https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-vows-tariffs-eigh...
In my opinion it is a net negative for all countries in Europe, but one.
This is a boon to any European manufacturer and machining company.
What hurts EU farmers the most is the big supermarket cartel that controls prices and pushes farmers to produce more and more cheaply (and consumers that react extremely sensitive to every price increase, but that’s a more inconvenient truth)
With 12 euro/kg currently I wouldn't call beef in Germany extremely cheap on the world scale. Poultry has pretty much crossed the 10 euro mark too.
Since we got trade deals when it comes to food with them, and they 100% do not have the same standard as European farmers.
And the EU won't check these inferior products for any problems?
Maybe take a deep breath and relax a bit before storming the ramparts. This is a slight adjustment not something undercutting all EU farming.
This is a lot of fearmongering in a small sentences.
Nothing in the agreement says that that the EU has ro accept food produced with substandard practices.
Also, food produce in South America is not exactly low standards.
Pesticides banned in Europe, but allowed in South America: Atrazine, Acephate, Mancozeb, Paraquat, and many more.
Diseases they can produce include: Parkinson's, brain damage in children and lower IQ, infertility, genetic mutations.
Nothing in the deal says that EU has to accept anything that does not adhere to EU standards. Any food imports have to follow EU regulations. It only allows (a fairly dismal quota) to go through without tariffs.
So all the bullshit you just said (which I am not even sure I trust) is irrelevant.
That's the thing with tariffs, they only work once.
If there's one thing companies hate more than taxes, it's uncertainty.
It's not about all of us. It's about a select few who think they are better than the rest of us and form our political and business classes.
Those people don't want most of the world's population living untroubled lives. When work is almost completely automated the rest of us will be surplus to requirements.
Once again, Germany has pushed through its interests at the expense of other European nations like Poland. This time even France was against it.
What is Germany going to get? A new market for their decaying automobile industry.
What is the rest of Europe going to get? Cheap, low quality food shipped thousands of kilometers. Food produced with lower standards than food produced in the EU - so farmers in Europe now have to face unfair competition.
This is a boon for any European manufacturing and tech company. Not "just" German car manufacturers but especially machining and pharmaceutical companies.
Farming is already incredibly subsidized in the EU, and has an outsized political capital for their importance based on historical momentum. This is also primarily bad for the beef industry, which is produced in the EU using very intensive and polluting (ammonia) methods which are also bad for animal welfare. They deserve no sympathy.
As it should be if we don't want to wake up one fine day in the middle of a global war with no food supply because of a naval blockade and have our children starve to death.
We need on the contrary to produce less globally, but more organically, and to reduce waste and produce locally
This is going to be a good agreement if it is policed well enough that Mercosur countries are effectively forced to raise their food-production standards (because accepting imports doesn't automatically mean they can ignore regulations on suitability). Europe gets cheaper basic staples and sells LATAM more services and value-added products.
I'd rather help our Latin "cousins" get out of poverty, than having to deal with the insanity of US culture wars.
As another commenter pointed out, beef is especially interesting. On one hand EU cries about greenhouse gas and how we should eat less meat. On the other hand goes to reduce price and increase production of beef which such moves. Pure hypocrisy.
I wonder if someone will double down on checking how Brazil is protecting its rains forests? Or will it just look the other way while Europeans eat cheap food that was grown in what was rain forest very recently?
As for transport - enough of this stuff is already transported across the ocean (from LATAM but also South Africa, for example) that I doubt there will be much of a change.
Current population density isn't an issue at all, but energy is.
The problem is rather the inputs, mainly from mineral sources, used for the production and imported from countries such as Morocco or Russia (before the war). Mercosur doesn't solve any of those problems, and will decrease the EU food autonomy as farms will disappear due to the LATAM dumping.
Fortunately there's around 800kg per capita worth of food storage in the EU, so should a war break out we're not all immediately dead - just vegetarian after a period of slaughtering all the livestock that can't be fed.
From a national security perspective, it is essential to provide basic nutrition to people when international trade is disrupted. Having access to food people enjoy eating is not essential. The viability of existing agricultural businesses is not essential. The preservation of cultural traditions related to food and agriculture is not essential. And so on.
It's also important to consider where the subsidies should be directed. Here in Finland, the explicit justification for agricultural subsidies has always been the assumption that food produced in "European countries that still have a strong farming industry" might not be available during a crisis.
God forbid we subsidize food too, it's only like the #1 priority when it comes to sovereignty after all, we should definitely not produce locally and rely on foreign countries for our food autonomy
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
Also, one of the most corrupt country in the world will obviously play by the rules
You are just fearmongering based on lies. "Hormone raised cattle", and shit like that.
