BRUSSELS — France is playing for time over a crucial vote on the EU’s trade mega deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc, three EU diplomats told POLITICO, in a strategy that one warned could kill the long-awaited accord.  With U.S. President Donald Trump having slammed Europe as “weak” and “decaying,” the European Commission is racing to prove otherwise — by rushing before Christmas to lock in the trade deal with Mercosur, which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Now, just over a week before Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hopes to fly to Brazil for a signing ceremony, France is raising the alarm that its longstanding demands haven’t been met. Paris warns it won’t be able to support the pact in a looming vote by member countries, suggesting it be held in January instead, according to the diplomats.  That could leave the Danish presidency of the Council short of the supermajority needed to get the deal over the line. Under EU rules this would require the support of a “qualified” majority of EU member countries — meaning 15 of the bloc’s 27 member countries representing 65 percent of its population. The French government reiterated on Thursday that it wasn’t satisfied with the agreement and that its final decision will depend on the progress made toward its demands.  “France is a big agricultural power, we defend our agricultural interests very firmly in these negotiations … We continue working on this agreement, which is not acceptable as it stands on the day I am speaking to you,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Pascal Confavreux told POLITICO. Confavreux declined to say when asked whether France was pushing to delay the vote to January. A senior EU diplomat warned that the long-awaited trade deal — which has been a quarter century in the making and would create a common market of over 700 million people — would not survive another delay.  “If [von der Leyen] does not sign it, if we do not allow her to sign it on the 20th, it’s dead,” said the diplomat, who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. “And then we really need to think about whether that’s where we want to be in the world.”  COALITION OF THE UNWILLING Ireland, which remains one of the more skeptical countries due to its large farming constituency, said Thursday it was “working with like-minded countries” on its position on the agreement — referring to a so-called coalition of the unwilling that has varied over time and included countries like Poland and Austria.  “The key question now is whether a blocking minority still exists. And I think the jury is still a little out on that,” said Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris. The stalling tactics will infuriate pro-Mercosur nations led by Germany, which argue that the French have already been accommodated, including by the proposal of additional safeguards to protect European farmers in case Latin American beef or poultry flood EU markets.  Paris is adamant that its three core conditions — the inclusion of “mirror clauses,” stronger sanitary controls, and the agricultural safeguards — have still not been met.  A separate plenary vote still needs to be held in the European Parliament this coming Tuesday on the farm safeguards. The chamber’s trade committee last week approved compromise amendments to tighten the protections. Yet a late flood of new amendments could complicate matters just two days before EU leaders are due to hold their year-end summit in Brussels. A diplomat from one Mercosur country said the signing date was still on: “We are still talking about Dec. 20.”  “Nobody has abandoned that yet,” said the diplomat, who was also granted anonymity to discuss the extremely sensitive matter.  Bloomberg first reported on the delay.  Giovanna Faggionato and Kathryn Carlson contributed to this report. 

Brussels’ battle over whether plant-based foods can be sold as “veggie burgers” and “vegan sausages” ended the year in stalemate on Wednesday, after talks between EU countries and the European Parliament collapsed without a deal. French centre-right lawmaker Céline Imart, a grain farmer from southern France and the architect of the naming ban, arrived determined to lock in tough restrictions on plant-based labels, according to three people involved. Her proposal, dismissed as “unnecessary” inside her own political family, was tucked inside a largely unrelated reform of the EU’s farm-market rulebook. It slipped through weeks of talks untouched and unmentioned, only reemerging in the final stretch — by which point even Paul McCartney had asked Brussels to let veggie burgers be. The Wednesday meeting quickly veered off course. Officials said Imart moved to reopen elements of the text that negotiators believed had already wrapped up, including sensitive rules for powerful farm cooperatives. She then sketched out several possible fallbacks on dairy contracts — a politically charged issue for many countries — but without settling on a clear line the rest of the Parliament team could rally behind. “And then she introduced new terms out of nowhere,” one Parliament official said, after Imart proposed adding “liver” and “ham” to the list of protected meat names for the first time. “It was very messy,” another Parliament official said. EU countries, led in the talks by Denmark, said they simply had no mandate to move — not on the naming rules and not on dairy contracts. With neither side giving ground, the discussions ground to a halt. “We did not succeed in reaching an agreement,” Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen said. Imart insisted that the gap could still be bridged. Dairy contracts and meat-related names “still call for further clarification,” she said in a written statement, arguing that “tangible progress” had been made and that “the prospect of an agreement remains close,” with negotiations due to resume under Cyprus in January. “We did not succeed in reaching an agreement,” Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen said. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images) Dutch Green lawmaker Anna Strolenberg, who was in the room, said she was relieved: “It’s frustrating that we keep losing time on a veggie burger ban — but at least it wasn’t traded for weaker contracts [for dairy farmers].” For now, that means veggie burgers, vegan nuggets and other alternative-protein products will keep their familiar names — at least until Cyprus picks up the file in the New Year and Brussels’ oddest food fight resumes.

