The European Coordination Via Campesina (ECVC) has released an analysis of the EU-US trade deal, warning that the European agri-food sector will bear significant economic and social costs. According to ECVC, the agreement effectively shifts the burden of U.S. debt onto European farmers. Below is the full text of ECVC’s analysis.
The European Commission has issued a joint statement with the United States outlining the framework for a trade agreement that is currently nearing finalisation. This announcement confirms our worst fears of a disguised TTIP under a different name.
If implemented, the agreement could result in a substantial influx of US agricultural products that fail to meet the EU’s existing environmental, health, and quality standards and which would enter the European market free of customs duties.
At a time when Europe is facing repeated climate-related disasters, including widespread droughts and wildfires and its peasant farmers are struggling to recover from successive health crises, the EU is ready to dismantle its own environmental and health regulations to allow in lower quality food that we already produce in sufficient quantity. Member States and MEPs have a responsibility to defend farmers and agricultural workers. Rejecting this deal is a necessary step to support the farmers that feed Europe.
In fact, the US and the EU “intend to provide preferential market access for a wide range of US seafood and agricultural goods, including tree nuts, dairy products, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, processed foods, planting seeds, soybean oil, and pork and bison meat” and “commit to work together to reduce or eliminate non-tariff barriers and to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products, including streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates for pork and dairy products.”
Non-tariff barriers removed:
Despite the European Commission pretending that “there is no question of negotiating EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules or standards”, there is simply no way to tackle these barriers without reducing our quality standards. One in two Europeans consider quality and origin to be among the most important factors when purchasing food , yet consumers could end up with food on their plates that contains substances banned in Europe for obvious health reasons. As these products will be sold at low prices, it is once again the most vulnerable populations who will feel the effects of this food on their health.
Sectorial analysis
1) Livestock:
It is the most exposed sector. US pork, often produced at lower costs and different standards (e.g. due to use of ractopamine, banned in the EU and not currently used for EU exports) will benefit from preferential access. The specific mention of “bison meat” also opens the door to US beef cuts, putting pressure on European farms already struggling with high costs. Competition will be based on price, making the situation more difficult for EU farmers who operate according to stricter (and more costly) animal welfare and food safety standards.
2) Milk:
The cost of milk production is 23% lower in the United States than in the EU in 2025, in a sector where producers’ incomes are particularly low. American cheeses and dairy products (e.g. cheddar, mozzarella) could flood the EU market, which is known for its extremely high quality and variety, but also for its high production costs. The danger is a race to the bottom in prices that erodes the margins of European producers.
3) Seeds:
This crucial sector in the agri-food value chain has a huge impact on who controls the very basis of agricultural production. The agreement provides for the EU to grant “preferential access” for US seeds, meaning the elimination of customs tariffs currently applied to seed imports from the US and the re-examination of non-tariff barriers, i.e. the authorisation and registration process.
Competition will intensify not only in terms of price, but also in terms of intellectual property.
US companies could bring in varieties covered by strong patents, challenging the European product portfolio. Point 15 of the agreement on ‘high-level commitments on intellectual property’ opens up this possibility. Significant market penetration by US players could increase European dependence on US genetics and technologies (e.g. gene editing, New Breeding Techniques), undermining the EU’s strategic technological sovereignty.
4) Wine:
Contrary to the assertions that the sector would be winning from the deal, the fact that wine is not explicitly mentioned among goods with preferential access is a very serious and deliberate signal. It indicates that there was no agreement to remove existing barriers.
The real problem for European wine is not standards, but tariffs and distribution barriers (many US states have laws that favour local producers). The agreement does not touch on these. While the EU is opening up its agricultural market, it is getting nothing in return for one of its leading export sectors.
5) PDO/PGI products:
The European commission claims the agreement opens up great opportunities for quality products thanks to commitments on intellectual property (point 15). While the EU system is based on “strong” and geographical intellectual property rights US system has “weak” and generic trademarks where terms such as “Feta” and “Champagne” are considered generic and are freely available provided that the true origin of the product is indicated (e.g. “Parmesan cheese made in Wisconsin”).
The entry of American products which, although they cannot be called “Parmigiano Reggiano PDO” in Europe, could still erode the market with similar products at much lower prices, confusing less-informed consumers.
6) Dry fruits (almonds):
The trade flow of nuts between the US and the EU is a vital commercial artery, heavily skewed in favour of US exporters of raw materials (mainly almonds and pistachios), while the EU responds with finished and high-end products.
