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.
The US and the UK announced recently that they had concluded a trade deal. Little is known about its nitty gritty, the announcements provide only some general remarks and few details. More negotiation is needed before a full-fledged trade deal is reached.
Having said that there are already a few specifics, in particular on agriculture trade. According to the US “This trade deal will significantly expand U.S. market access in the UK, creating a $5 billion opportunity for new exports for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and producers. This includes more than $700 million in ethanol exports and $250 million in other agricultural products, like beef.”
From the UK side we know there was agreement to zero tariffs on ethanol, and beef for a limited 13 000 tonnes quota. There are no specifics on other agriculture products, although one could expect most tariff lines to become tariff free. The UK was also careful to point out that they will keep their SPS standards, meaning that only hormone free beef and non-chlorine treated poultry will be allowed. By so doing the UK also avoids problems in her FTA with the EU.
Thus, from what we know so far only a very limited impact is expected on beef and poultry exports. The impact on the UK ethanol market will however be much larger. And there is a big question mark on what will happen to trade in pork, dairy, wine and spirits, fruit juices, cereals, and other products, although as said above the expectation is that trade will mostly be tariff free.
From what is known we can draw some additional relevant points:
The UK for the first time after Brexit has stricken meaningful trade deals with big partners: India, followed in the same week by the US; it should be recalled that it was the US under the two previous administrations that blocked any progress on a trade deal with the UK; therefore for the first time after Brexit the EU will be facing additional competition in the UK market;
The 10% across the board US new tariff stays on, the UK does not apply any reciprocal tariff; the willingness of the US to stick to the new 10% basic tariff on the deals to come seems confirmed;
The deal is blatantly outside basic WTO rules; the concessions made by both sides are bilateral only; the deal is not a free-trade deal as the US keeps her basic new 10% tariff; thus, the deal violates the basic Most Favoured Nation principle, which stipulates that outside a legitimate FTA any tariff and other concessions should be extended to all WTO members.
We are therefore witnessing the beginning of the unravelling of the WTO framework in trade between major players. The expectation is that if the US manages to strike more deals with other major players as announced, the unravelling will get wider. Will we be left with two types of trade deals co-existing, one WTO compliant as the EU is adamant to safeguard, and the other tailored by bilateral negotiations? Will the WTO survive? Or much less likely as the US does not seem interested, is a WTO profound reform the way out to keep shared world trade rules?
BRUSSELS, 14 May 2025 — Many have talked about simplifying the CAP, but very few have taken action.Farm Europe welcomes the fact that the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Christophe Hansen, has set out to make real progress in this area, enabling the EU to turn its backs on the most damaging provisions to the credibility of the Common Agricultural Policy generating obvious and unnecessary over-administration in view of its performance.
The proposed simplification package will remedy the most obvious inconsistencies in the new performance framework introduced by the previous reform. The European Commission is sending a welcome signal that it intends to make regulations consistent with agronomy, the reality of farmers’ work and their practical needs in order to combine agricultural production and sustainability, including through the long awaited simplification of certain GAECs.
A new approach to national plans
With regard to the implementation of the CAP in the Member States, the Commission’s objective of focusing its added value on strategic changes to national plans, rather than discussing minor details or rejecting pragmatic proposals, as has been the case since 2023, is a step in the right direction. However, the Commission must fully play its role in ensuring that the ambitions of the NSPs are consistent with each other, by facilitating the most pragmatic implementation. This work is particularly necessary with regard to the GAECs. Some countries have over-complexified their implementation. For example, this is the case for a handful of Member States with regard to the implementation of the BCAE5, which heavily penalises certain sectors and threatens the integrity of the internal market, without any agronomic justification.
With regard to the small farmers scheme, Farm Europe calls for fair competition within the EU, not only between countries, but also between farmers, so that everyone can contribute to the objective of sustainability, regardless of the size of their farms. This tool should remain targeted at structures that are furthest from any administrative capacity and have very low market integration.
European crisis management is cheaper than at national level
Furthermore, some simplification of risk management tools at national level are welcome, but Farm Europe has concerns about the risk of purely national management of agricultural crises. The establishment of crisis reserves by Member States sends an ambiguous signal, given the disorderly management through variable state aid authorised in response to Covid and the war in Ukraine. The measure proposed in this simplification package must not replace a strengthened European crisis reserve. To be truly effective, the management of severe crises can only be carried out at Community level, through a mechanism combining solidarity, incentives to strengthen risk management tools on farms and the takeover of these tools by Europe in the event of serious crises.
This is a question of economic effectiveness and efficiency in the use of public funds. According to Farm Europe’s estimates, a European crisis reserve of €2 billion costs five times less than separate national crisis reserves providing the same level of coverage. As the Draghi report pointed out, mutualisation and solidarity are pillars of European ambition, but also of budgetary pragmatism.
On the occasion of the Global Food Forum opening on May 12th — marking its 10th anniversary — Farm Europe will unveil the updated version of its radar on the sustainability and sovereignty of EU food systems. A new indicator will be introduced, highlighting the erosion of traditional strongholds of European agriculture — particularly arable crops and livestock. This trend is linked to worsening socio-economic indicators, despite continued improvements in environmental performance.
