A new report released today, with contributors from 9 Civil Society Organisations* from 6 EU member states, highlights critical regulatory gaps affecting six major agricultural products, revealing disparities between EU and non-EU production and urges the European Union to adopt mirror measures in trade policy to uphold its environmental and social standards.

The report’s data, collected from case-studies done at Member State level by the contributors of the report, and farmer testimonies expose a troubling pattern of double standards. Imported agricultural products frequently do not comply with the EU’s health, environmental, and animal welfare standards required for domestic goods. This inconsistency harms farmers in Europe and non-EU countries, who bear the brunt of unsustainable practices in non-EU markets.

As the EU’s new Commission prepares to take office, the report calls on leaders to prioritise mirror measures to protect European farmers from unfair competition, support sustainable farming practices and welfare abroad, and generally mitigate the ecological impacts of Europe’s demand for produce.

At a time when many reactions to the recent U.S. election results refer to likely future tariffs and restrictions in the EU-USA trade, and the EU Agriculture and Food Commissioner delegate in his recent hearing has come out in favour of the EU-Mercosur free trade deal, it is key to point out some elements that currently already create imbalance for the farmers’ economy and threats to the health of citizens and the planet.

Double Standards in Key Agricultural Markets

The lack of reciprocity of standards has tangible consequences, both within and beyond EU borders: addressing this challenge can be one way of ensuring fair prices for farmers, which can in turn facilitate a shift towards agroecological practices, improving integrity of supply chains and responsible consumption. With a market of nearly 450 million consumers, the EU has a significant role to play to mitigate the adverse impacts of its own consumption in countries it trades with.

Key findings

• The example of soybeans: approximately 90% of soybeans used in EU livestock feed are imported, mainly from North and South America, where they are often treated with pesticides that are banned in the EU. In addition, many of these imports are genetically modified (GMO) to withstand high use of herbicides, a practice prohibited in Europe. This reliance on cheaper, pesticide-laden imports not only undermines European food production but also leads to harmful conditions for local soybean farm workers abroad.
  Christophe Garroussia, a French soybean producer, commented, “Why accept this GMO soy, sourced from deforested areas and treated with banned pesticides? It’s an obstacle that prevents more sustainable European supply chains and compromises our food resilience.”

• Imports of beef and sheep meat are characterised by animal welfare violations and use of antibiotics as growth promoters, practices that are tightly regulated in the EU. Third countries often do not observe the EU’s animal welfare standards or restrict the use of antibiotics, creating public health risks and unfair competition for European farmers.