Farm Europe and Eat Europe welcome the step forward to strengthen farmers’ position in the agrifood supply chain and to defend transparency and consumer protection, after the adoption by the European Parliament today of the report of MEP Céline Imart, amending the single Common Market Organisation reform.

Following the adoption of the Council’s position on 19th May, the European Parliament adopted a crucial report, with key proposals to rebalance the functioning of the food supply chain and better protect EU farmers, in the context of the reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO). 

The EP negotiating position constitutes an important step to improve the functioning of the EU food chain and overcome the chronic weakness of the agricultural link, clarifying contractual relations, enhancing farmers’ capacity to get organised by consolidating offer, and recognise the specificities of cooperatives with adequate provisions to underline and valorise their high standards of fair relations with their members. 

Voting the report, the EP has adopted a strong position in favour of labelling and origin’s transparency and consumer protection. At a time when marketing practices increasingly blur the distinction between traditional animal-based products and their plant-based or lab-grown imitations, it asks for the swift introduction of a solid and comprehensive framework for the protection of meat product denominations, notably concerning key terms such as “burger,” “sausage,” and “steak” which are among the most commonly misused names for marketing imitation products. Words matter ! Clear and honest labelling is not simply a marketing issue—it is a matter of public health, consumer trust, and fair competition. Furthermore the report gives an answer to the vast majority of consumers asking to know the specific country—or even region—of origin of their food, intended as the place of farming. 

We also welcome the approval of the amendment aiming at promoting and enhancing the value of European agricultural products, through prioritising food and agricultural products originating in the Union—particularly local and seasonal products in public procurement contracts.

The clear positions adopted by the European Parliament in plenary confirm the positions proposed by MEP Céline Imart. They enable the European Parliament’s rapporteur to enter into trilogue negotiations from a position of strength.

Moreover, the negotiating position that the European Parliament has adopted in this regard is important, not only to provide some short-term answers, but also to send a clear signal ahead of the decisions that will have to be taken in the context of the CAP reform, the process for which was launched with the Commission’s proposal on July 16th.

Since July, the European Commission has been on the defensive, trying to justify President Ursula von der Leyen’s decision to merge, into a single fund, the Regional and National Partnership Plan (NRPP), the EU’s traditional policies, the CAP and Cohesion, and several others (fisheries, social fund, climate, etc.). To defend this move, the Commission attempts to present this “earthquake” to the various beneficiaries of these policies (taken individually) as an unparalleled opportunity.

Yet, the arguments put forward by the European Commission do not withstand a close analysis of the proposals presented on 16 July, which primarily allow one to say one thing and its opposite, as any predictable political direction or EU-wide framework has been abandoned.

These are just some of the reasons why Farm Europe considers that the Commission’s proposal can hardly serve as an acceptable starting point for co-legislators—and even less so for the European Parliament, which would lose its raison d’être for all these policies.

1) A protected budget—or not

According to the Commission, the NRPP would be an opportunity for farmers, but also for local elected officials, fishers, and many other communities thanks to the flexibilities granted to Member States in budget allocation. After earmarking the (reduced) envelope for the next CAP, a total of €453 billion would supposedly remain available for everyone to draw from. A more honest reading of the numbers shows this is far from the case:

• Almost the entire NRPP envelope is allocated to national envelopes. Therefore, there is no real EU-wide flexibility in this fund, which would become an appendix to national budgets. Taking into account the various allocations, there is in reality barely €15 billion of margin at the European level.
• Within the NRPP envelope itself, all historical EU policies undergo deep cuts—around 20% for the Common Agricultural Policy (17.6%) and 40% for Cohesion Policy. The ESF+ exists only on paper, without a budget. Under these conditions, how can one believe the Commission’s argument that farmers could recover amounts beyond the €300 billion protected envelope from a supposedly unallocated reserve?

A calculation based on the national allocations proposed by the Commission shows this is pure optical illusion. Ireland would have to access more than 75% of NRPP funds beyond the protected CAP envelope to maintain the latter at its 2027 level; France 48%, Spain 21%, Italy 18.5%. It is clear that this impossible equation, leaving difficult choices to Member States, would only sow discord and create a toxic atmosphere in national negotiations, with no winner in sight. In any case, this framework offers no predictability or stability to farmers, despite being an economic policy with significant market impacts.