South America likely has the best beef in the world (I can speak from experience having lived on both sides of the pond). Good that I might have access to real meat here for once.
lol
> Good that I might have access to real meat here for once.
lmao
It's one of the most corrupt part of the world and they 100% definitely use antibiotics and hormones banned in europe for safety reasons
No it's not. South American meat, particularly from Argentina, Uruguay, and Southern Brazil is phenomenal. It's just the perfect geography and climate for cattle.
You are just crying for protectionism. If a less than 2% quota over the European production threatens you, it speaks more about your inability to do your job properly.
Even in France agriculture is a very small percentage of the GDP and jobs. But what has happened is a demonstration of the loss of sovereignty with the EU effectively imposing something against the wish of the country. So the significance is political, and we'll see if that has tangible political effects or not.
- there are climate change issues
- there are many issues with pollution getting in the food chain
- we need to be more autonomous, and less depending on other nations, because of idiots like Trump
I think on the contrary we should defend our local agriculture, when it is respectful of nature
What you are saying is very misleading if not plain false.
It is not even a matter of fairness, but of defending one owns interests.
I for once are happy they are getting a reality check for once
So even if these lobby talking points would be true, and everything had to be 100% subsidized, that wouldn't be a problem.
If having 1% of beef imported causes a famine, then the farming in Europe is actually pretty awful.
"paying a premium to have options in multiple possible futures"
And the idea that food products from SA are low quality is a very old and uninformed take. For better or worse SA has invested heavily in technology in the agricultural sector. Researches from Europe go to Brazil to learn about cattle genetic improvement and farming, not the other way around.
Most of the EU economy comes from services and manufacturing. They’re ensuring a market for that larger base. Angering the small percentage of farmers to ensure food supply and manufacturing survival is the trade off.
This exact thing is was said about Poland when they joined the EU, the truth was that French/Spanish/German farmers didn't want to give up non specialized farming, and the same argument has been made and was a primary reason why Ukraine is not in the EU.
Plus it's odd that specifically this deal is so bad, but deals with importing Asian grown food via trade deal is fine.
That European farmers are crying over wanting more protectionism is nothing new.
The quotas for food imports to EU are dismal, and the food needs to adhere to EU standards anyway. But even that is being cried about as "unfair competition".
Private consumer protection groups very often find problematic products. Honey is a good example, massive fake honey from China has been being dumped in the EU for the last 20 years, authorities don't care at all and allow it to continue.
https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/animal-products/hon...
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/china-honey-xi-jinping-bruss...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/olaf-report/2023/investigative-activiti...
[3] https://eng.lsm.lv/article/culture/food-drink/03.02.2025-bee...
Local producers follow the rules, dot theit i and cross their t, because it's more profitable to sell the premium parts of the cow to Europe and the rest in the local market.
There are controls here and also when it arrives to Europe.
Maybe in ten years, when most EU beekeepers will have thrown the towel and moved to other occupations, the EU will act and forbid imports. But until then, well eat overpriced glucose syrup.
If fraud as blatant and old is tolerated, what do you think happens with meat, where controls are much harder if not impossible when dealing with things such as animal wellness?
(note that the EU has already perfected this, as it is now basically standard for EU legislation to have rules about enforcement that always boil down to only allowing the EU commission to enforce legislation, or not enforce it. In other words: you, and even local governments, cannot use the courts to get compliance)
1) activists and lobbyists get what they want ... or they think so
2) governments get the votes they need without destroying the economy because political parties can lie about their "achievements"
3) companies (farms, what remains of industry) get what they want
Of course this will lead to a total disaster, sooner or later. Probably sooner. One where millions of lives will be very negatively affected.
Free trade is making this worse. Of course, China has always done this. In China, the law doesn't matter, only what the party says at the moment does. And even that is assuming there is zero truth to the constant claims that China encourages fake medicine production and even drug production for export.
In the US, this is now more and more the case as well. For example, xAI simply totally violated environmental laws (among others [1]) to get their datacenter operational and operating at all. Which, of course, really pushes their competition to do the same. The punishment? "Never do it again". Of course, it is essentially inconceivable that they're complying with the ruling (the datacenter is currently running and has not received extra grid power. In other words: the illegal generators are running right now despite the ruling, not only that but the second datacenter also has at least 45 illegal generators)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk...
Some stuff forbidden in EU is used in e.g. Brazil, but as long as residues are at safe level, it’s considered ok. European farmers are against this part, because their business model relying on only safe substances is threatened. However, it may be possible as well that EU regulatory pressure will push American farmers to adopt stricter standards for their exports.
The only way to ensure food safety is to control the production sites, which Mercosur doesn't allow.
If nobody controls it, where all those papers come from?