The Forum, which gathers over 150 political and economic leaders in European agriculture, will focus on concrete strategies to “restart the sustainable growth engine of European agriculture” and respond to the increasing demand for agricultural products both within Europe and globally. According to Farm Europe’s analysis, agricultural production in Europe will need to grow by 13% by 2030 and 25% by 2050 to lay the foundation for real strategic autonomy on the continent.
The long-term sustainability and sovereignty radar is an analytical tool that evaluates the ongoing dynamics and health of the EU’s agricultural and food sectors through 12 dynamic indicators and 12 status indicators.
It shows that the European Union remains an agricultural power, with a solid trade balance in food products — both plant- and animal-based. Additionally, environmental transitions are well underway, with positive trends in indicators related to the use of harmful phytosanitary products and emissions.
However, the main weaknesses remain socio-economic indicators. Agricultural incomes continue to decline, and restrictive policies are limiting the capacity of European agriculture to meet demand for animal feed and bioeconomy raw materials.
Deterioration of Historic Strengths
Beyond overarching trends, the new indicator unveiled at the Forum reveals recent developments. It highlights a rapid decline in agricultural sovereignty indicators in areas where the EU has traditionally been strong: cereals and meat. Socio-economic indicators continue to worsen, with accelerated restructuring and falling farm incomes, despite a slight increase in household food budgets.
On the environmental front, indicators show ongoing improvement. Emissions from production are decreasing, the shift in the structure of pesticide sales continues, and water quality is improving — though the challenge is now shifting to water availability. However, the decline in livestock farming is causing loss of grasslands and associated carbon stocks. Contributions to the bioeconomy are mixed: while biogas production is growing, strong import pressures are undermining EU bioenergy production and its strategic autonomy.
These trends are closely tied to global geopolitical dynamics, climate change challenges, ongoing structural transformations in the agricultural sector, and political choices made in recent years by the European Union. Reversing these trends is an urgent matter. Farm Europe estimates that EU agricultural production must increase by 13% by 2030 and 25% by 2050 to meet the needs of a decarbonized economy.
Recent years have seen a decline in public investment at the EU level, including an €85 billion reduction in Common Agricultural Policy funding during the 2021–2027 period (in real terms compared to 2020). Inflationary shocks have only been partially offset by national measures, and unevenly across EU Member States, leaving some countries lagging behind.
In this context, Farm Europe is calling for a genuine recovery plan for European agriculture, involving the mobilization of necessary budgetary resources and better alignment of all EU policies affecting agriculture — to trigger a sustainable intensification of production.
Farm Europe welcomes the European Commission’s announcement of the launch of a dedicated work stream on livestock farming and wishes to contribute fully to its development by presenting its proposals for a renewed EU strategy for the livestock sector. Farm Europe believes that the European Union must turn the page on five years of preconceived ideas and an erroneous, pessimistic and negative view of livestock farming. In the face of nutritional, economic, climatic and environmental challenges, ‘Made in Europe’ livestock farming is an opportunity, both for our continent and for the planet. In the context of geopolitical tensions, the EU must secure its strategic autonomy more than ever.
“An ambitious strategy for the EU livestock sector must be able to rely on a comprehensive toolbox for consolidating achievements, economic support to better protect and help the sector to bounce back, and targeted investment to meet the challenges and build the livestock sector of the future, capable of permeating all the territories of our continent, from less favoured areas like mountains to intermediate and more productive areas where the complementarity between crop and animal farming is an asset”, underlined Ettore Prandini, Chair of Farm Europe’s strategic committee on the occasion of the Conference on the vision for agriculture and food organised by the European Commission.
The future strategy should allow to :
Bring back production in Europe
Fully optimising the positive benefits of livestock farming
Invest and prepare for the future
Put an end to the frenzy of standards and instead focus on a strategy that creates added value and market segmentation
Fully value and contribute to the deployment of the bioeconomy
These five basic principles should enable the livestock sector of the future to be economically resilient, at the heart of a genuine strategy of European agricultural sovereignty and, finally, fully committed to the fight against climate change, to animal welfare and to the protection of natural resources through a real valorisation of its contributions and an optimisation of its impacts, as well as a source of prosperity.
They must also make it possible to build a common and shared vision at the level of the European Union, turning the diversity of the Union’s territories and know-how into an asset. Finally, they will be a fundamental lever for restoring the attractiveness of livestock sectors to a new generation of livestock farmers who are committed and confident in their future.
To enable the construction of a solid consensus, we recommend to the European Commission to resume the approach that proved effective for the wine sector with the creation of a High Level Group by bringing together European officials, representatives of economic actors and representatives of the national ministries and regional authorities most involved in the future of livestock farming in the Union.
Such an initiative should not only facilitate the emergence of a consensus, but also enable the development of a precise roadmap for its implementation over the next 5 years, providing the necessary visibility for economic actors shaken by the climate of uncertainty created by the orchestrated and instrumentalised negative campaigns of recent years.
In this context, bringing together the results of recent work and reflections, Farm Europe has prepared its initial contribution to what could be a livestock strategy, in the form of a brochure highlighting that this sector is an opportunity for Europe and the importance of complementarity between the animal and plant worlds. This document is available here, and will serve as a basis for the future work of Farm Europe:
