Foodwatch | 5 December 2025
EU–Mercosur: trade first, standards later?
In mid-December, EU governments will decide whether to move ahead with the controversial EU–Mercosur trade deal. It risks increasing low-standard imports, putting farmers under more pressure, and weakening health and environmental protections.
The EU–Mercosur free trade agreement between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay is entering its final phase. Following a political agreement in December 2024 and the European Commission’s green light for the trade pillar in September 2025, EU member states are now preparing for a crucial Council vote currently scheduled for 18 December 2025. If governments approve, the deal will move on to the European Parliament, where a final vote is expected in early 2026.
Divided capitals, shifting positions
Several member states remain publicly critical of the agreement, particularly because of its agricultural chapter and the lack of strong, enforceable environmental and human-rights protections. France has repeatedly said it cannot support the deal without robust “mirror measures”, effective safeguard clauses and tighter controls on imports. Others, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have taken more positive or changing positions, underlining how politically sensitive this decision has become.
Safeguard clauses: more politics than protection?
To ease concerns from farmers and citizens, the EU has put forward a new regulation on “reinforced” safeguard clauses for agricultural products linked to the EU–Mercosur deal. On paper, these clauses should allow the EU to react quickly if imports of sensitive products like beef, poultry or sugar surge and threaten EU producers. In practice, many experts and civil-society organisations warn that the text is weak: it is difficult to trigger, offers no automatic protection, and does not truly address the core problem of products made with pesticides, GMOs or antibiotics that are banned in Europe.
Parliament under pressure, scrutiny under strain
Within the European Parliament, the debate over these safeguard clauses is intense. An attempt to fast-track the regulation, skipping detailed committee work, sparked strong criticism from MEPs across several political groups, who argued that such a strategic file cannot be rushed through without proper scrutiny. At the same time, a cross-party group of MEPs asked to refer the Mercosur agreement to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for an opinion on its legality and compatibility with EU law – a move that could delay or even block the deal. For now, Parliament’s leadership has postponed this discussion, raising fears that any referral could come “too late”, after Council approval.
Boomerang pesticides and double standards
One of the most alarming aspects of the EU–Mercosur agreement is its potential to expand the trade in so-called “boomerang pesticides”: chemicals banned for agricultural use in the EU, but still manufactured here for exports to other countries, and then returning to Europe as residues in imported food products. This double standard exposes communities in exporting countries to substances deemed too dangerous for EU citizens and then brings those same substances back onto European plates via residues in imported soy, fruit, vegetables and other products. The agreement risks locking in and even amplifying this unjust and harmful system.
Farmers squeezed between free trade and deregulation
Across Europe and in Mercosur countries, many farmers’ organisations denounce the agreement as a driver of unfair competition. EU producers fear being undercut by imports produced with cheaper land, weaker labour protections and looser environmental rules. In Mercosur countries, small-scale farmers and Indigenous communities face intensifying pressure from agribusiness expansion, deforestation and land grabbing. Rather than supporting a transition to more sustainable, resilient agriculture, the deal risks reinforcing a model based on export monocultures, high pesticide use and the concentration of power in a few large corporations.
Climate, forests and human rights at stake
The EU–Mercosur agreement is not only about tariffs and quotas. It will shape land use, deforestation, greenhouse-gas emissions and human-rights conditions in some of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems. More exports of beef, soy and other commodities from deforestation-prone regions threaten to undermine the EU’s own climate and deforestation-free supply-chain objectives. Communities defending their land and environment in Mercosur countries already face violence and intimidation; expanding this trade model without robust, enforceable protections risks making a bad situation worse.
A crossroads for Europe’s trade policy
Across the EU and Latin America, farmers’ organisations, Indigenous communities, environmental groups, trade unions and consumer organisations are already the alarm. Their message is clear: trade rules must not undercut the right to safe food, sustainable agriculture, a healthy environment and decent working conditions. Unfortunately,
The fate of the EU–Mercosur agreement is now a test of whether EU leaders are prepared to put health, food, agriculture, climate, forests and farmers’ livelihoods before short-term trade gains. Approving the deal in its current form would lock in a model based on deregulation, toxic double standards and ever-growing pressure on people and ecosystems in both Europe and Mercosur countries.
Sources and further information
foodwatch France Petition on Mercosur: "Accords de commerce : ni UE-Mercosur, ni CETA !"