Mercosur deal’s uphill battle in Brussels highlights need to listen to EU farmers
On 21 January, a highly-anticipated vote in the European Parliament (EP) pushed the newly signed EU–Mercosur trade agreement into uncertainty. By a narrow margin, MEPs opted to refer the deal to the EU’s highest court, asking judges to rule on its compatibility with European law. Attention now turns to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which will assess the challenge in a process that could last more than a year, with its opinion potentially requiring changes should parts of the agreement be found to conflict with EU rules. In the meantime, ratification is on hold, delaying a deal long portrayed by the European Commission as central to its trade and market-opening strategy.
The EP vote unfolded amid a charged atmosphere, with hundreds of farmers converging outside the Parliament in their tractors and celebrating openly as the result was announced – a reaction emblematic of the mounting unrest that has accompanied major agri-food decisions across Europe in recent years. Moving forward, the Commission will need to translate its recent ‘farmer-friendly’ policy pivot into practice, ensuring that the implementation of major decisions such as Mercosur genuinely reflects the diversity of member-state and farmer realities.
Mercosur sparking divisions across EU
While the European Parliament’s Mercosur vote triggered jubilant scenes among farmers in capitals like Brussels, Paris and Warsaw – where thousands of protesters expressed their fears concerning cheaper imports produced under lower standards and with banned pesticides – the mood in the Berlaymont was predictably cooler. Indeed, the EU executive has continued to defend an agreement it negotiated on behalf of the 27 member-states, a stance reinforced by Ursula von der Leyen’s January trip to Paraguay to formally sign the Mercosur deal.
Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Commission trade spokesman Olof Gill claimed that “the questions raised in the motion by the Parliament are not justified because the Commission has already addressed those questions and issues in a very detailed way.” Admittedly, Mercosur has gained significant momentum from Donald Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policy, yet the Commission’s geo-economic rationale has nevertheless failed to unite Europe.
On the EU executive’s side, Germany, Spain and the Nordic countries have lined up behind the deal, seeing export opportunities as Europe faces mounting pressure from China and an unpredictable White House, with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz asserting that “the agreement must now be provisionally applied.” However, the prospect of the Commission’s provisional application as early as March has met stiff resistance from agricultural heavyweights such as France, Ireland and Poland, which remain unconvinced that the deal’s safeguards are sufficient to shield their farmers from the competitive shock of cheaper imports of sensitive products including beef, poultry and soybeans.
Blasting the notion of Mercosur’s provisional application, French government spokesperson Maud Bregeon has warned that “the consequences, notably for the bond between people and the European Union, would be deeply damaging,” while France’s agriculture minister, Annie Genevard, has deemed this move “a denial of democracy” following the Parliament’s vote.
Heeding lessons from Nutri-Score saga
The fractured EU response to Mercosur reflects Europe’s uneven reliance on agriculture. In Germany, where farming is marginal compared with automotive or chemicals, trade gains dominate the debate. Even in pro-deal countries such as Spain or Greece, governments face resistance from farmers whose livelihoods depend on small-scale, export-oriented and Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) products. For these producers, Mercosur is not abstract geopolitics but a direct threat to fragile regional economies. If handled from the top down, Mercosur risks following the trajectory of Nutri-Score, another file that has become deeply polarising within EU agri-food policy.
For a time, it appeared the Commission was leaning towards an imposed EU-wide rollout of France’s front-of-pack label, despite clear resistance from a wide coalition of member-states. Nutri-Score’s biased evaluation of PDO products has long been a major source of controversy, with cured meats and cheeses from across the EU still penalised by an algorithm narrowly focused on fat, sugar and salt, while ignoring the broader dietary value of nutrient-dense heritage foods – an approach that undermines the competitiveness of products central to Europe’s agri-food exports. The latest algorithm revision has only reinforced scepticism, with whole milk now rated “C”, deepening concerns about coherence. Crucially, this Nutri-Score update appears to have been driven more by efforts to accommodate certain food sectors than by robust scientific evidence.
Over time, national resistance gained traction and moved decisively into the political mainstream. Member-states including Portugal, Greece, Czechia and Poland joined a growing group voicing concerns that eventually reached Brussels, prompting a shift in tone. Under Agriculture Commissioner Christoph Hansen and Brussel’s more farmer-focused approach, the Commission has gradually stepped away from Nutri-Score. Yet the risk at domestic level remains acute, driven by the increasingly rigid and interventionist posture of the Nutri-Score leadership.
In January, Serge Hercberg, the system’s founder, defended a proposed advertising ban in France on “D” and “E” products, which would further compound the damage already inflicted by biased scores on PDO cheese and meats, as well as other dairy products and even certain fruit. This move reflects a broader pattern of policymaking disconnected from agricultural realities.
Striking the right balance
Moving forward, the EU must avoid repeating the mistakes that have made Nutri-Score so divisive, with policies perceived as being pushed through from the top while overlooking farmers’ needs. Having moved away from that approach, the Commission now faces a clear responsibility: on decisions that directly affect farmer competitiveness, from nutrition labelling to trade policy, it must provide strong support to the agri-food sector.
In this context, the Mercosur deal is not inherently problematic, but it cannot be rushed or imposed. The Parliament’s vote reflects a democratic call to take the time needed to assess its impact on farmers and ensure full compliance with EU law. Given the wide regulatory gap between the EU and Mercosur countries, that time is essential to build credible safeguards and show small producers, already under pressure, that their concerns are taken seriously.
Mercosur has become more than a trade file – it is now a stress test for the EU’s agri-food policy approach. Legal uncertainty, farmer mobilisation and recurring policy backlash all signal the limits of technocratic decision-making detached from the field. If Brussels wants its trade, nutrition and sustainability agendas to endure, it must recalibrate now, anchoring future decisions in political realism, economic viability and genuine farmer buy-in, before the next crisis forces that reckoning.