BRUSSELS — A jolt of optimism that Brussels and the Latin American countries of Mercosur can finally seal their mammoth trade deal this year has given way to trepidation that everything could fall apart just before the finish line. The biggest hurdle that remains is approving a workaround to protect European farm markets in the event of a sudden influx of produce from the Mercosur bloc, which groups Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The safeguards, calibrated in consultation with Paris and presented in early October, seemed enough at first to reassure skeptical politicians and farmers in France and Poland. But the mood in the European Parliament and in some capitals has turned volatile. And with the clock ticking down to a tentative Dec. 20 date for European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to fly to Brazil for a formal signing ceremony, the path to that successful outcome is narrowing. Brazil’s ambassador to the EU, Pedro Miguel da Costa e Silva, is bullish that the agreement, which has been 25 years in the making and would create a free-trade area spanning nearly 800 million people, can still be done. “What will happen will be exactly what happened with other agreements that the EU negotiated with other countries: In the beginning there was a lot of backlash, but then suddenly people discovered that it was a mutual benefit equation,” da Costa e Silva said at an event in Brussels last week. To close the deal in time, everything needs to go right. European lawmakers must first approve the additional safeguards, after which the Council, the intergovernmental branch of the EU, then needs to sign off on the broader deal. Finally, the Commission must sign it. PARLIAMENT UNCHAINED The Parliament has witnessed chaotic scenes in recent days as pro-Mercosur lawmakers tried, and failed, to fast-track a vote to approve the safeguards. Although seemingly only a technical measure, the safeguard text is a crucial political condition for President Emmanuel Macron of France — the EU’s second-largest country — to back the overall agreement.  The Council has concluded its work on the safeguards, and is waiting for the Parliament to move forward.  The text will now tentatively be put to a committee vote in the Parliament on Dec. 8, followed by a Dec. 16 vote in the plenary — just four days before the planned signing ceremony.   Although seemingly only a technical measure, the safeguard text is a crucial political condition for President Emmanuel Macron of France. | Thierry Nectoux/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images “We have been negotiating this agreement for 25 years and now we are being told that we must act quickly,” said Céline Imart, a French MEP from the European People’s Party group and a farmer herself.  Adding to the headaches, over 140 lawmakers have called for a resolution seeking a legal opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether the overall deal is compatible with the European treaties.  That would paralyze the Parliament’s approval of the safeguards until the court — known for its lengthy procedures — rules on the issue. Parliament President Roberta Metsola rejected the request on the grounds that the Council had not yet weighed in on the agreement. Those lawmakers have criticized the decision and are now pushing for further explanations from the Parliament’s own legal service on whether Metsola overstepped her powers.  THE HOME STRETCH With U.S. President Donald Trump breathing down Europe’s neck, fence-sitters like the Netherlands and Italy have come to terms with the fact that the deal would offer a welcome boost for the bloc’s struggling exporters. Even Macron struck a conciliatory tone after meeting Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in early November.  Still, in the Council, where a qualified majority of EU countries is needed to approve the deal, the battle is not yet won. Poland — one of the countries Brussels had hoped to soothe with the new safeguard rules — this week restated its opposition. “Our position is clearly defined: We will vote against, despite the agreement on safeguards that has been reached,” Michal Baranowski, Poland’s undersecretary of state in the Ministry of Economic Development, said Monday.  Confusion at the highest level hasn’t helped either.  At the last European leaders’ summit in October, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz prematurely announced that EU leaders had unanimously backed the contentious deal.  That forced European Council President António Costa to clarify that he had merely sought to assess next steps with European leaders. France followed up by seeking fresh reassurances that the European market would be protected from agricultural products that don’t meet the bloc’s standards. If the approval process hasn’t already gone off track by then, the EU leaders’ summit on Dec. 18-19 in Brussels could still deliver some last-minute drama before von der Leyen can catch that flight to Brazil. “Ursula von der Leyen already has her tickets to Brazil. It is up to us to ensure that she only goes there for a holiday,” added Imart, the French MEP. 