2) A simpler framework—or not

The Commission claims this new programming would simplify matters thanks to the flexibilities granted to Member States. This ignores the experience accumulated over the years in implementing the current CAP.

In reality, the Commission’s proposed step further toward renationalization has a double effect:

• On one hand, it technocratizes policies into programs managed opaquely between national administrations and the European Commission, sidelining political leaders, including the European Parliament.
• On the other hand, it systematically organizes political irresponsibility. With no clear rules established by law, national officials can easily shift responsibility to “Brussels” to justify their choices—even to their political superiors—while the Commission in turn shifts responsibility back to national administrations.

Thus, there is no simplification, only permanent ambiguity and the removal of political accountability. Both national and European administrations have in the past demonstrated remarkable creativity in complicating even the simplest schemes, especially since performance indicators allow them to justify sometimes arbitrary decisions or compromises between sensitivities across multiple ministries.

Regarding the CAP, one can question the relevance of any recommendations the Commission might make, especially as it plans to further reduce the level of expertise within its agricultural services through drastic staff cuts.

3) A greener framework—or not

The Commission has highlighted the “do no harm” principle to give its regulation a green veneer and appeal to the environmental community. At the same time, it announces the removal of conditionality to appease the agricultural community.

First, it is regrettable to reduce environmental and climate objectives to a sterile opposition that does not reflect the real challenges farmers face.

Second, it is simply false to claim that the new framework would be greener or less green, simpler or more complex. In this regard, the regulations provide no real answers; the only certainty is the creation of a hellish system of competitive distortions between and within Member States, exposing the agricultural sector to the vagaries of changing sensitivities within national administrations.

The “Farm Stewardship” system allows for significant divergence in the baseline ambition of agricultural environmental policies within the internal market, which is especially concerning as it would form the foundation for other environmental programs.

Already, at least in the short term, it is clear that it is easier to be a Hungarian farmer than a German one. In highly decentralized countries, distortions could arise within a single Member State, as has already occurred in Belgium regarding measures against soil erosion. Neither farmers nor the environment benefit from such an abandonment of EU-wide ambition.

4) Farmers consulted—or not

Finally, and perhaps the most politically damaging for the stability of the European project, the reform presented claims to be the result of broad consultations. The Commission President launched a strategic dialogue, then a consultation forum (EBAF), before drafting a strategic vision for agriculture.

In the end, none of the elements of this vision are concretely reflected in the political choices or budgetary and agricultural proposals put forward by the Commission. Farmers who participated in these consultations have every reason to feel instrumentalized, as do the NGOs involved.

This process has been used as a pretext by the Commission to justify the near-total absence of consultation with elected representatives—the European Parliament. The culmination of this charade is the Danish presidency organizing NRPP negotiations, leaving virtually no room for institutions specifically responsible for agricultural matters.

With the NRPP, policies become programs, and the almost-exclusive decision-makers—finance ministries—leave politicians with only secondary elements of these programs, once all axes and political options have been set in closed NRPP negotiations.

A Commission claiming to be political would thus end politics itself and defer to the administrations.

While the European Commission announced that “the EU-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) will open unprecedented access to Indonesia for European farmers and food producers”, Farm Europe raises serious doubts.

The main expected impact is on Indonesian palm oil exports that will benefit from a tariff free TRQ and a 3% tariff out of quota. That is the main Indonesian agriculture export. Regarding European potential export opportunities, the expected impact is rather limited. Indonesia imports mainly soybeans, beef, dairy, wheat, and rice (to cover for domestic shortfalls). 

The EU will face strong competition on beef from Brazil, Australia, and the US. On dairy from New Zealand. On wheat from Russia, US. The EU doesn’t export soybeans, and on rice, it can’t compete against South East Asia.

In addition, the potential EU imports of palm oil will depend on the seriousness of the implementation of the deforestation regulation as well as the phasing out of high iLUC biofuels, mainly palm-based biofuels — and the European Commission is floating the idea of further postponement of this regulation on the same day of the EU/Indonesia agreement, this country being one of the most important opponent to this regulation from the beginning. 

