EU-Mercosur Agreement: The Silenced Alarm of the European Agricultural Sector
While the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee (INTA) held a public hearing on the controversial agreement between the European Union and Mercosur on 24 June 2025, the absence of Europe’s most sensitive and vulnerable poultry, livestock and agricultural sectors is being felt strongly. Producers of poultry, eggs, maize, sugar, beef and ethanol denounced being ignored in a debate that, according to them, presents a partial and misleading picture of the agreement’s real consequences.
This exclusion is not accidental, but reflects a “deeply worrying deliberate reluctance to confront the uncomfortable truths” about the agreement’s impact.
“EU poultry producers must compete on an uneven playing field, facing imports produced under environmental, social, health and food safety standards that are lower than those of the EU.”
The increase in permitted import quotas for poultry meat: a blow to domestic production
The EU poultry sector is in a particularly vulnerable position with regard to imports from outside the EU, especially in the broiler sector. The proposed agreement includes an additional quota of 180,000 tonnes of duty-free poultry meat, split equally between bone-in and boneless cuts. This volume, equivalent to the combined production of countries such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark, would be added to the 362,082 tonnes tariff rate quota (TRQ) from which Brazil already benefits. In 2023, the EU already imported around 300,000 tonnes of poultry meat from Brazil.
Concern intensifies when one considers that these imports, both current and future under the agreement, are disproportionately directed at the most valuable cuts most in demand by European consumers: chicken breasts. Since EU producers depend on breast meat sales to justify raising broilers, “every two fillets imported from abroad represent one chicken NOT raised in the EU.” This situation is compounded by the significant competitive advantage held by Brazil, with production costs 30 to 40% lower. Currently, 25% of the breast meat consumed in the EU already comes from non-EU countries, a dependency that is expected to increase under the agreement.
“Already 25% of the breast meat consumed in the EU comes from non-EU countries, and the EU will increase its dependency on third countries for breast meat.”
With the proposed additional quota, total poultry meat imports into the EU will reach 1.1 million tonnes, out of total consumption of 12.2 million tonnes. This means that imports will account for 9% of total EU poultry meat consumption. This volume is considerable and comes at a time when trade agreements are being renegotiated with other major exporters such as Ukraine and Thailand.
The following is a summary of the projected impact on the poultry sector:
Table 1: Impact of the EU-Mercosur Agreement on EU Poultry Production
| Item | Figure / Description |
|---|---|
| Additional duty-free quota | 180,000 T cwe (half bone-in, half boneless) |
| Production equivalent (quota) | Combined production of Finland, Sweden and Denmark |
| Current tariff rate quota from Brazil | 362,082 T |
| Poultry imports from Brazil (2023) | ~300,000 T |
| Brazil’s production cost advantage | 30–40% lower |
| % of breast meat from non-EU countries | 25% (current), with an upward trend |
| Total imports with new quota | 1.1 million tonnes |
| Total EU poultry meat consumption | 12.2 million tonnes |
| % of imports over total EU consumption | 9% |
“The European consumer is being misled into believing that imported products meet the same high standards as EU food, when in reality this is far from the case.”
The issue is not competition itself, but competing under different rules: the standards gap
One of the main criticisms from the European poultry and livestock sector is the divergence in production standards. EU producers are expected to compete with imports that do not meet the same high environmental, social, health and food safety requirements demanded within the Union, with no guarantee of reciprocity. DG SANTE audit reports have already revealed problems in third countries such as Thailand, Brazil and Argentina in areas including animal welfare and animal health.