The next time your favorite veggie burger quietly rebrands itself as a “plant-based patty,” you now know who to thank: Céline Imart. The grain farmer from southern France, now a first-term lawmaker in the European Parliament, slipped a ban on meaty names for plant-based, fermented and lab-grown foods into an otherwise technical measure. Inside the Parliament, it caused a minor earthquake. Her own group leader, German conservative Manfred Weber, publicly dismissed it as “unnecessary.” The group’s veteran agriculture voice, Herbert Dorfmann, voted against it. Diplomats from several capitals shrugged it off as “silly” or “just stupid.” And yet, as negotiations with EU governments begin, the amendment that everyone assumed would die in the first round is still standing — not because it has a powerful constituency behind it, but because almost no one is expending political capital to bury it. That alone says something about where Europe’s food politics are drifting. A FIGHT ABOUT MORE THAN LABELS Imart insists the amendment isn’t an attack on innovation, but a gesture of respect toward the farmers she represents. “A steak is not just a shape,” she told POLITICO in an interview. “People have eaten meat since the Neolithic. These names carry heritage. They belong to farmers.” She argues some shoppers genuinely confuse plant-based and meat products, despite years of EU surveys showing consumers largely understand what a “veggie burger” is. Her view, she argues, is shaped by what she hears at home. “Maybe some very intelligent people never make mistakes at the supermarket,” she said, referring to Weber and Dorfmann. “But a lot of people in my region do. They don’t always see the difference clearly.” In rural France, where livestock farming remains culturally central, Imart’s argument resonates. Across Europe, similar anxieties simmer. Farmers say they feel squeezed by climate targets, rising costs and what they see as moralizing rhetoric about “healthy and sustainable diets.” The EU once flirted with promoting alternative proteins as part of its Green Deal ambitions. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images Today, that political moment has mostly waned. References to “protein diversification” appear in draft strategies only to be scrubbed from the final text. Public support remains dwarfed by the billions the Common Agricultural Policy funnels to animal farming each year. Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has spent most of the year soothing farm anger, not pushing dietary change. This helps explain why an idea dismissed as fringe suddenly doesn’t feel fringe at all. Imart’s amendment taps directly into a broader mood: Defend the farmer first; innovation can wait. BOOM AND BACKLASH The industry caught in the crossfire is no longer niche. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year, with Germany alone accounting for nearly €2 billion. Fermentation-based dairy substitutes are attracting investment, and even though cultivated meat isn’t yet authorized in the EU, it has already become a regulatory flash point. But the sector remains tiny beside the continent’s livestock economy, and is increasingly buffeted by political headwinds. After two years of farmer protests and fatigue over climate and environmental reforms, national governments have closed ranks around traditional agriculture. Countries like Austria, Italy and France have warned that novel foods could undermine “primary farm-based production.” Hungary went even further this week, voting to ban the production and sale of cultivated meat altogether. For alternative protein companies, the irony is hard to miss. They see their products as both a business opportunity and part of the solution to the food system’s climate and environmental footprint, most of which comes from animal farming. Yet they say politics are now moving in the opposite direction. “Policymakers are devoting so much attention to unnecessary restrictions that would harm companies seeking to diversify their business,” said Alex Holst of the Good Food Institute Europe, an interest group for plant-based and cultivated alternatives. He argued that familiar terms like “burger” and “sausage” help consumers understand what they’re buying, not mislead them. WHY THE NAMING BAN WON’T DIE The political climate explains why Imart’s idea suddenly resonates. But Brussels lawmaking procedure explains why it might survive. At the negotiating table, national governments are consumed by the Parliament’s more disruptive ideas on market intervention and supply management, changes they fear could distort markets and limit the authorities’ flexibility to act. Compared with those fights, a naming ban barely registers. Especially in an otherwise technical reform of the EU’s Common Market Organisation, a piece of legislation normally reserved for agricultural specialists focused on crisis reserves and market tools. That gives the amendment unusual space. Several diplomats privately complained it sits awkwardly outside the scope of the original European Commission proposal. But not enough to coordinate a pushback. The Commission, meanwhile, has signaled it can “live with” stricter naming rules, having floated narrower limits in its own post-2027 market plan. That removes what might have been the decisive obstacle. Retail sales of meat and dairy alternatives reached an estimated €6-8 billion last year. | Jens Kalaene/Getty Images Even translation quirks, like the fact that “filet,” “filete” and “fillet” can mean different things across languages, haven’t slowed it. Imart shrugged those off: “It’s normal that texts evolve. That’s the point of negotiation.” Whether the naming ban makes it into the final law will depend on the coming weeks. But the fact it is even in contention, after being mocked, dismissed and rejected inside Imart’s own political family, is telling. In today’s Brussels, appeals to heritage and identity land more softly than calls for food system innovation. In that climate, that’s all even a fringe idea needs to survive.