[1] https://eng.lsm.lv/article/culture/food-drink/03.02.2025-bee...
[2] https://ec.europa.eu/olaf-report/2023/investigative-activiti...
The criticism seems to come from the political side most likely to steal your wallet while talking to you, and from the nazi wannabes.
Other agricultural imports, like soy and coffee beans, are a huge boon to the EU on the other hand. If this results in cheaper coffee, everyone in my country, for one, will be ecstatic.
Also possibly rainforest destruction for crops, but I'm not as sure about that.
Argentina beef are raised in pasture. About as eco friendly as it gets. Converting pasture to row crops is far more devastating to the environment (topsoil loss, GHG emissions from loss of biomatter in topsoil, fossil fuel derived fertiliser and more.)
Even if WW3 breaks out we can turn all of Europe into a vegetable garden in less than a year- the UK did this in 1940. Nobody is going to starve FFS.
Being utterly reliant on, say, the U.S. means ultimately the U.S. will tell you what to do.
Mercosur countries have a powerful beef industry which they're proud of, and their governments are interested in advancing that industry. Lowered beef tariffs were almost certainly one of their prerequisites to forming a deal.
That said, do note that the tariffs are only lowered up to a quota level of beef imports. Relative to the size of the EU's domestic beef industry, these imports are not that significant.
That's not to say that we shouldn't do anything about these emissions, but the solution is going to be to develop more climate friendly shipping techniques, not to eliminate global trade.
Most are raised under extensive systems (not confined feedlots). They live on large grasslands (hundreds of acres) where they roam freely and graze pastures.
That's completely unlike things like Chicken which live their whole life in over crowded poultry houses, never seeing the outdoors, or even daylight.
Pollution, land and wildlife destruction is the issue.
Beef is probably the worst use of land to produce food given how much input it requires and negative outputs it produces.
It's the meat industry that is primarily driving deforestation, both directly for pasture, and indirectly for animal feed.
Does soybean production as a whole, in SA, is worse than beef production as a whole in SA?
Maybe.
Does soybean production for direct human consumption is worse than beef production for direct human consumption?
Not. Even. Close.
https://www.wri.org/insights/truth-about-low-emissions-beef
Basically you're average meat-eater is indirectly eating more soy than someone having scrambled tofu everyday
And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs. The thing is, these may very well be good for environmental reasons, but it doesn't work if we just start importing from countries that do the opposite.
In fact we could produce for example in Germany milk in a sustainable and very environmentally friendly way if it would just cost a couple cents more, like 10 cents or even less. But consumers will basically riot if you raise the prices there so the supermarket chains don’t do it and instead put more pressure on the farmers to produce cheaply.
If you read the MERCOSUR agreement then you’ll see there are a ton of protections included against the thing you are afraid of.
I can’t speak for other EU countries but in Germany people will buy the cheapest food almost always. Quality or farmer welfare is a minor concern for the majority.
But most people don't want to make the effort to go there instead of buying everything at the supermarket
Even though they still say that they want our farmers to have decent working conditions and incomes
But even the farmers will eat cheap imported lentils over local ones
It's true that EU farmers are subject to a lot of burdens and costs, but I also think people are seriously underestimating just how effective a lot of the European agricultural sector is. In fact, this deal is probably going to result in a lot more export of high value, prestigious food items like cheeses and cured meats to South America, which could even have the surprising effect of increasing the amount of farm animals raised in Europe.
The EU farmers are not the only people getting the short stick.
A Big Mac with a big soda and big portion of fried potatoes cost AR$14,200 that is US$9.80 at the "blue" exchange rate.
For US$18 you can buy a huge and fancy burger.
You can probably have got better exchange rates in some shady corner, if you don't mind the risk of been scamed by a random guy instead of the bank/goverment.
That is relative. It makes it expensive compared to our people's purchasing power. Most people here don't earn much.
In more absolute terms (costs, etc), food in Brazil is incredibly cheap. Also abundant and varied (we have all climates within our borders, can plant/grow anything) to levels that people in the US and EU cannot understand.
I can prepare $50 USD meals for $30 BRL (which is about $6 USD). Not only premium beef, but premium fish, fruit, chocolate, wine, cheese (that's why wine and cheese are protected in the deal).
People told me this, and I only really believed when I visited the US and saw their food offerings in the market. I was shocked, and thankful for living here.
> And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs.
Food security is the first concern for every society, because without food we will all die. The reason almost the whole EU budget (hyperbole, but indeed it is a lot of the EU budget) is spent on agricultural subsidies is precisely to protect our food security.
Europe has a pressing need for minerals and energy.
> The reason almost the whole EU budget (hyperbole, but indeed
> it is a lot of the EU budget) is spent on agricultural
> subsidies is precisely to protect our food security.
