The risk of infants in Europe being exposed to cereulide in formula is now low following widespread recalls earlier this month, the European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Control concluded in a joint rapid outbreak assessment published today. Thanks to “large-scale control measures implemented in the EU,” the agencies said in a press release, “the likelihood of exposure to contaminated products has decreased and is considered low.” While risk of encountering the toxin is low, the impact of exposure to cereulide is “low to moderate,” depending on the age of the baby, the assessment said. Seven countries in Europe — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Spain and the U.K. — have reported gastrointestinal issues in infants that had consumed formula. However, investigations are still ongoing to establish whether these cases are linked to the formula products. The agencies cautioned that linking common symptoms to the toxin “can be challenging.” The assessment comes after large scale recalls began in December of last year, when cereulide was found in formula products containing an ingredient supplied by a Chinese based producer. Even more products were pulled off shelves in February following an EFSA assessment on safe levels of cereulide.

BRUSSELS — As the EU dithered over its Latin American trade pact, Donald Trump slipped past and moved the cheese.  A bilateral deal between the U.S. president and populist fellow traveler Javier Milei of Argentina is calling into question hard-won protections for signature European products in the EU’s trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc. At a moment when Brussels is hoping to show its promise of free trade flows can be a counterweight to Trump’s threats and aggression, the EU’s internal divisions are once again hobbling its bid to wield influence in the Western hemisphere. Making the situation all the stinkier: Trump’s pact with Milei would let American versions of prized European cheeses flow freely into Argentina. The only way to fight back, say frustrated supporters of the EU-Mercosur agreement, is to race to lock in protections for so-called geographical indications before it’s too late. “If Europe wants to be a geopolitical giant, it must be able to decide without wasting time,” said Stefano Bonaccini, an Italian MEP.  Under the EU-Mercosur agreement, more than 300 EU food and drink products would be protected in Argentina — along with Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay — from copycats entering those markets.  Yet Trump’s team managed to obtain guarantees that American lookalikes of some European heritage products would be allowed into Argentina, including Gorgonzola, Fontina and Roquefort. As prices spike for Greek Feta, there would be nothing to stop salty sheep-milk cheese from Wisconsin from being sold as a cheaper alternative under the same name.  “We can no longer postpone the EU-Mercosur agreement: Approving it first would make the Trump-Milei agreement inapplicable,” thus defending delicacies such as Parmigiano Reggiano and Mortadella di Bologna, said Bonaccini, a socialist on the Parliament’s agriculture committee, who has expressed support for the deal as long as it protects farmers.   For opponents, Milei’s link-up with Trump is a betrayal that proves the Mercosur deal was rotten all along. “This situation is extremely revealing of the rip-off that is the Mercosur agreement,” stressed Céline Imart, a French center-right lawmaker and farmer who also opposes the Mercosur deal, calling into question how farmers can trust the other special protections they have been promised. FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED?  Whichever agreement is ratified first could give the EU or the U.S. a first-mover advantage, with the runner-up possibly being told that Argentina has already made a commitment on the matter.  “It is hard to see how Argentina will be able to comply with both agreements,” said Geraldo Vidigal, a Brazilian professor in international trade law at the University of Amsterdam. The protection of EU specialty cheese and meat terms was one of the “big wins” for European agriculture in the EU-Mercosur agreement, he added.  Argentina’s move is evidence of “how stupid the EU has been in delaying and delaying and delaying the Mercosur agreement,” argued John Clarke, the EU’s former agricultural trade negotiator. In his view, the ball is now in Argentina’s court, with pressure on the EU and U.S. to get their agreements ratified first.  