Therefore, we urge the the European Commission to be consistent and fully implement EUDR, with a clear simplification for EU farmers, considering that the EU is a no deforestation risk country, contrary to Indonesia, and to secure a real traceability for due diligence going beyond paper work, but mobilizing already existing satellite imagery to guarantee a sound and efficient implementation of the EUDR.

The European Commission published, on the 17th of September, the draft national allocations of the Common Agricultural Policy, for the period 2028-2034 in the context of the ongoing negotiations of the next multi-annual financial framework. Overall, the European Commission is proposing a multi-speed effort to the budget reduction proposal.
Given the stated desire by the European Commission to focus the CAP on “those who need it most”, questions arise as to the relevance and modalities of a distribution key. For example, the Netherlands is among the relative “winners” of the European Commission’s proposal, or on of the « best looser » together with Spain and the Portugal. Without undermining the importance of the agricultural sector in the Netherlands, and its high productivity per hectare, it’s important to remind that over the last years, farmers in this Member State benefited from a national top-up of comfortable State Aids which overall represents at least 100% of their direct payments during the last four years. Spain and Portugal would also benefit (in relative terms) from this distribution key in comparison to other Member States.

If France, Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia overall keep their share of the (smaller) CAP budget, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Greece, Denmark and Luxembourg are on the side of the most bigger loosers.

This first assessment takes into account the fact that all Member States are not benefiting from the POSEI programme (outmost regions). It will have to be fine-tuned integrating the LEADER programmes and takes into account sectorial interventions, in particular Fruits and Vegetables. However, further fine-tuning of the calculation should not change substantially the trend.

Overall, France remains the first beneficiary of this policy, in front of Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland and Romania.

The European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, delivered this morning her annual State of the Union address (SOTEU) to the European Parliament, presenting the European Union’s priorities for the year ahead.

In her speech, she focused on 5 main areas : defense – Ukraine and Middle East, competitiveness and employment, standard of living and accessibility, trade, democracy and migration. 

Farm Europe welcomes the acknowledgement of the crucial role of farmers in ensuring EU high quality and affordable food.  However we regret the lack of vision on the fundamental role of agriculture for the whole EU and the lack of  concrete  commitments to build forward looking and ambitious policies  to ensure a competitive future for the European agricultural sector.

In this way President von der Leyen has buried most of the numerous promises that followed the farmers’ protests last year. The “farmers’ deal” promised by the EPP — her own political family — during the European elections seems already forgotten, the current policy orientations of Ms von der Leyen being antagonistic to a renewed ambition for EU agriculture.

Hence, here is what President von der Leyen should have said in order to deliver an honest assessment of the reality of European agriculture, and not of Vonderland, between acknowledgments of responsibility and foreseen measures for our farmers :  

1. What President von der Leyen said on agriculture:

“Farmers are the custodians of our land. In Europe, we have access to high-quality food that our outstanding farmers produce at affordable prices. They are key to our food security. We have to promote ‘made in Europe’. Our farmers need fair competition and a level playing field. I will propose to launch a European food campaign”.

What she should have recognised: 

“Too many concessions were made with trade deals, risking to undermine the viability of the European agricultural sector, opening EU single market to unfair competition”

With the conclusion of trade deals with the United States and the Mercosur countries over the past months, the European Commission should acknowledge that the sector is facing unbalanced trade relations that jeopardise its exports and export value and open the EU single market to unfair competition. And on the top of those agreements already finalised, the EU is working on making a new deal with India. 

2. What President von der Leyen said on trade relations:

“On Mercosur: We have robust safeguards in our trade deal with Mercosur – baked up by funding if compensation is needed”

“On EU-US: when you account for the exceptions that we secured and the additional rates which others have on top – we have the best agreement. Without any doubt.”

What she should have recognised: 

“The EU-US agreement is “win–lose” deal because some Member states forced me to make concessions to protect the automotive industry, exposing European farmers to lower revenues, weaker market positions and unfair competition. It also breaches WTO rules, creating further risks of legal challenges”.