It depends on what you mean by "first concern". Water security is the first concern by that reasoning; nuclear attack security too - without it, everyone dies.
But those aren't serious concerns in any practical sense: In most places in Europe there is plenty of water and food, and attention and resources are rightfully directed elsewhere.
On the contrary, it is one of the main concerns of the EU. And has been since the beginning. The CAP still makes up 40% of the budget.
And frankly, for the first time I fully appreciate it. With the current state of the world it's nice that the EU isn't dependent on third parties for their food supply.
Everything I have read suggests the EU has controls to "temporarily suspend tariff preferences on agricultural imports from Mercosur if these imports harm EU producers"
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-mercosur-agre...
and they intend to "uphold EU animal welfare rules" specifically so consumers aren't harmed either.
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/09/04/eu-mercosur...
> The main issue as I see it...
Who are you? If you're an expert, can you share a couple links with some analysis of which part of this agreement will harm the environment, so I know exactly what you're talking about? And not in a vague hand-wavey way with all these weasel-words about "may very well", but an actual thing, because I live here and can vote, but I think this is a good deal, and am genuinely confused why anyone would think it isn't, so if I can get educated here, I don't want to pass up the chance!
Are their emissions lower than ours? Do they pollute their waterways? What do they feed their livestock? Was it grown using pesticides we’ve banned, but feed was conveniently laundered through a 3rd-party importer?
I think it’s good to strike deals with new partners, but Mercosur was consistently criticised for not addressing corruption, not helping the already suicidal EU farmers, etc. It went full steam ahead, without any regard for the voters and their opinions.
Source? Dunno, I went to the protests and maybe I’m very biased.
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...
Price of coffee as in the ingredient for making the espresso has about doubled since covid.
That would seem a simple and peaceful solution to the Trump-inflicted bullying - stop messing around or we'll cease all commerce with you.
As I see it, just the bluff would suffice. Make the threat credible and the higher powers would remove Trump in a day or two.
> Make the threat credible and the higher powers would remove Trump in a day or two.
What unites them is that their agenda isn't aligned with the electorate. People still try to make sense of things, like this is just another administration, maybe a weird one, but fundamentally part of the same society as you and me. We can't recognize the real nature of that beast, because we are short of imagination. And... we don't want to believe in conspiracy theories, right?
The top isn't compatible with democracy, people like Thiel are not shy about it. We just don't want to believe that.
But I think the deal is quite positive from a geopolitical perspective. For one, any deal we make without the US just makes us more resilient in the event of a trade war that looks increasingly inevitable. Obviously Mercosur can't replace the US but it's a step in the right direction. And strengthening ties between the EU and Latin America makes it more difficult for Russia and China to bring that continent into their sphere of influence.
All in all, mercosur already has strong ties with western europe (Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy), both historic-cultural and economic, I see this as a huge win
Another more cynical take is that were simply offloading to poorer countries the greenhouse gas emissions of our agriculture.
> but then their prices will have to go up
But again their prices would have to account for this whether they are trading inside the trade bloc or exporting to the EU.
> Another more cynical take is that were simply offloading to poorer countries the greenhouse gas emissions of our agriculture.
But we are doing this already. And if the issue becomes too big to ignore, we already have a solution, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, so let's apply that to agriculture too.
European farmers are held to a higher standard that can be controlled with random testing any time, can we do the same for external partners? Can we prevent them from selling sugar syrup as honey, as was controversially happening in the UK? Is the ‘organic’ label as strict for, say, Peru?
This isn’t rhetoric. Yes, we have solutions and can mitigate everything. The issue that many have is that the affordances of a free-trade deal disincentive the practices we demand of local farmers. A continent struggling with suicide and bankruptcy among farmers might want to rethink how it ensures its own food security in the coming decades of destabilised climate and growth seasons.
You of course say self reliance on essential resources and I still think for most countries that could be very expensive very fast. People are complaining about the high costs specifically of the essential products when their prices are raising. Without a serious rethinking of our society we cannot probably fix that. And nobody is willing now to vote and agree to suffer for a generation to fix this system.
International cooperation brings great wealth and security, and a diversification of resources. Should each EU country also go it alone? Internationalists have built the most free, prosperous, and secure world that has ever been seen. It's hard to see how the recent nationalist, anti-trade governments have improved things for themselves or for the world.
comrade1234•2w ago
Switzerland also has a free-trade agreement with china that has been very lucrative. No other European country has this.
nephihaha•2w ago
comrade1234•2w ago
nephihaha•2w ago
peterashford•2w ago
BSDobelix•2w ago
And India ;)
https://www.bag.admin.ch/en/newnsb/O8hG66Fgv1j36OLRRz0Ud