The comparative table below illustrates some of the key differences in standards between the EU and third countries, particularly Mercosur:
Table 2: Standards Divergences between the EU and Third Countries (examples)
| Area | Key Requirements under EU Legislation (Examples) | Applicable to Third Countries / Issues Identified |
|---|---|---|
| Animal welfare | Maximum stocking density of 33–42 kg/m²; access to dry litter; 20 lux lighting, 6 hours darkness; ammonia control (20 ppm); transport requirements. | Equivalence applies, but DG SANTE audit reports have revealed issues in Thailand, Brazil and Argentina. |
| Animal health | Salmonella control (farm to processing); mandatory testing; slaughter of positive breeder flocks; avian influenza legislation. | Equivalence applies, but DG SANTE audit reports have revealed issues in Thailand, Brazil and Argentina. |
| Antibiotic use | Prescription only, limited to treatment; prohibition of prophylactic use and growth promoters; reserved list of antibiotics for human use only. | Residue monitoring plan for third countries, but DG SANTE audits show inconsistencies in Brazil. Official declaration on non-use of antibiotics as growth promoters requested from Brazilian veterinarians from 2026 onwards. |
| Environment | Environmental permit required for farms >40,000 birds and slaughterhouses >50 T/day; environmental impact assessment for new operations >85,000 broilers; approved methods for disposal of fallen stock. | |
| Poultry feed | Restricted use of animal by-products (porcine PAP and fishmeal only); no growth promoters; approved additives and medications; HACCP systems. | |
| Food safety | “Farm to fork” approach; hygiene requirements; absence of Salmonella Typhimurium and Enteritidis; only authorised water for carcass decontamination. | Equivalence requested from third countries, but inconsistencies do not always result in visible sanctions. |
| Quality | Origin labelling required for fresh products; Class A defined; maximum water absorption percentage. | Applies to third countries, but inconsistencies do not always result in visible sanctions. |
“With this proposed additional quota, we will import 1.1 million tonnes of poultry meat into the EU, out of consumption of 12.2 million tonnes, meaning that imports will represent 9% of total consumption.”
Brazil’s “National Champions” strategy: an unmatched competitive advantage
Brazil’s ability to dominate the global meat market is not solely a matter of costs, but also of strategic state policy. Between 2007 and 2013, Brazil’s “National Champions” policy, led by development bank BNDES, provided massive financial backing to key export-oriented companies such as JBS, BRF and Marfrig. This support enabled them to acquire competitors, consolidate the market and expand aggressively on a global scale. As a result, JBS became the world’s largest meat company, and BRF dominated poultry exports.
While Brazilian companies benefited from “state financial backing, aggressive mergers and acquisitions, cost efficiency and scale, access to key international markets and fewer regulatory constraints”, their European counterparts faced strict regulation and market fragmentation, limiting their ability to compete on equal terms. Although this rapid growth also led to challenges, such as the “Operation Weak Meat” scandal in 2017, which exposed corruption and quality issues, the structural advantage for Brazilian producers persists.
“Brazil’s ‘National Champions’ policy provided financial backing to key companies such as JBS, BRF and Marfrig, enabling them to acquire competitors and consolidate the market globally.”
Who is the EU listening to? The exclusion of the livestock and agricultural sector from the negotiations
The INTA hearing held last June has been described as a “missed opportunity” by several European agricultural associations. They consider that the “selective format of the public hearing risks presenting a partial and misleading picture.” Among what was not heard, according to these organisations, is the fact that the agreement “poses an existential threat to EU farmers and producers” and that consumers are being “misled” about the standards of imported products.
The sustainability provisions in the current agreement are “vague and unenforceable”, and the “compensation fund” proposed by the Commission “is no substitute for robust, legally binding safeguard mechanisms”. The associations, including AVEC (poultry processors), CEFS (sugar), COPA-COGECA (farmers and cooperatives), among others, have urged MEPs to “ask the hard questions and uphold the principles of fair trade, reciprocity in standards and the protection of Europe’s most sensitive agricultural sectors.” In an evolving geopolitical context and the urgency of diversification and de-risking, “the strategic importance of agriculture” must not be overlooked, as the agreement, in its current form, “would gravely undermine the EU’s own objectives and commitments on food security, sustainability and fair competition.”
For further reading:
-. “Meat scandal raises doubts about agribusiness, a “pillar” of the Brazilian economy, says NYT”. BBC Brasil. BBC. March 18, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
-. “JBS and BRF, from “national champions” to suspects of selling expired meat”. El País. March 18, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
-. EU-MERCOSUR Agreement impact on Poultry. Report by AVEC-COGAG. 20250624
-. Mercosur
-. AVEC
-. COGAC