Following the adoption of the new European Life Sciences Strategy, Eat Europe and Farm Europe express deep concern over the approach taken, which goes against scientific evidence and the protection of public health.

While some changes in relation to previously leaked versions appear to have removed explicit references to accelerating the approval processes for synthetic food which would like to disguise itself in “novel foods”— hiding the interests of large multinational agribusinesses—several negative elements remain. 

Chief among them is the downplaying of the risks associated with ultra-processed products.

The document seems to pave the way for the promotion of such products, citing alleged benefits in terms of sustainability or accessibility, while ignoring the well-documented harm they pose to human health. The reference to these risks is weak and completely inadequate in light of the growing body of scientific evidence linking ultra-processed foods to increased rates of obesity, non-communicable diseases, metabolic and cardiovascular conditions, and cancer.

And this becomes even more serious at a time when the EU is engaged in discussions within the United Nations ahead of the adoption of the Declaration on Non-Communicable Diseases, scheduled for next September. It is paradoxical that it was the United States — a country where over 60% of the population is obese — that brought the issue of ultra-processed and highly formulated food consumption to the UN as one of the main causes to be addressed in the fight against non-communicable diseases. Meanwhile, the European Union, which should be a champion of a balanced diet based on natural and healthy foods, seems to be accepting the agenda of major food multinationals, questioning a vast and well-established body of scientific literature on the harms of UPFs and the benefits of alternative dietary models.

Similarly, we raise serious concerns about how the issue of innovation aimed at producing synthetic food is being addressed. The health of European citizens cannot be treated as a marginal constraint or something to be merely “not compromised.”

It must be the top priority.

For this reason, we find it unacceptable to accelerate the commercialization of foods derived from such new technologies before all necessary clinical and pre-clinical studies are completed—based on independent and transparent scientific evidence ensuring their true safety. In the same sense the European Parliament COMITRE Initiative recently stated.

In this context, it is essential that the “Food Dialogue” and scientific consultation spaces outlined in the Strategy are genuinely inclusive and pluralistic.

Eat Europe and Farm Europe, representing the agricultural and food sector anchored in European agricultural and food values and gathering a broad network of independent experts, doctors, and scientists are ready to actively contribute to bringing the voice of independent science and public health into the European debate.

A credible European Life Sciences Strategy must prioritize health, transparency, and quality. We cannot accept that it be used to reinforce industrial models based on artificial or ultra-processed foods.

The 1^st of July marks the beginning of the Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, that Denmark will hold until 31^st December 2025. Under the slogan “A strong Europe in a changing world”, the Danish Presidency sets the ambition to deliver on building a secure, competitive and green Europe. 

Whilst we welcome the drive for further simplification of the CAP, for unlocking the potential of NGTs, and for developing the bioeconomy sector, there are other very important points that unfortunately would run counter farmers interests.

On the Multiannual Financial Framework, the Danish telegraph that they favour a lower CAP budget.  In fact, they state that they will focus on the quality of spending rather than in the total amount. We wonder where the quality of spending is not good, and where Denmark would support budget cuts.

On the link between the CAP and climate and environmental policies the Presidency points towards greater coherence. We have already seen those policy developments under the aegis of former Commission Vice-President Timmermans. The aim is to condition the CAP to the whole mesh of climate and environmental regulations, e.g. on GHG emissions. That could lead for example to integrating agriculture in the ETS, which would result in higher production costs. 

The hard stance of Denmark on climate issues is confirmed by their determination to press on with the objective of cutting GHG emissions by 90% in 2040. The current trajectory of GHG reductions has been achieved through a number of measures, including the ETS and ever more restrictive standards on emissions. The negative impact on production costs and competitiveness in many sectors is increasing, and can only accelerate if the EU presses on harder. The EU is only now , a few months from its implementation, facing the wide-ranging problems on the application of the CBAM. Pressing on harder would most likely lead to fully integrating agriculture into the restrictive and costly measures already applied to the automotive, steel, cement and other sectors.

Pressing on to cut more emissions through painful economic measures makes little sense when the rest of the world either does little, or is even reversing course.

We believe that climate and environmental goals should be reached through well designed strategies, including investing in technologies that deliver sustainable growth. That is the opposite of achieving very ambitious targets through policies that cause economic contraction, lower production, fewer jobs.

Here are the most relevant elements mentioned in the program:

1. Multiannual Financial Framework 

The Danish Presidency will work for a financially responsible EU budget that delivers a focused, simple, and effective response to the EU’s strategic challenges. Indeed, Denmark will focus on setting an ambitious and financially responsible course for the Council’s work, aiming to deliver a first draft negotiating box to guide further negotiations. Danemark already underlined that it will focus on the quality of the spendings rather than the total amount as such. In this context, the Danish Presidency will continue talks on a possible revision of the Council Decision on own resources.

2. Post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Regarding the next Common Agricultural Policy, the Danish Presidency will work towards making daily life easier for farmers, fishers, and food producers through simplification and better regulation but also innovation and development. Denmark will focus on 4 key priorities for the CAP post 2027:

• A green, simple and market-oriented Common Agricultural Policy 

The Danish Presidency will focus on ensuring a green, simple and market-oriented Common Agricultural Policy that supports climate and environmental measures while strengthening competitiveness and innovation. 