TOURNAI, Belgium — Back in 2016, a freak storm destroyed the entire strawberry crop on Hugues Falys’ farm in the province of Hainaut in west Belgium. It was one of a long string of unusual natural calamities that have ravaged his farm, and which he says are becoming more frequent because of climate change. Falys now wants those responsible for the climate crisis to pay him for the damage done — and he’s chosen as his target one of the world’s biggest oil companies: TotalEnergies. In a packed courtroom in the local town of Tournai, backed by a group of NGOs and a team of lawyers, Falys last week made his case to the judges that the French fossil fuel giant should be held responsible for the climate disasters that have decimated his yields. It’s likely to be a tricky case to make. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court, told POLITICO in a statement that making a single producer responsible for the collective impact of centuries of fossil fuel use “makes no sense.” But the stakes are undeniably high: If Falys is successful, it could create a massive legal precedent and open a floodgate for similar litigation against other fossil fuel companies across Europe and beyond. “It’s a historic day,” Falys told a crowd outside the courtroom. “The courts could force multinationals to change their practices.” A TOUGH ROW TO HOE While burning fossil fuels is almost universally accepted as the chief cause of global warming, the impact is cumulative and global, the responsibility of innumerable groups over more than two centuries. Pinning the blame on one company — even one as huge as TotalEnergies, which emits as much CO2 every year as the whole of the U.K. combined — is difficult, and most legal attempts to do so have failed. Citing these arguments, TotalEnergies denies it’s responsible for worsening the droughts and storms that Falys has experienced on his farm in recent years. The case is part of a broader movement of strategic litigation that aims to test the courts and their ability to enforce changes on the oil and gas industry. More than 2,900 climate litigation cases have been filed globally to date. “It’s the first time that a court, at least in Belgium, can recognize the legal responsibility, the accountability of one of those carbon polluters in the climate damages that citizens, and also farmers like Hugues, are suffering and have already suffered in the previous decade,” Joeri Thijs, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium, told POLITICO in front of the courtroom. MAKING HISTORY Previous attempts to pin the effects of climate change on a single emitter have mostly failed, like when a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company RWE arguing its emissions contributed to melting glaciers putting his village at risk of flooding. But Thijs said that “the legal context internationally has changed over the past year” and pointed to the recent “game-changer” legal opinion of the International Court of Justice, which establishes the obligations of countries in the fight against climate change. TotalEnergies, which has yet to present its side of the case in court. | Gregoire Campione/Getty Images “There have been several … opinions that clearly give this accountability to companies and to governments; and so we really hope that the judge will also take this into account in his judgment,” he said. Because “there are various actors who maintain this status quo of a fossil-based economy … it is important that there are different lawsuits in different parts of the world, for different victims, against different companies,” said Matthias Petel, a member of the environment committee of the Human Rights League, an NGO that is also one of the plaintiffs in the case. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. But it’s also trying to go “one step further” by not only looking backward at the historical contribution of private actors to climate change to seek financial compensation, he explained, but also looking forward to force these companies to change their investment policies and align them with the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. “We are not just asking them to compensate the victim, we are asking them to transform their entire investment model in the years to come,” Petel said. DIRECT IMPACTS In recent years, Falys, who has been a cattle farmer for more than 35 years, has had to put up with more frequent extreme weather events. The 2016 storm that decimated his strawberry crop also destroyed most of his potatoes. In 2018, 2020 and 2022, heat waves and droughts affected his yields and his cows, preventing him from harvesting enough fodder for his animals and forcing him to buy feed from elsewhere. These events also started affecting his mental health on top of his finances, he told POLITICO. “I have experienced climate change first-hand,” he said. “It impacted my farm, but also my everyday life and even my morale.” Falys says he’s tried to adapt to the changing climate. He transitioned to organic farming, stopped using chemical pesticides and fertilizers on his farm, and even had to reduce the size of his herd to keep it sustainable. Yet he feels that his efforts are being “undermined by the fact that carbon majors like TotalEnergies continue to explore for new [fossil fuel] fields, further increasing their harmful impact on the climate.” FIVE FAULTS Falys’ lawyers spent more than six hours last Wednesday quoting scientific reports and climate studies aimed at showing the judges the direct link between TotalEnergies’ fossil fuel production, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their use, and their contribution to climate change and the extreme weather events that hit Falys’ farm. They want TotalEnergies to pay reparations for the damages Falys suffered. But they’re also asking the court to order the company to stop investing in new fossil fuel projects, to drastically reduce its emissions, and to adopt a transition plan that is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Falys’ lawsuit is “building on the successes” of recent cases like the one pitting Friends of the Earth Netherlands against oil giant Shell, he told POLITICO. | Klaudia Radecka/Getty Images TotalEnergies’ culpability derives from five main faults, the lawyers argued. They claimed the French oil giant continued to exploit fossil fuels despite knowing the impact of their related emissions on climate change; it fabricated doubt about scientific findings establishing this connection; it lobbied against stricter measures to tackle global warming; it adopted a transition strategy that is not aligned with the goals of the Paris agreement; and it engaged in greenwashing, misleading its customers when promoting its activities in Belgium. “Every ton [of CO2 emissions] counts, every fraction of warming matters” to stop climate change, the lawyers hammered all day on Wednesday. “Imposing these orders would have direct impacts on alleviating Mr. Falys’ climate anxiety,” lawyer Marie Doutrepont told the court, urging the judges “to be brave,” follow through on their responsibilities to protect human rights, and ensure that if polluters don’t want to change their practices voluntarily, “one must force them to.” TOTAL’S RESPONSE But the French oil major retorted that Falys’ action “is not legitimate” and has “no legal basis.” In a statement shared with POLITICO, TotalEnergies said that trying to “make a single, long-standing oil and gas producer (which accounts for just under 2 percent of the oil and gas sector and is not active in coal) bear a responsibility that would be associated with the way in which the European and global energy system has been built over more than a century … makes no sense.” Because climate change is a global issue and multiple actors contribute to it, TotalEnergies cannot hold individual responsibility for it, the fossil fuel giant argues. It also said that the company is reducing its emissions and investing in renewable energy, and that targeted, sector-specific regulations would be a more appropriate way to advance the energy transition rather than legal action. The French company challenges the assertion that it committed any faults, saying its activities “are perfectly lawful” and that the firm “strictly complies with the applicable national and European regulations in this area.” TotalEnergies’ legal counsel will have six hours to present their arguments during a second round of hearings on Nov. 26 in Tournai. The court is expected to rule in the first half of next year.