The EU–US trade deal signed in August 2025 plays heavily in favour of the United States, with the EU granting most concessions. Premium wines, pasta, biscuits, cheese, beer and spirits will all see reduced competitiveness, with losses counted in billions of euros. On top of this, the EU has granted sweeping concessions, including the abolition of tariffs on fruit, vegetables, dried fruits, seeds, jams and juices, and new tariff-rate quotas, such as 25,000 t for pork, 500,000 t for nuts and 400,000 t for soybean oil. The fruit and vegetable, seed and nut sectors are expected to suffer most from increased competition.

“I am fully aware of the serious risks coming from the Mercosur for our farmers as Mercosur is an agri-food powerhouse with different norms and standards, affecting the level playing field”. 

In order to appease the strong concerns expressed by some Member States (notably France, Italy, and Poland) regarding the harmful impact of the deal on European agriculture, the EU executive committed to put forward reinforced bilateral safeguards, which appear however largely ineffective in protecting European farmers. 

“This is coming on the top of trade tensions with other partners, already affecting our farmers”. 

Indeed, this situation is further worsened by China’s decision to impose provisional anti-dumping duties ranging between 15.6% and 62.4% on European pork imports, starting from 10^th September, due to an ongoing investigation on potential unfair subsidies. 

3. What President von der Leyen said on the MFF proposal and the future of the CAP:

“We have simplified CAP and ringfenced income support in the next MFF”.

“And made sure that funding can be topped up by national and regional envelopes”. 

What is the reality she should have recognised: 

“With my MFF proposal, Member States should be aware that their agricultural sector will face a proper existential crisis. They need to increase by at least 95 billion EUR the CAP budget to invest in the future of our agri-food sector together”

The plan reduces the CAP budget to €300 billion (including the newly introduced Unity Safety Net), constituting a 17.6% reduction in current euros (integrating the new ring-fenced parameters), far below the €482.5 billion required to maintain the 2020 level, or the €395 billion for 2027. While the crisis reserve increased to €6.3 billion, the way in which it could be deployed needs to be redefined to concretely offer an efficient response to farmers. 

4. What President von der Leyen said on European markets: 

“Single market is our greatest asset”

What is the reality she should have recognised: 

“In addition, the new performance framework and single fund aim at being a wake up call for Member States and Members of the European Parliament. Do they want EU policies or confrontations within the single market ? They should take their responsibilities and promote a true EU ambition instead of always calling for flexibilities”.

The single fund proposal would jeopardise the commonality and autonomy of the Common agriculture policy. The broader economic dimension of the policy is sidelined, with exclusively environmental and social indicators dominating the single performance framework to evaluate budget expenditure.

Farm Europe and Eat Europe warmly welcome today’s adoption by the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (COMAGRI) of the report by MEP Céline Imart on strengthening the position of farmers within the food supply chain.

This vote represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness and transparency across the EU agri-food sector. In particular, the report takes a strong stance on the critical issue of product labelling and includes robust provisions aimed at protecting the names of meat products — an essential measure to prevent misleading practices and support the European livestock sector.

We strongly commend COMAGRI’s clear position in favour of transparency and consumer protection, especially at a time when marketing practices increasingly blur the distinction between traditional animal-based products and their plant-based or lab-grown imitations.

Today’s vote also sends a strong message ahead of upcoming discussions on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Commission’s proposed revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) regulation. That proposal—following sustained advocacy by Farm Europe and EAT Europe—already includes a first step toward protecting meat-related terms, but further progress is needed.

In this regard, MEP Imart’s report is particularly important. It sets a long-term political objective and calls for the swift introduction of a solid and comprehensive framework for the protection of meat product denominations.

At present, key terms such as “burger,” “sausage,” and “steak” remain outside the scope of the Commission’s draft provisions, despite being among the most commonly misused names for marketing imitation products. Words matter ! Clear and honest labelling is not simply a marketing issue—it is a matter of public health, consumer trust, and fair competition.

We now urge the European Parliament to confirm this positive signal in plenary. A strong endorsement will lay essential groundwork for the upcoming interinstitutional negotiations on CAP reform and will help reinforce the protection of meat denominations while tackling misleading marketing practices.

Future legislation must not only ensure a fairer economic environment for European farmers but also empower consumers to make fully informed food choices—particularly in relation to nutritional value and processing levels.

