A Harmful Free Trade Agreement

With the Mercosur free trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and  a trade bloc including Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia looming on the horizon, numerous voices from the Slow Food network across Europe are raising concerns about its potential consequences for agriculture, the environment and consumer health.

Opposition to Mercosur is intensifying. In France, Italy, and Poland, governments and numerous agricultural stakeholders are condemning an agreement they consider harmful to local farmers, biodiversity, and public health.

This treaty, which would eliminate nearly all customs duties between the two blocs, would affect 780 million people and represent an annual trade volume estimated between 40 and 45 billion euros. Behind these promising figures lies a troubling reality: the massive influx of South American agricultural products, originating from systems with less stringent regulations regarding health, environmental, and animal welfare standards, into the European market.

A Competition Deemed Unfair

In Europe, environmental protection standards regulating the use of GMOs, pesticides, and animal welfare are among the strictest in the world. Mercosur countries often adopt instead more lenient regulations, resulting in environmental, health, and socio-economic costs.

Brazil exported 1.9 million tons of beef in 2021, much of it to the EU, at prices 20 to 30% lower than European production. This price disparity raises concerns about unfair competition.

In the Pyrénées-Orientales region of France, where vineyards thrive amidst olive groves and organic farms, Jean Lhéritier, a key figure in the Slow Food movement, is alarmed. As an organizer of markets for small producers, he fears the treaty’s impact on local agriculture: “Chilean and Argentine wines are already a strong challenge for our producers. With the Mercosur free trade agreement, it will be worse. They don’t face the same restrictions on pesticides or adhere to the same health standards. This would worsen unfair competition and environmental damage.” In this region, where organic agriculture is among the most advanced in France, the agreement threatens the strides made in combining quality and sustainability.

Similar challenges are evident in Poland, where small family farms are central to the country’s agricultural identity. Szymon Gatlik, coordinator of the Slow Food Earth Market in Targ Pietruszkowy, Kraków, emphasizes: “Here in Poland, family-run farms are part of the traditions we want to preserve, fostering the sustainable, ecological, and diverse image of Polish agriculture. Much of the public opinion wants it to stay that way.”

He warns of the effects of globalization and free trade agreements: “Globalization is fertile ground for the import of cheap, low-quality food. A striking example is honey: Polish beekeepers face increasing pressure from large honey importers from Asia and non-EU countries. It is becoming harder for them to compete on price and, ultimately, to keep their bees.”

A Systemic Problem: Impacts on Local Agriculture in Europe and Beyond

In 2022, 20% of European farms reported financial losses, a trend that could accelerate with the influx of low-cost South American products. André Trives, a Slow Food farmer in southern France, represents resistance to an agricultural system driven by the race for the lowest prices. Growing fruits, vegetables, and cereals using agroecological principles, he champions local and sustainable farming. His concerns about the Mercosur agreement are tangible: “Integrating Mercosur will drive prices down further and push consumers to buy even cheaper. We, sustainable farmers, must work three times harder to maintain our margins by processing and selling locally. The major industries don’t care about our products; they prefer raw materials from abroad that are inexpensive.”

For him, the consequences extend beyond economics: “These free trade agreements promote the standardization of tastes. Local varieties and culinary traditions risk disappearing.”

Some farmers have fully embraced short supply chains, like Édouard Stalin, who runs La Ferme des Rufaux in Normandy with his wife Louise. On their five hectares, they practice organic and agroforestry farming, growing heirloom vegetables and small fruits in their orchard. Their direct-to-consumer sales model shields them, but Édouard worries about farmers dependent on supermarkets:
“For small farms like ours, Mercosur will have little impact. But for those working with big retailers…? They’re already struggling. Large-scale legumes or livestock farms will face heavy consequences.” Short supply chains are indeed a way to support sustainable local economies and encourage food sovereignty.

The effects are also felt beyond Europe’s borders. Bastien Beaufort, the manager of Guayapi, a fair-trade business in Paris and a member of Slow Food, collaborates with the Sateré Mawé, an indigenous people of the Amazon, to promote their Waranà—a plant sustainably grown under the Forest Garden Products model. He explains:
“Their model is based on respecting biodiversity and traditional practices. These products enable the Sateré Mawé to achieve economic and political autonomy while offering unique, healthy foods. Yet agreements like Mercosur overlook such initiatives.”

Consumers Caught in a Trap

“This agreement is not heading in the right direction; it undermines local consumption. In an economic crisis, where purchasing power is a central issue, it confuses consumers,” analyzes André Trives.

Lower prices might attract some consumers, but Bastien Beaufort highlights a moral dilemma: “Citizen-consumers are torn between two contradictory imperatives they struggle to reconcile: on one hand, committing to ethical and political consumption, and on the other, succumbing to the purchasing power imperative, which too often forces them to choose between ‘making ends meet’ and ‘saving the planet.’ “

“The EU – Mercosur trade agreement increases the commodification of food—a common good—by promoting destructive practices driven solely by economic profit,” he adds.

For Beaufort, who advocates for fair compensation for indigenous producers—from the Sateré Mawé in the Brazilian Amazon to the Shipibos in Peru—the opposition to such agreements is too often co-opted by protectionist and nationalist rhetoric, obscuring the true priorities: ensuring a decent income for producers and regenerating biodiversity.

He believes the future depends on two essential levers: educating consumers to value ethical purchasing and restructuring the economy to reward virtuous practices. Without these transformations, alternatives to the models promoted by free trade agreements will remain fragile and insufficient.

Major Environmental Repercussions

The environmental impact of the EU – Mercosur trade agreement is equally concerning for both blocs. The ratification of this agreement could:

This ecological pressure runs counter to the EU’s climate commitments, particularly the European Green Deal, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030.

Sergio Capaldo, a veterinarian involved in promoting symbiotic agriculture and organic soil fertilization for forage production in Italy, is also the president of La Granda, a consortium of breeders adhering to the Slow Food Presidium of the Piedmontese cattle breed. The consortium upholds strict standards: no GMOs, limited use of antibiotics, and organic fertilization. He warns:
“The meat supply chain is difficult for consumers to decipher, as they are unaware of many aspects of farming, starting with animal nutrition. Those who understand the role of the intestinal microbiome in human health should also know that a key factor in its composition is the soil where the forage and cereals that feed livestock grow, which in turn impacts human nutrition. Without healthy soil, there can be no health or well-being for anyone.”

He adds: “We need to focus on fertilization and pasture management, not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones given to livestock, which in many Mercosur countries are permitted or regulated far more loosely than in Europe. In Italy, where 60% of beef is imported, this free trade could have devastating consequences: local farmers pushed into bankruptcy, biodiversity loss, and declining product quality. If Europe wants a sustainable future, it must support those who practice respectful farming, not throw open the doors to mass industrial production.”

Need for Sustainable and Coherent Solutions

As the new European Commission takes office, an urgent question arises: how can Europe protect its farmers, encourage sustainable practices on a global scale (since, let’s remember, climate change knows no borders), and limit the ecological impact of its demand on the rest of the world?

To address the issue of differing production standards, which is just one aspect of the debates surrounding free trade agreements, Slow Food has collaborated with nine civil society organizations from six European member states on a new report about “mirror measures.” These measures, if used to foster an agroecological transition, could be a first step in protecting farmers from the effects of unfair competition and establishing more sustainable food systems.

Paola Nano

Sources:

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}