BRUSSELS — The far right last week broke through the firewall in the European Parliament and is now looking to flex its muscles again to secure a wider set of goals.   Next on the target list: Deporting more migrants, reversing a ban on the combustion engine, new rules on gene-edited crops, and even more red tape reductions for businesses. After decades of being sidelined by mainstream political parties, the far right scored a major victory last week when the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) ditched its traditional centrist allies and pressed ahead with plans to cut green rules for businesses that received the backing of lawmakers on the right. Now that the cordon sanitaire against the far right “has fallen,” there will be space for a right-wing majority to pass legislation “when it comes to competitiveness, in some areas of the Green Deal where they want to scale down the targets or the burdens for the businesses,” Anders Vistisen, chief whip for the far-right Patriots group, told POLITICO.   There’s dispute over how much cooperation actually took place last week, however. The EPP says it did not — and never will — negotiate directly with far-right groups. Instead, the EPP insists it merely puts forward its position, which may or may not be supported by others. “It is a lie that we negotiated with them,” EPP spokesperson Daniel Köster said following the green rules vote, after MEPs from the Patriots claimed there were formal compromises and negotiations between both parties. Yet the Patriots argue that EPP lawmakers, behind the scenes and at committee level, discreetly consult with their right-wing counterparts on areas where they have overlapping priorities. “They coordinate with us quite often on these files,” Vistisen said, “but it is becoming a little bit ridiculous and silly that they don’t just want to own up to it.” The extent of cooperation largely depends on which nationality the center-right lawmakers are from, according to the Patriots. “On a technical level we work constructively with almost all delegations, except with the German EPP,” Roman Haider, top Patriots MEP in the transport committee, told POLITICO, echoing comments from his colleague Paolo Borchia, a member of the industry and energy committee, who said only some national EPP delegations are open to talking. “Cooperation with the German EPP is practically impossible. They refuse any professional interaction with us,” said Haider. For many years, the German center-right has opposed co-operation with the far-right because of the country’s Nazi past. IT’S NOT OVER FOR THE CENTER Any further collaboration has clear boundaries — after all, many far-right lawmakers want to tear the EU down. The EPP also still needs the centre to pass a majority of files, such as the long-term EU budget. However, Italy’s Nicola Procaccini, chair of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (which ideologically sits between the EPP and the Patriots), told POLITICO that the right can easily team up on deregulation, migration, farming, and family issues. However, Italy’s Nicola Procaccini, chair of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (which ideologically sits between the EPP and the Patriots), told POLITICO that the right can easily team up on deregulation, migration, farming, and family issues. | Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images “In these issues for sure we are closer” on the right side of the Parliament, Procaccini said. He believes the cordon sanitaire, which kept the far right from power, is not dead, but that the first steps in tearing it down have been taken, and parts of the EPP are ready to openly work with the right-wing side of the hemicycle. Liberal and Socialist lawmakers point out the Patriots often coordinate closely with the ECR, which then presents their position to the EPP. According to a parliamentary official, granted anonymity to speak freely, the ECR acts as a “Trojan horse” for the Patriots to circumvent the cordon sanitaire. Asked about future deals with the far right, EPP spokesperson Pedro López de Pablo said: “We are fully committed to working with all our platform partners [Socialists and Democrats, the liberals of Renew] and they know our guiding principle is content, content, content.” Vistisen also acknowledged that, while lawmakers from the Patriots are ready to sit at the table and negotiate on all things related to deregulation and migration, the EPP continues to try to find compromises with the center. “It’s also a question of how many times the EPP wants to look ridiculous in this attempt to pretend that the central majority is the one that can be used to deregulate,” said Vistisen. He added that the EPP, as the Parliament’s biggest force, has the leverage to do whatever it wants and that “the only real negotiating strength that the Socialists have left” is calling a motion of no confidence in Ursula von der Leyen. The Commission president has faced — and comfortably survived — three such motions this year, brought by the far right and the far left. TOUGHER ON MIGRATION One major area where the far-right is hoping to lure the EPP into its arms is migration. In December, the Parliament is expected to vote on a new bill on “safe” non-EU countries to which member states could deport migrants, even if they are not originally from there, which the Patriots hope will be passed with a right-wing majority. They are already claiming that the price of securing their votes a second time will be higher. “We know that the EPP are struggling very much to get liberals and social democrats to play ball,” said Vistisen. “If they want to strike a deal with us, it has to be compromise amendments signed by ECR, EPP and Patriots. That is going to be a testing ground for whether the EPP publicly will make policy with us.” The right-wing majority could find common ground on a new deportations regulation proposed by the Commission in March, a key bill for von der Leyen as she seeks to appease calls from across the bloc for tougher migration policies. The lead negotiators on the file from ECR, Patriots, and the far-right Europe of Sovereign Nations group want to pull the EPP away from the center and pass a tougher version of the bill. “In terms of cooperation on the right, what I’ve heard thus far is that both the Patriots and ECR and ESN, but also EPP, are very much on the same line on a great number of issues,” Patriots’ lead negotiator Marieke Ehlers told POLITICO. Ehlers said she is in touch with her EPP counterpart, François-Xavier Bellamy, whose national party, Les Républicains, is advocating tougher migration policies in France.   