The “Words Matter” campaign, launched in 2024, has highlighted the vital role of transparent labelling in building a sustainable food system. Protecting the names of meat products is a key part of this broader vision—ensuring that Europe’s agri-food policies support social, economic, and environmental sustainability.

Farm Europe welcomes the breakthrough to strengthen farmers’ position in the agrifood supply chain, after the vote, by  the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development today of the draft report of MEP Céline Imart, amending the single Common Market Organisation reform, during its extraordinary meeting in Strasbourg.

Following the adoption of the Council’s position on 19th May, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee of the European Parliament adopted a crucial report, with key proposals to rebalance the functioning of the food supply chain and better protect EU farmers, in the context of the reform of the Common Market Organisation (CMO). 

Even if the compromises adopted are by definition compromises, most of them represent an important and very positive step forward for farmers, and send an important signal ahead of the upcoming discussions on the new CAP reform.

They constitute an important step to improve the functioning of the EU food chain and overcome the chronic weakness of the agricultural link, clarifying contractual relations, enhancing farmers’ capacity to get organised by consolidating offer, and recognise the specificities of cooperatives with adequate provisions to underline and valorise their high standards of fair relations with their members. Those modifications do not constitute a definitive end point in this matter, but they do make a real step forward to the need of rebalancing.

The negotiating position that the European Parliament will adopt in this regard is important, not only to provide some short-term answers, but also to send a clear signal ahead of the negotiations and decisions that will have to be taken in the context of the CAP reform, the process for which was launched with the Commission’s proposal on July 16th.

As the European Commission reportedly prepares to present the EU-Mercosur agreement for ratification tomorrow, Farm Europe and Eat Europe strongly denounce this move as a damaging political shortcut that threatens the integrity of European agriculture and the credibility of the EU’s environmental and climate commitments.

“Coming on the heels of the deeply flawed MFF package agreed in July and the recent imbalanced trade deal with the United States, this attempt to push through an agreement that remains unchanged in substance—particularly in its agricultural chapter—highlights a serious disconnect between political declarations and real policy choices, confirming the line President von der Leyen is taking in the recent months, against her own commitments last year” said Yves Madre, President of Farm Europe.

This latest initiative is yet another sign that agriculture is being treated not as a strategic asset, but as a bargaining chip. If confirmed, it will add to a series of negative developments for EU farmers in recent months—from cuts to the CAP budget to concessions granted in transatlantic negotiations—demonstrating that the agricultural sector is falling ever lower on the EU’s list of priorities.

Luigi Scordamaglia, President of Eat Europe, underlined that “The suggestion that this agreement could somehow encourage Mercosur countries to move towards more sustainable production is misleading. The deal contains no binding commitments, no enforceable sustainability clauses, and no credible mechanisms for accountability. Any claims of environmental progress are, at best, aspirational. In its current form – continued Scordamaglia – the EU-Mercosur agreement is fundamentally incompatible with the EU’s own political and policy coherence—especially regarding climate targets, environmental standards, and fair trade principles. It would directly undermine the EU’s key agricultural value chains and expose European farmers to unfair competition from producers operating under significantly lower standards for environmental protection, food safety, and animal welfare”.

We therefore urge the decision makers to show responsibility and immediately reconsider moving forward with this agreement. As it stands, the EU-Mercosur deal would:

• Weaken the EU’s internal agricultural market and threaten the viability of rural economies;
• Undermine the principle of reciprocity by allowing imports produced under lower standards;
•  Jeopardize the EU’s environmental and climate objectives;
• Erode the EU’s credibility as a global leader in sustainable development.

Trade agreements can be powerful tools for economic growth—but only when they are built on fairness, reciprocity, and environmental responsibility. The EU-Mercosur deal fails on all these fronts.

Instead of opening the floodgates to powerful agri-food giants in Latin America, the European Union must stand up for its producers, safeguard high standards for its consumers, and chart a new, ambitious vision for agriculture and food systems—one grounded in sustainability, resilience, and the strength of the “Made in Europe” model.

The European Commission today presented the joint statement on the framework for trade between the US and the EU. 

The new level of customs duties for European exports to the US has been raised to 15% for products that previously benefited from lower duties (4.8% on average).