Although Ursula von der Leyen signed the accord at the start of the year, European lawmakers have thrown another wrench in the works. | Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty Images Alternatively, the Argentinians could wait for a court case to settle any looming disputes, Clarke suggested. The EU, meanwhile, is stranded by its internal divisions on the Mercosur deal, which has been over a generation in the making. During that time the bloc has lost its standing as the Latin American bloc’s largest trade partner to a rising China. Although European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen finally signed the accord at the start of the year, and EU member countries have supported its ratification, European lawmakers threw another wrench in the works by referring the accord for a review by the EU’s top court, which could stall its final approval by up to two years. To avoid waiting for years before it can reap the benefits of the deal, the Commission is expected to provisionally apply the agreement as soon as one of the Mercosur countries ratifies the deal on its side. This is expected in a matter of weeks, with Argentina itself, along with Uruguay, leading the Mercosur pack in putting the deal to a vote in their national legislatures. FULL RESPECT The European Commission is assessing the impact of the U.S.-Argentina agreement on the bloc’s trade interests, said Deputy Chief Spokesperson Olof Gill.  The comprehensive protection of geographical indications must “be respected in full” under the Mercosur deal, he added in a statement to POLITICO, adding that the EU executive would continue to engage with Argentina on the issue. The agreement hasn’t only raised concerns on the EU side. Reuters reports that Brazil is looking into whether the Milei-Trump deal conflicts with rules of the Mercosur trade bloc.  The U.S. has included similar clauses in trade agreements with other countries, but EU dairy producers shrug off these attempts to undermine the EU’s system for protecting geographical indications.  “Our partners in the U.S. waste their time and energy,” argued European Dairy Association Secretary General Alexander Anton, adding the Americans are chasing the EU’s heels trying to undermine protections that have already been agreed. Italian MEP Herbert Dorfmann, of the center-right European People’s Party, argued that any contradiction between the agreements on protected names “would be a serious problem” and would provide opponents of the EU-Mercosur deal with further ammunition to oppose it.   Copa-Cogeca, the influential European farmers’ lobby, has already raised concerns on the matter, saying that “such a move by Argentina would only further strengthen our opposition to the agreement.” Imart, a French skeptic of the deal, called on the Commission to take a stand against U.S. attempts to undermine the EU’s geographical indications system. “Our agriculture is excellent; it should not be sold off cheaply,” she said.  Argentinian authorities didn’t comment by the time of publication.  Bartosz Brzeziński and Giorgio Leali contributed to this report. 

BRUSSELS — Next up on Ursula von der Leyen’s trade to-do list: Australia. The EU’s ally Down Under is ready to tango again as Donald Trump’s tariffs push the rest of the world closer together. Both Brussels and Canberra worry about China. And they already see eye-to-eye on issues, ranging from research funding to defense cooperation. The EU and Australia came close to a deal in October 2023, on the sidelines of a G7 meeting in Osaka, Japan. But Aussie Trade Minister Don Farrell pulled out at the last minute under pressure from the beef lobby back home. Sticking points remain: access for Australian beef and lamb to the European market; EU trade protections on specialty foods; critical minerals; and an Australian tax on luxury cars. Farrell visits Brussels on Thursday to meet the EU’s trade and agriculture commissioners, Maroš Šefčovič and Christoph Hansen. Only if they resolve those differences would the Commission chief get to fly to Australia to finally conclude a formal agreement. “I don’t do bad deals,” Farrell said before heading to Brussels. Here are five issues that need to be sorted out for a good deal to happen: ANGRY FARMERS The biggest obstacle is whether the EU will grant more access to Australian farm produce, chiefly beef and lamb. Farrell needs a deal he can sell to vocal farmers back home who effectively blocked the deal just over two years ago. It’s not only meat but also sugar, rice and dairy — even though quotas for those are less sensitive. The Australian National Farmers’ Federation said this week that it’s still looking for “significantly increased access” on all of those fields. The crux here: Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. The European