Fabrice Leggeri, a Patriots MEP, also said that “there are talks or exchanges of views between Patriots for Europe and the EPP”. Bellamy did not respond to a request for comment. CUT, CUT, CUT The European Commission may have found a new ally in its simplification agenda, with right-wing and far-right groups in Parliament eager to tear down policy in the name of cutting bureaucracy and giving power back from Brussels to national capitals. Two of the most explosive files where the right-wing majority could team up are in the automotive sector, as the EPP, pushed by Germany, seeks to slash regulations it says are strangling the car industry. The Commission is set to put forward in December a revision of what is a de facto ban on the combustion engine by 2035, alongside a measure that could set an electric vehicle target for company cars and leasing companies. In Parliament, the EPP could kill both files with the help of the far right. Straight after winning the most seats in the 2024 election, EPP chief Manfred Weber told POLITICO that his group would overturn the 2035 combustion engine ban. The far-right has also made this a major campaign talking point, with the Czech Republic’s Motorist Party basing its entire platform on the issue. The Greens, the Socialists & Democrats and Renew don’t have a unified position on the ban, making things even easier for the EPP and far right to team up. “If the German EPP wants to stand by one of its core pre-election promises, namely ending the phase-out of the combustion engine, then they will have no choice but to work with us,” said Patriots MEP Haider. The digital omnibus, presented by the Commission on Wednesday, is also a potential area where the EPP and Socialists could fail to agree on a way forward, opening the door for a right-wing majority. The bill is being pitched by the Commission as a way to simplify the EU’s digital laws to make life easier for European companies. But the proposal put forward by the Commission on Wednesday seeks extensive changes to the EU’s data protection regulation (GDPR), many to the benefit of AI developers, which the socialists and liberals have said they will block. FARMING TARGETS The right-wing dynamic is also playing out in the talks on Europe’s new rules on gene-edited crops, where exhausted EPP negotiators are quietly weighing far-right votes as a fallback option to break a months-long Parliament deadlock. Italian right-wing lawmakers from the ECR and Patriots could end up delivering the majority needed to push a compromise through — a prospect left-wing MEPs say would result in a deal far too weak to protect the interests of small producers, consumers and the environment. And the next Common Agricultural Policy, the EU’s vast farm-subsidy program, could shift even more dramatically if pushed through with far-right backing. Instead of the slow trend toward stricter environmental and climate obligations, the new coalition arithmetic could deliver a CAP with fewer strings attached, looser oversight and even weaker green conditions, which have been long-standing wishes for both the EPP and far-right groups.

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Does anyone care about British farmers? Those ploughing the fields and harvesting crops certainly don’t feel Westminster pays attention to them. So this week Westminster Insider finds out how the relationship between politics and farming – from post-Brexit trade deals to inheritance tax. She speaks to NFU President Tom Bradshaw about how Keir Starmer set up the promise of hope for farmers, before swiftly letting them down. Michael Gove, editor of the Spectator and former Conservative Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) Secretary, admits the Australia trade deal did betray Britain’s farmers. Emma Pryor, former special advisor to Defra Secretary George Eustice, explains how subsidies, which mean farmers can make a profit on producing food, changed after Brexit. And Sascha heads to rural South West Norfolk, where she speaks to Terry Jermy, the Labour MP who ousted Liz Truss. He tells her the new rules on inheritance tax are “unfortunate” and he hopes they are changed. Sascha gets on a tractor harvesting potatoes and speaks to farmers Danielle and Richard Gott. And she visits a farm run by Ed Pope which has turned 170 acres of the property into wildlife conservation. This episode was produced by Robert Nicholson and Artemis Irvine at Whistledown Productions.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

OTTAWA — It all started with an avian flu outbreak last winter on a small British Columbia ostrich farm. The beleaguered flock’s brush with disaster has now spiraled into a national standoff over science and personal freedoms. And it’s one that extends beyond Canada, as top Trump administration health officials have become personally involved. After the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ordered the owners of Universal Ostrich Farms to kill more than 300 birds last year, they refused, sparking a legal and political battle that on Thursday will reach Canada’s Supreme Court. It is a winding, only-in-the-Trump-era political saga that involves a New York City grocery magnate, a celebrity doctor turned agency head and the lightning rod American ambassador to Canada. And the 10-month fight over the flock has evolved into a wider debate about government overreach, institutional trust and the international rules that guide Canada’s trade policies. “We’re not criminals, we’re farmers,” Katie Pasitney, who co-owns Universal Ostrich Farms, recently told reporters. “We’re doing nothing wrong.” In the U.S., she has rallied allies like Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who agree. Like her, Kennedy and members of his Make America Healthy Again movement believe the order to kill the birds amounts to government overreach based on outdated policies. Kennedy says the Canadians should study the birds rather than kill them to understand why some birds survive the flu. The controversy has stirred up debate across Canada’s political landscape. