding may extend up to nine years.

Farm Europe sees the agreement as a positive result of structured collaboration between EU institutions, producers, and industry stakeholders. The wine sector, a pillar of the European economy, requires coherent, long-term support spanning trade, promotion, climate adaptation, and digitalisation. This provisional deal demonstrates the effectiveness of bottom-up consultation, ensuring policies respond to producers’ practical needs while creating growth opportunities in domestic and international markets.

The provisional agreement must now be confirmed by the Council and the European Parliament before the legislative act is formally adopted by the co-legislators.

Last night, the Council presidency and European Parliament’s negotiators reached a provisional agreement on a set of rules that establish a legal framework for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). 

The provisional deal on New Breeding Techniques is a glimpse of blue in an overcast sky for European farmers, finally paving the way to facilitate the uptake of innovation in European agriculture. 

The distinction between NGT1 and NGT2 will facilitate market access to innovative seeds. The modifications that can occur in nature will be operated more effectively and more quickly than conventional breeding practices. This will help overcome some challenges EU agriculture is confronted with like water resilience, climate change or increased pressure from pests and diseases. This will help to move on the path of sustainable intensification, most needed to produce more and better, and lay down the foundations of a carbon-neutral economy leveraging agriculture as a solution. 

The deal is a compromise. The implementation of the deal only two years after its final adoption is a delay which will undermine the level playing field for EU farmers in comparison to their competitors globally ; the exclusion list applied to NGT1 category is contradicting the principle that those modifications could occur in nature.

However, the agreement represents a light at the end of the tunnel after years during which farmers have been constrained by political choices that placed ideology ahead of science, and consumers left uncertain about the real nature of their food options.

A EU framework based on shared scientific criteria will help reduce the confusion between NGTs and traditional GMOs, which has long fuelled public mistrust.

Despite the division among EP rapporteurs, EU farmers and consumers need this text to be adopted as quickly as possible, in order to be equipped with the necessary tools for a more resilient, competitive and sustainable agriculture.

The provisional agreement must now be confirmed by the Council and the European Parliament before the legislative act is formally adopted by the co-legislators.

The automatic trigger is welcome, but the EBA scheme should not be turned into a European EBR – Everything But Rice! With this approach von der Leyen’s Commission will facilitate import of products that pose threats to public health, including some that are linked to child labour practices

Farm Europe and Eat Europe take note of the agreement reached last night in the final trilogue on the revision of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) Regulation, while denouncing what we consider a missed opportunity to provide the sector with an effective mechanism capable of anticipating market disruptions caused by excessive imports from countries with low environmental and social standards.

“The introduction of an automatic trigger for the safeguard clause is a step forward, especially at a time where the European Parliament is assessing the safeguard clauses of the Mercosur Agreement” commented Yves Madre, President of Farm Europe. “Yet the activation conditions do not ensure real and effective protection for EU rice against imports from Asian countries whose production standards are far from those of the EU, putting the resilience of our sector at serious risk.”

We acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of the European Parliament negotiators, in particular of MEPs M. Mato and M. Polato, who defended the sector with determination. At the same time, we denounce the unacceptable stance of the Danish Presidency and the Commission, which refused to reopen a discussion on the functioning of the mechanism itself, reducing the negotiations to a mere bargaining exercise over rice volumes.

Crucial elements —such as the duration of the safeguard clause once triggered or the introduction of an automatic system to prevent circumvention practices— were completely ignored.

The agreed thresholds and surge percentages remain far too high, considering that imports have already exceeded 540,000 tonnes this year, with direct consequences on price trends for premium varieties, whose value has dropped by 35% compared with last year.

Without an effective automatic clause, the uncontrolled surge in imports observed since 2009 could intensify under future agreements between the EU and India, as well as with Mercosur, which—once fully implemented—foresees duty-reduced imports of 60,000 tonnes.

Any agreement, including with Mercosur, must therefore provide for automatic and effective safeguard clauses. We urge Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade to fully consider these dynamics when assessing the safeguard provisions linked to the Mercosur agreement.