Parliament’s referral of the EU’s agri-heavy deal with the Latin American Mercosur bloc for judicial review adds to the uncertainty. PROTECTING PARMIGIANO While the matter of protected European products on the market down under was all but solved in 2023, it’s likely this chapter will return to haunt negotiators. Australia knows very well how to use anything the EU says against it: Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, after all. Canberra signaled it was ready to set up its own version of Europe’s system of geographical indications. These, for instance, denote that Champagne can only be called that when it’s made in the eponymous region of France. They are also some non-Greek supermarkets that have to resort to calling their feta imitations “white cheese.” Australia might want more, but if the EU gives more it risks the ire of European farmers ready to protest on the doorstep of the Berlaymont. | Geoffroy van der Hasselt/AFP via Getty Images Australia is a peculiar case because, for example, Italian-heritage farmers have made parmesan cheese for generations in the same way as around Parma. They could now face limits on what they can call their product — but probably not Parmigiano Reggiano. A likely solution would allow established brands to continue to use product names for a grace period. This is why prosecco, pecorino, parmesan and feta are still under discussion, the Australian Associated Press reports. On the flip side, the EU usually offers to protect some of the other side’s products on its own market. Let’s hope they don’t come after our flat whites. RAW MATERIALS (AND THEIR PRICE) Australia holds the world’s largest lithium reserves but lacks the refining capacity to monetize them. As a result, China processes virtually all of the raw lithium that Australia produces, enabling Beijing to dominate global supply. Brussels and Canberra continued talking on this topic after the Osaka debacle, concluding a memorandum of understanding in early 2024. Australia is also a partner in Europe’s RESourceEU program to reduce dependencies on a subset of critical raw materials. And the European Investment Bank is teaming up with Australia. Ideally, a trade deal would unlock exports from Australia to Europe and also boost the confidence of European companies to invest in local refining capacity. This is true not only for lithium, but also uranium, silver, bauxite used for aluminum, and a host of others. It cuts both ways: One example of an existing project getting a boost is the Australian-owned lithium producer Vulcan Energy in Germany. So is this really a hurdle? There’s a technical one: Europe wants to avoid a dual pricing system for critical raw materials (and energy sources like natural gas) that favors domestic customers. Australia hasn’t signaled it’s ready to end the practice, however. TAXING LUXURY CARS Australia still taxes luxury vehicle imports — a relic of a bygone era when it still had a car industry of its own. The tax is a 33 percent charge on models above a certain price threshold. There’s also a 5 percent import duty on all foreign cars. Trading partners that have deals with Canberra — like Korea and Japan — saw that removed but are still charged the luxury car tax. The potential is there: Japan sold $8 billion worth of vehicles to Australia in 2024, with German only in fifth position at $2 billion. While the EU would love to pave the way for more high-end German autos to be sold Down Under, the tax is domestic legislation and not formally part of the talks. Australia was rumored in 2023 to be willing to get rid of the tax, and Albanese hinted at it again late last year. That could be a sweetener for the EU to stomach a slightly higher beef quota. THE POLITICS OF IT ALL The EU is on a roll with new trade agreements: it has signed the Mercosur deal, closed talks with India and an Australian win is close. The streak serves von der Leyen’s geopolitical agenda for Europe to stand on its own two feet economically. On the other side of the world, Albanese is in more dire need of a win. He’s under pressure over his response to the Bondi Beach terror attack in December. And even though Trump only hit Australia with a 10 percent tariff, the country needs strong alliances if it wants to weather both Chinese and American pressure. The same is true for Europe, which sees the deal as underlining its cultural and historic ties with Australia, lifting an already-strong working relationship to the next level, as with Canada. And Australia is a key member of “the West” in the Indo-Pacific where Europe needs and wants to expand its attraction and influence. Zoya Sheftalovich contributed to this report.