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, caught between his populist base and party moderates, is under pressure to defend the birds — a dilemma exposing fractures in his support ahead of a 2026 leadership review. Prime Minister Mark Carney has so far managed to dodge the issue as his government faces calls to be more transparent and retest the birds. Lawmakers from across party lines told POLITICO the issue resonates with constituents from British Columbia to Ontario. “We should not have been able to garner more attention and more support internationally from the Trump administration than our own government,” Pasitney said. THE OSTRICHES Last December, after receiving an anonymous tip, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency showed up at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, British Columbia, to test the flock. When two ostriches tested positive for avian flu, the agency ordered the entire flock culled. Court documents show that 69 birds died in December and January after the agency declared an outbreak. Over 300 birds survived, but the CFIA ordered them destroyed under Canada’s “stamping-out” policy — a measure aligned with the policies of the World Health Organization, the U.N.’s health agency, designed to help prevent viral spread among animals and people while maintaining trade stability. The farm owners objected vociferously, but they weren’t the only ones. “We understand the importance of containing the bird flu and the important role that agency plays. What’s hard to watch is a lack of discretion and ability to evaluate case-by-case scenarios,” British Columbia Premier David Eby told CBC in May. Universal Ostrich Farms has bred the birds since the mid-1990s. At first they raised them for slaughter, but in recent years they began using the ostrich eggs for research. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the farmers began collaborating with researchers in Japan and Boston studying antibodies from the eggs. The farm argues its ostriches that survived the avian flu outbreak have developed herd immunity to H5N1 and that their eggs hold scientific insight into the illness. But the CFIA disputes that claim. “Through a thorough review of scientific peer-reviewed literature, no evidence was found that a particular ostrich flock would be superior to other ostrich flocks for antibody production,” the CFIA said in a statement in May. The farm is seeking an exemption to save its ostriches, but the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal have upheld the decision. On Sept. 22, the CFIA took control of the ostrich enclosure — a first for Canada, even though it has plenty of experience killing birds: More than 14 million commercial and backyard birds have been culled in recent years, including more than 8.7 million in British Columbia. For now, the ostriches remain alive … behind police tape. THE MAHA MOVEMENT South of the border in the United States, the birds have attracted an unlikely patron. Although New York billionaire John Catsimatidis is best known as a business owner, GOP megadonor and outspoken talk show host, Pasitney knew he was also an animal lover. Earlier this year, she called into his WABC radio station, hoping to catch his attention, and told him and Curtis Sliwa, the recently defeated GOP candidate for New York City mayor, on “Sid & Friends in the Morning” that “the Canadian government wants our farm killed off of two tests.” The farmer’s gambit worked. Not only is Catsimatidis now bankrolling the Universal Ostrich Farms’ legal battle against the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but he also has recruited members of the Trump administration to the fight, including Kennedy and Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Kennedy and his “Make America Healthy Again” movement have a natural ally in the Canadian farmers. Both distrust the World Health Organization and allege that pharmaceutical companies are shaping government decisions, including around vaccines. President Donald Trump said he would withdraw the U.S. from the WHO on his first day in office, accusing it of mishandling the Covid pandemic. The withdrawal takes effect in January. In May, Kennedy pulled $590 million in funding for pharmaceutical company Moderna that the Biden administration had granted in January to help develop vaccines against potential pandemic flu viruses, such as bird flu, arguing mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses. The same month, Kennedy met with the CFIA asking it to spare the birds by collaborating with U.S. health agencies on a long-term study, arguing the flock could offer valuable scientific insight into H5N1 immunity. Oz even offered the birds sanctuary at his Florida ranch, a request that U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra said has been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Catsimatidis said he also mentioned the ostriches to Trump. “I spoke to President Trump about it, too. He knows about it,” Catsimatidis told POLITICO in July. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment. Catsimatidis, along with those in the MAHA movement and many backers of the ostrich crusade, are skeptical of mRNA vaccines, often advocating for natural therapies as an alternative. “Maybe some of the drug companies, the pharmaceutical companies, probably hate Secretary Kennedy for setting them straight,” Catsimatidis said. “Maybe they don’t want cures.” The CFIA says there’s “no linkage to the application of the stamping out policy at the ostrich farm and the availability of human avian influenza vaccines.” DANIELLE SMITH AND DOUG FORD In Canada, some of the country’s top conservative leaders have realized the fight over the birds is bigger than just one flock. As in the United States, the movement against established public health practices has become an important political constituency to be wooed. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of the United Conservative Party asked her agriculture minister how the province would handle a similar outbreak. “If we can find a better way than doing mass culls in situations like this, I think it’s probably worth it to try to find a better way to do it,” Smith said in July. Protesters have shown up at the offices of Conservative MPs in Alberta, and some MPs tell POLITICO they hear about the ostriches often from constituents. “This case has really taken on a lot of public sentiment behind it,” Smith said. