On the 17th of January 2026, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, is expected to formally sign the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Presented as a strategic economic partnership, the deal exposes a profound contradiction at the heart of EU policy. At a time when the Union claims leadership on climate action, biodiversity protection and animal welfare, it is committing to a trade framework that risks weakening all three, while putting European farmers under renewed pressure.
Negotiated over more than two decades and politically concluded in 2019, the agreement reflects a trade logic shaped long before the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork strategy, or the current public demand for ethical and sustainable food systems. The safeguards now attached to the deal do not compensate for this structural delay. On the contrary, they fall well short of what civil society, scientists and farming organisations have consistently called for.
An agreement built on market access, not on conditions
At its core, the EU–Mercosur agreement aims to reduce tariffs and expand trade flows. Beef, poultry, sugar and soy products are among the most sensitive sectors concerned. While the European Commission insists that imports will continue to “respect EU standards”, no binding equivalence conditions have been set.
The agreement does not require exporting countries to comply with EU production standards in order to benefit from reduced tariffs. Products may enter the EU market legally even when they are produced using practices that would be prohibited within the Union, including the use of pesticides banned in Europe or farming systems incompatible with EU animal welfare law.
Olga Kikou, Founder of Animal Advocacy & Food Transition said: “ By granting market access without equivalent animal welfare conditions, the EU is encouraging a race to the bottom. This stands in direct tension with EU law, which recognises animals as sentient beings and justifies higher welfare standards. Trade policy should reinforce that commitment, not outsource animal suffering beyond Europe’s borders.”
The facade of strong safeguards
In response to mounting criticism, EU institutions have repeatedly pointed to safeguard mechanisms designed to protect farmers and standards. However, independent legal and economic analyses show that these tools are inherently weak in design: they are limited in scope, reactive rather than preventive, and politically difficult to use.
A key weakness of the safeguard mechanism is that it can only be activated after harm has already occurred, for instance following a surge in imports or a significant price drop. Even when the conditions are met, safeguards may take several months to be implemented. This reactive logic stands in direct contradiction to the precautionary principle, which underpins EU environmental and food safety law and is meant to prevent damage before it materialises.
Moreover, the agreement’s sustainability and safeguard clauses lack enforceability. They do not include automatic triggers, binding benchmarks, or meaningful sanctions in cases of environmental or social harm. Instead, they rely on dialogue, consultations, and dispute settlement procedures that are slow, uncertain, and ill-suited to addressing urgent or irreversible damage.
As a result, the safeguard framework functions more as a political reassurance than as a genuinely effective tool for protecting farmers, standards, or the environment.
What about animal welfare?
- No binding animal welfare conditions
Animal welfare is one of the most glaring blind spots of the agreement. Despite years of advocacy by NGOs and repeated commitments by EU institutions to promote higher welfare standards globally, the Mercosur deal contains no binding animal welfare requirements linked to market access. The agreement does not impose quality or welfare standards on meat imported under the new tariff quotas. As a result, the agreement creates a strong economic incentive and is likely, in practice, to favour meat from animals raised in intensive farming systems under lower animal welfare standards to the EU.
- Incentivising intensive production systems
Independent studies show that the expansion of beef export quotas is likely to encourage the spread of intensive feedlot systems in Mercosur countries. These systems are associated with overcrowding, restricted movement, inappropriate diets and higher disease risks, practices that would not be allowed under EU law.
- EU citizens’ voices ignored
This directly contradicts the expectations of EU citizens, who consistently express strong support for applying animal welfare standards to imports, and undermines years of progress to improve welfare conditions.
Forests, climate and the illusion of environmental protection
Beyond animal welfare, the agreement raises serious concerns for forests and climate stability. Increased demand for beef and soy exports under the deal will intensify pressure on ecosystems such as the Amazon, the Cerrado and the Gran Chaco.
While the EU now points to its deforestation regulation as a safeguard, this argument is fragile. The same analysis highlights that the trade agreement includes mechanisms that could limit the EU’s ability to strengthen environmental requirements without risking retaliation. In other words, the deal may constrain future environmental ambition rather than reinforce it. Moreover, even the EU’s own anti-deforestation regulation is not yet fully operational and faces delays and enforcement challenges, raising serious doubts about its effectiveness.
If the Union struggles to apply these rules domestically, it is unrealistic to expect them to serve as a credible safeguard for imports from third countries like Mercosur, where the EU has no direct authority over land-use or environmental policies.
Environmental commitments in the agreement remain largely declaratory. They do not impose binding obligations on export volumes, land-use change or ecosystem protection, nor do they provide robust enforcement tools. In this context, promises of “sustainable trade” ring hollow.
European farmers caught in the middle
Farmers across Europe have been clear: the problem is not trade itself, but trade without equivalence. By allowing products produced under weaker rules to enter the EU market at preferential rates, the agreement exacerbates income pressure in already fragile sectors.
Protests across several Member States reveal a deep and growing mistrust of the Commission’s assurances.
Farmers argue that safeguard clauses fail to address the core problem: unfair competition driven by regulatory asymmetry. Measures such as modest safeguard quotas and temporary monitoring tools, offer little protection for incomes or market share and do nothing to prevent long-term structural damage.
Rather than providing meaningful security, these tools amount to a token gesture. Once again, those who comply with higher standards are expected to absorb the cost, while others benefit from weaker rules.
A choice about the future of EU trade policy
The EU–Mercosur agreement is more than a trade deal. It is a political signal about what the EU is willing to prioritise. By moving forward without binding environmental and animal welfare conditions, the EU risks undermining its own credibility and weakening public trust.
Despite repeatedly committing to extend EU animal welfare standards to all imported products, the European Commission is now signing a trade agreement with Mercosur that does not require imports to comply with those same standards.
EU trade policy should uphold the standards the Union has chosen to apply to its own farmers and food system. Rules on climate, biodiversity, animal welfare, and fair incomes exist for a reason, to protect citizens, ensure fairness, and respect animals as sentient beings.
Signing this agreement without addressing its structural flaws sends the opposite message. It locks the EU into an outdated model at the very moment when a different approach is urgently needed.