As in other agricultural sectors, US almond production comes with lower quality and at a significantly higher environmental and sanitary cost. For example, while around 85% of Spanish almonds are grown using rainfed systems, the Californian almond industry consumes nearly 13% of the state’s developed water supply, with a single almond requiring over 12 litres of irrigated water annually.
This growing reliance on environmentally damaging imports creates unfair competition for European producers. Without stronger support for domestic production, the EU risks undermining the development of its own nut sector, at a time when building food sovereignty and promoting sustainable agriculture should be strategic priorities.
7) Vegetable oils:
US soybean oil, often from genetically modified crops (subject to strict regulation in the EU), will benefit from preferential access. This could harm European producers of vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed, olive oil). The compromise on the EUDR (point 10) suggests that regulatory barriers to US imports could be reduced.
Deregulation
The economic forces that dominate the EU economy had already paved the way for a profound process of deregulation of the European legal framework for some time, under the false pretext of bureaucratic simplification (see the deregulation of seed legislation, omnibus simplification package, and proposals for the ‘new CAP’ after 2027).
The limits imposed in Europe on the protection of ecosystems in the exploitation of natural energy sources (fracking, gas, mining, etc.) are now at disappearing. This sequence is a betrayal of small- and medium-scale farmers who took to the streets en masse in front of European institutions in 2024, then participated actively in von der Leyen’s Strategic Dialogue on the Future of European Agriculture.
Farmers called for decent income through market regulation and to take agriculture out of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Instead, the European Commission in proposing deregulation and unfair competition through the CAP proposal, EU-Mercosur FTA, other FTAs and this deal with US. Once again, the EU is choosing to abandon and ignore the people feeding them!
Carbon-intensive products backed by the European Commission
In addition to the recent agreement on increasing the de minimis exemption, the EU is pushing for greater flexibility in the application of the CBAM, i.e. the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a system that requires importers of certain goods to pay an additional cost proportional to the CO₂ emissions incorporated in the imported products.
The EU Commission has already indicated that other carbon-intensive sectors could be included in the future, and the debate also covers: primary agricultural products (cereals, meat, milk) from countries with more emission-intensive agricultural practices and agro-industrial products (sugar, vegetable oils, processed foods). Any US company will thus obtain an additional discount on its products entering the EU, which will increase its competitiveness.
Intellectual property rights
An additional threat to small-scale farming is the “high-standard commitments related to intellectual property rights protection and enforcement”. US patent rules and those of the EPO (European Patent Office) have points in common, but also structural differences that greatly influence strategies and filing deadlines. Specifically, the scope of patentability in the US is much broader, as it includes software, business methods and seeds, while that of the EPO is more restrictive, as plant varieties in particular are not patentable.
EU is trapped in its dependencies
The European Commission is allowing its export-driven industry to save face. After reaping the benefits of these exports themselves for years (at farmers’ expense in the agri-food sector), these multinationals are leaving the rest of European society to pay for its reliance on international trade. We have been warning for many years that the European economy’s dependence on foreign trade is the cause of numerous economic, health and geopolitical crises.
Because of these dependencies, the EU and the governments of European Member States were unable to exert any influence in negotiations with Donald Trump, and her stubbornness in persisting with these economic choices forced her to submit to all of Trump’s demands. Paradoxically, these agreements follow huge military expenditures supposedly meant to assert European strategic autonomy towards US. The EU will only be strong when it invests in its food sovereignty and in reducing its energy and mineral resource needs.
US debt paid off by the EU
The US has a severe problem with its tremendous debt, $35 trillion in public debt (120% of GDP) with interest payments set to surpass defense spending by 2025, and $42 trillion in private debt. This situation exposes US economy to various shocks such as increase in interest rates or recession. As things stand, following the trade agreement, it seems clear that the EU will pay off a large part of the US debt with a significant contribution from the EU agri-food sector.
Human rights violations rewarded
While it disguises the signing of this agreement as support for Ukraine, it is in reality an act in the service of US colonialism. The European Union is demonstrating through the trade agreements it negotiates or maintains that human rights violations, attacks on democracy and climate skepticism by certain regimes such as the United States, Argentina, Paraguay and Israel are rewarded with deals that strengthen their harmful actions, to the detriment of the European economy and the living and working conditions of its citizens.