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, a self-proclaimed animal lover and member of the Progressive Conservative Party, wants the ostriches spared too. Ford previously praised Catsimatidis’ commitment to animal protection, noting that he “puts his money where his mouth is.” “Anything John needs, I’m always there to support him,” Ford said. Both premiers maintain a relationship with Catsimatidis unrelated to the flock. His Red Apple Group conglomerate, which includes energy businesses, purchases oil from Alberta, and Ford frequently appears on Catsimatidis’ radio show. PIERRE POILIEVRE Not all conservative politicians have waded into the fray — and it’s costing them. Pierre Poilievre’s grip on his Conservative Party is showing strain as he faces pressure to speak up in favor of the birds. So far, the usually outspoken leader has avoided saying the word “ostrich” altogether. “This is just another example of total Liberal incompetence,” Poilievre has said when asked about the culling. Poilievre, who must win over Liberal voters to become the next prime minister, is focused on broader issues like cost of living, crime and inflation. But during the Covid-19 pandemic he aligned himself with the “Freedom Convoy” demonstration — which opposed pandemic measures and vaccines — that blockaded downtown Ottawa for three weeks and halted almost C$4 billion in Canada-U.S. trade. The movement continues to oppose government overreach, with organizer Tamara Lich backing the birds and hosting benefit concerts for the ostriches. Convoy-aligned supporters are noticing Poilievre’s silence. Conservative influencers who promoted Poilievre’s run for prime minister in the April election — and who have stood by him since — are now calling him out and blaming his inner circle for giving him bad advice. “Pierre please read the room. It’s honestly so painful to watch you fumble these easy layups,” one wrote on social media in September. “Can you please use your voice to speak up for Canadians?” another said. “The [British Columbia] Ostrich standoff is a grave injustice.” Poilievre risks losing support from his base, including those who support the MAHA movement, if he backs the cull. But if he speaks out against the cull, the Liberals could paint him as flouting public health and hurting Canadian trade. By criticizing the health agency, he sticks with his brand of attacking federal bureaucracy. Next January, Poilievre will face a scheduled leadership review. The Liberals’ prospects are tied to his future. Many Liberal MPs hope Poilievre will stick around given that he’s unpopular with their constituents. MARK CARNEY Prime Minister Mark Carney has not touched the issue publicly. The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on the ostriches, or to say if Trump has brought up the birds during their meetings. “No comment,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. He ignored a written request that Kennedy, Oz and Catsimatidis sent in July, offering “to stand with you in a joint public statement that highlights cross-border compassion and thoughtful decision making.” Canadian Health Minister Marjorie Michel has the authority to direct the CFIA to call off the cull, but she has also remained silent, even after Green Party Leader Elizabeth May asked her to retest the birds. When asked by POLITICO on two separate occasions, Michel’s office said she won’t be commenting on the ostriches. Last month, with tensions growing between protesters and national police outside the B.C. farm, Canada’s Supreme Court granted an interim hold on the culling. It will decide on Thursday whether to hear the case. If it rejects it, the culling order stands — and the ostriches will be killed.

The European Commission refused to rule out taking legal action against three countries that are keeping their unilateral import bans on Ukrainian goods. Poland, Hungary and Slovakia are openly defying efforts to reset trade relations as a revised trade deal with Kyiv kicks in. The bans, covering Ukrainian grain and other farm products, breach EU single market rules that prohibit national trade barriers. The defiance underscores how politically fraught the EU’s trade relationship with Ukraine has become, with capitals essentially daring Brussels to prioritize Kyiv over EU members to enforce the trade pact. “We see no justification for maintaining these national measures,” Commission Deputy Spokesperson Olof Gill said Thursday, a day after a new European Union trade agreement meant to address EU members’ concerns about negative impacts from a flow of Ukrainian imports took effect. In an email, Gill said the EU executive would “intensify its contact” with the intransigent capitals. Pressed on whether the Commission had ruled out launching infringement proceedings, Gill replied: “All options are on the table.” Brussels has been reluctant to act since the bans were introduced in 2023, hoping the updated trade deal would make them redundant. Officials familiar with the talks say politics are also playing a part. Taking Poland to court could strain relations with Donald Tusk’s pro-EU government, while singling out Hungary and Slovakia would look like a double standard. Poland’s agriculture ministry told POLITICO earlier this week that the government’s restrictions “do not automatically lift” under the new EU deal and remain in force.  Likewise, Budapest will maintain its national-level protection, Hungary’s Agriculture Minister István Nagy said, while accusing Brussels of “prioritizing Ukrainian interests.” His Slovak counterpart, Richard Takáč, called the new deal’s safeguards “not strong enough” to protect local producers, suggesting Bratislava will follow suit. The bans, covering Ukrainian grain and other farm products, breach EU single market rules that prohibit national trade barriers. | Ukrinform/Getty Images The updated agreement, approved by EU countries on Oct. 13, replaces the temporary trade liberalization introduced after Russia’s 2022 invasion, providing a more stable framework for Ukrainian exports while adding safeguards for European farmers. This story has been updated.