For those previously taxed at higher rates, the level will be maintained, except for a few sectors that appear to have attracted most of the European Commission’s attention — and US own interests — , namely unavailable natural resources (including cork), all aircraft and aircraft parts, generic pharmaceuticals and their ingredients, chemical precursors and automobile.

On pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and automobile and automobile parts, the tariff rate, comprised of the MFN tariff and the tariff imposed pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, will not exceed 15%.

Intentions to purchase energy and US AI chips, as well as investments in the US, complete this statement. 

As for the agri-food sector, the situation is seriously worrying and imbalanced. Many doubts remain about future trade relations when it comes to the agri-food sector. For now the Commission failed to defend EU agri-food offensive interests.

At first glance, if this is the starting point for future, more sensible negotiations, EU agriculture is starting many steps behind. 

Possible exceptions for agriculture are not clarified, while vague concessions are made to US imports in some key EU agricultural sectors, not only those previously mentioned (e.g. dairy) but also key sectors such as fruit & vegetables and pig meat.

Particular attention should be paid to the idea of cooperation in the field of sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Even though the European Commission excludes weakening EU SPS standards, what will be the result of the ‘preferential access’ that will be given to some US agrifood products?

With regard to wine and spirits, the statement is silent on these sectors, which seem to have been neglected, if not sacrificed, during the negotiations conducted by the European Commission. The 15% rate will apply to the value of the exported product, making European products more expensive on the US market and jeopardising the efforts made over many years to gain recognition and market share in the US. 

Once again, agriculture seems to be treated as a spare wheel and a bargaining chip, while the interests of some sectors such as the automotive industry seem to have been the main concern of the EU negotiators.

Farm Europe and EAT Europe welcome the European Commission’s proposal to introduce clear principles for the protection of meat product names in the draft revision of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) regulation, as part of the broader reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

This inclusion—strongly advocated by both organisations—sends a clear signal in favour of consumer transparency and fairness for producers.

However, it remains difficult to understand why essential terms such as “burger,” “sausage,” and “steak” are still excluded from the legal provisions, despite being among the most frequently misused names when marketing substitute products.

Transparency means calling food by its correct name. Words matter. Naming is not a marketing gimmick—it directly affects citizens’ health and wellbeing. Consumers must be accurately informed, especially regarding the nutritional value and level of processing of the products they purchase.

We particularly welcome the Commission’s explicit recognition of the need for EU-wide harmonisation of terminology related to meat products—bringing the rules in line with the standards already in place for the dairy sector.

This proposal echoes a recent joint appeal by Farm Europe and EAT Europe to Commissioners Várhelyi and Hansen, giving voice to the “Words Matter” campaign launched in October 2024. The campaign underlines the urgent need to ensure consumers can clearly distinguish between animal-based products and their imitations—many of which are highly processed and have different nutritional profiles—thus avoiding misleading marketing and market confusion.

It is significant that the Commission acknowledges the importance of introducing specific legal provisions to protect meat-related terms. These rules would enhance transparency in the internal market regarding food composition and nutritional value, enabling consumers to make informed choices—particularly those seeking the nutritional benefits traditionally associated with meat products.

Nonetheless, further debate will be essential in the coming months—especially in light of ongoing discussions within the European Parliament, including the report by MEP Imart, which already proposes substantial amendments to the current CMO regulation. The ultimate objective must be to safeguard both consumer transparency and the viability of European livestock farming—one of the EU agri-food sector’s key pillars in terms of social and environmental sustainability.

Key issues such as transparency, consumer education, food processing levels, and lab-grown alternatives will be at the heart of the upcoming Eat Europe study on food sustainability. The study will be officially presented in the European Parliament on 14 October 2025, during an event hosted by MEP Herranz Garcia, with the participation of EU Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare, Oliver Várhelyi.

You can find more information about our campaign “Words Matter” through the following links:

• https://www.farm-europe.eu/news/whats-true-for-milk-must-also-be-true-for-meat/

• https://www.farm-europe.eu/news/farm-europe-and-eat-europe-call-for-clarity-on-meat-denominations-joint-letter-sent-to-commissioner-varhelyi/