The European Commission adopted today its communication for a European Bioeconomy strategy, which will play a crucial role in the European Union’s ambition to transform its economy and make it more sustainable, circular, and carbon neutral, in order to reach its climate and energy goals by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, while reducing its dependency on imported fossil fuels.

“We welcome the bioeconomy strategy developed under the leadership of Commissioner Roswall with the support of Commissioner Hansen. It has a real potential to be an opportunity for EU farmers and biorefiners. While we raised concerns on the initial versions that circulated in the press, the final strategy adopted by the Commission today fully recognises the essential role of EU agriculture and the need to build on existing value chains to unlock the potential of EU bioeconomy and scale up bio-based solutions”, underlined Stefan Schreiber, Chair of Farm Europe’s Green Economy Platform.

The communication acknowledges the role of biorefineries model as a lead market technology converting biomass, including woody biomass, agricultural residues, bio-waste and processing side-streams, into a range of products such as food ingredients, feed, biofuels, biochemicals and biomaterials. The ambition to create market space for bio-based content in a wide range of bioproducts has the potential to create a new impetus for investments in bioeconomy.

In this view, Farm Europe welcomes the intention of the Commission to focus on domestic biomass production, and the recognition of the need to encourage sustainable intensification of EU agricultural production. This would give EU farmers a central position within the value chain and constitutes a first step in reducing Europe’s dependence on biomass imports from third countries, which often entail unfair competition for domestic producers. However, the strategy does not sufficiently address the issue of tackling fraud on bio-based markets, especially when it comes to imports.

The strategy rightly emphasises the paramount role of sustainable biofuels in decarbonising the transport sector and announces a wide range of initiatives to foster bio-based products, such as bio-based polymers, fibres, chemicals, construction materials, fertilisers and plant protection products, by removing regulatory and non-regulatory barriers that hinder their deployment, further reinforces the economic potential for both farmers and bio-based industries.

Importantly, the strategy explicitly commits to involving farmers and biorefiners in its implementation. It recognises that sustainable primary biomass production enhances both productivity and environmental performance. However, the strategy should also mobilise the simplification agenda to unlock the potential of bioeconomy, including via an increase of the food and feed cap on biofuels drawing all conclusions of the recognition of the synergies and sustainability of the integrated EU biorefinery model.

Today, the European Parliament reunited in plenary adopted its amendments to the European Commission’s proposal, presented on 21 October 2025, aimed to simplify the EU anti-deforestation regulation (EUDR). This regulation is of utmost importance to European farmers and constitutes an essential tool to combat global deforestation and promote sustainable, fair trade, especially considering that the European Union remains the second largest importer of tropical deforestation and associated emissions.  

Farm Europe welcomes the adoption of the amendments requiring the European Commission to carry out a simplification review of the EUDR and present a report by 30 April 2026. The Commission is also invited to table a legislative proposal to further simplify the regulation for operators, downstream operators and traders in countries with negligible risk of deforestation. This provision echoes the Council’s position adopted earlier this month and represents an improvement to the Commission’s proposal which falls short in effectively addressing the excessive administrative burden and complexities that would weigh on the shoulders of European farmers. 

MEPs also voted in favour of measures to reduce the administrative obligations for downstream operators and traders, by deleting the mandatory requirement to pass on the reference numbers or declaration identifiers to their buyers and by limiting traceability obligation to the ‘first’ downstream operator or trader. They will have to collect reference numbers of due diligence statements but are not required to pass them on. This obligation will not apply to others further down the supply chain.

Furthermore, the Parliament decided for a general postponement of the application of core articles of EUDR from 30 December 2025 to 30 December 2026, and for a specific postponement to 30 June 2027 for micro and small undertakings.   

In view of the upcoming review by the European Commission, Farm Europe calls for real and meaningful simplification for EU farmers. First, due diligence requirements applied in the case of low-risk countries (like EU Member States) should be further simplified and when it comes to livestock, the existing traceability system should be extended to all the value chain and not only to micro and small operators.