In this context, the Presidency intends to conclude negotiations on the agricultural simplification package and start negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy, underlining that it must support rural development, organic farming, generational renewal, and animal welfare, while ensuring greater coherence with sectoral legislation, including climate and environmental regulations.

• An innovation-friendly and competitive agriculture and food sector

Playing a crucial role in the development of resilient crops, the Presidency will work to conclude negotiations on proposals regarding plants developed by new genomic techniques.

Bioeconomy and bio-based solutions also contribute significantly to sustainable agricultural and food production. The Presidency will therefore place focus on the upcoming EU Biotech Act and address the need of flexibility, reduction of administrative burdens, and regulatory simplification to develop these solutions.

• A sustainable food system and a strong internal market

Regarding the strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain, the Danish Presidency is determined to conclude negotiations on unfair cross-border trade practices and on proposed amendments to the Common Market Organisation for agricultural products. Moreover, the Presidency will focus on the potential of a common EU action plan for plant-based foods and a common EU protein strategy.

• A single market focused on animal, human and plant health

The Danish Presidency is determined to advance negotiations on the proposal relating to the protection of animals during transportation. Furthermore, the Presidency will focus on identifying solutions to antimicrobial resistance, communicable animal diseases and developing new plant pests.

3. Enlargement

The Danish presidency considers further enlargement of the EU as a geopolitical necessity, notably with Ukraine, highlighting that it is the only way for the EU to effectively contribute to stabilising the European continent and strengthening the resilience of countries vulnerable to unwanted external influence. 

4. Climate Policy

The fight against climate change and the pursuit of the EU’s emissions reduction objectives will be one of the topics animating the Danish Presidency. Denmark will indeed prioritise reaching an agreement on the revision of the European Climate Law, establishing a net GHG emissions reduction of 90% by 2040. Denmark will have to work on a tight schedule here, especially because the EU is expected to submit—in line with the Paris Agreement—its new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for the period up to 2035 before the COP 30 in Brazil on 10-21 November 2025. 

The goal of the Danish presidency is to derive the 2035 target from the one set for 2040, which would imply finding a deal with the co-legislator by September of this year. However, it is still unclear whether Denmark will be able to advance these files in parallel or if it will have to treat them as separate objectives. This question is pivotal, as it directly influences the level of ambition attached to the targets. A linear trajectory would place the 2035 target midway between 2030 and 2040, ensuring consistency and gradual progression. However, decoupling the two could allow for a less ambitious 2035 target, potentially undermining the 2040 objective. 

Adding pressure to the negotiations on this file is France’s position voiced by President Macron during the recent European Council meeting. The latter is pushing to extend the delay of the negotiations around the European Climate Law Amendment, in order to allow for a “democratic debate within the Council”. He also opposed the idea of deriving the 2035 target from the 2040 objective, stating that only the former must be urgently defined. Other Member States, such as Hungary, are also against this methodology, although the majority of countries seem to be aligned with the Danish position. 

Furthermore, the Presidency will prioritise efforts to reinforce the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) regulation, with the goal of preventing carbon leakage while supporting the green transition and enhancing European competitiveness.

5. Environmental Policy

When it comes to environmental issues, the Danish Presidency will initiate discussions on the EU’s environmental policy towards 2030.  

According to the programme, Denmark will prioritise advancing negotiations to strengthen the circular economy and enhance the EU’s strategic autonomy by securing the supply of critical natural resources. Political discussions on the forthcoming EU bioeconomy strategy will be a key focus. In this sense, we hope this strategy will be an opportunity for a comprehensive reflection around biomass availability and the role of agricultural production in ensuring the supply. 

Moreover, the country will support international efforts to adopt a legally binding UN agreement to end plastic pollution (the next round of negotiations will be held from 5-14 August in Geneva) and lead Council discussions on the European Water Resilience Strategy, setting a course for safeguarding water supply and quality, boosting resilience, and promoting innovation in water technologies. 

The Presidency is also prepared to initiate negotiations on the revision of EU chemicals legislation (REACH), with the aim of modernising and simplifying the framework to support sustainable chemical production and ensure consumer safety, including addressing hazardous substances and unnecessary PFAS. 

6. Energy Policy

Denmark wants to advance, and possibly conclude, negotiations on revising the Energy Taxation Directive and on the Commission’s Affordable Energy Action Plan.

7. Transport

As part of its transport agenda, the Danish Presidency aims to finalise an agreement with the European Parliament on the regulation for accounting greenhouse gas emissions from transport services. It will also engage in initial discussions on the forthcoming Sustainable Transport Investment Plan, intended to accelerate the sector’s green transition. 

In maritime transport, the Presidency will promote a sustainable, innovative, and competitive maritime sector to maintain the EU’s global leadership. In line with the EU’s 2030 climate targets, the Commission’s burden reduction agenda, and the goal of enhancing competitiveness, it will advance discussions on the Maritime Industrial Strategy. The Presidency also intends to support the adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework at the International Maritime Organization in October 2025 and will begin work on ensuring its effective implementation at EU level.

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.