STRASBOURG — Donald Trump’s threats to slap tariffs on European countries that disagree with him on Greenland are “simply wrong,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Wednesday morning. Speaking to MEPs in Strasbourg, von der Leyen said the EU is aligned and “working together” with the U.S on the need to ensure security in the Arctic, and Brussels is planning “a massive European investment surge in Greenland” to support the local economy and boost its infrastructure.  “This is why the proposed additional tariffs are simply wrong,” von der Leyen said. She added that the EU wants to stop the crisis escalating as “a dangerous downward spiral between allies” would only “embolden the very adversaries we are both so committed to keeping out of our strategic landscape.” Von der Leyen’s comments come as EU leaders scramble to deal with Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and react to his announcement of 10 percent tariffs on goods from countries that sent troops to Nuuk.  “Europe prefers dialogue and solutions, but we are fully prepared to act, if necessary, with unity, urgency and determination,” she said.  The Commission president also said the EU needs to diversify its trade relationships and “reduce our dependencies.” The EU is negotiating trade deals with India and other countries that “will open massive opportunities for our businesses.” ”Our supply chains and derisking goals depend on it,” she added, hinting at the bloc’s highly interlinked trade connections with the U.S. The European Union is on track to get nearly half of its gas from the United States by the end of the decade, creating a major strategic vulnerability for the bloc as relations with Washington hit an all-time low, as POLITICO reported earlier this week.  Just a few hours before lawmakers vote on whether to send the Mercosur trade deal for legal review, which could stall the adoption process by up to two years, von der Leyen said the deal with the South American bloc will be beneficial for the dairy, wine, spirits and oil sectors, while the Commission has secured “strong” safeguards for other sensitive agri-food sectors.   “This is a deal that will bring benefits across our economy, across every member state. And it can shield Europe from the risks it faces, ensuring our prosperity and our security at the same time,” she said. 

ATHENS — Greek farmers are begging for vaccines to save their flocks from sheep pox, and Brussels is offering them for free. But the Athens government doesn’t want them, preferring to cull infected animals. That’s all very bad news for feta cheese fans. Sheep pox is so infectious that global farming regulations require whole herds to be slaughtered immediately after even a single case is detected. Since the first case emerged in a northern region of Greece in 2024, authorities have culled more than 470,000 sheep and goats and closed some 2,500 farms nationwide. The country’s livestock breeding industry is now on the verge of collapse — endangering the trademark white cheese, into which producers pour 80 percent of the country’s sheep and goat milk. “If there is no immediate response, feta cheese will become a luxury item,” said Vaso Fasoula, a sheep farmer in Greece’s agricultural heartland of Thessaly, who has confined her 2,500 sheep to protect them from the contagion. An alternative to all this killing: vaccines, available free from Brussels. “Vaccination is the only additional measure that can stop the occurrence of new outbreaks, limit further spread to the rest of Greece and reduce the number of animals to be killed,” wrote Animal Welfare Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi to Athens last year. Yet the government has repeatedly rejected this option, citing the steep financial consequences and damage to exports. That refusal to embrace wide-scale prevention measures has infuriated farmers and is fueling further tensions with Brussels over an agriculture subsidy scandal — all while putting one of Greece’s most famous exports at risk. Farmers and livestock breeders have been blocking national highways all over the country for the last 40 days in one of the biggest mobilizations the country has experienced in recent years. Mass vaccination is among their demands, and they have said they won’t leave the roadblocks until the vaccination campaign starts. Behind the government’s refusal to vaccinate, critics allege, are not only misguided priorities but also a corruption cover-up. ANTI-VAX Sheep pox vaccines would be free, but they would nonetheless come at a high cost. Greek Agriculture Minister Konstantinos Tsiaras said a nationwide vaccine initiative would see Greece classified as a country where sheep pox is endemic. That could jeopardize exports, given the desperation of other countries to keep the bug beyond their borders. “Our scientists are clear,” Tsiaras said in October. “They do not recommend vaccination. Farmers are in a difficult position, but we cannot do anything other than follow the scientific guidance.” While a sheep pox declaration means restrictions on exporting animals — the virus can live in wool for up to six months — shipments of treated milk products like feta cheese would be less affected. Τhe trademark salty, white, crumbly delight — a protected designation of origin within the EU — is a major economic driver. Greece produces over 97,000 tons of feta annually, more than two-thirds of which is exported. The country netted a record €785 million from feta sales in 2024. Livestock breeders say the price of feta cheese has already increased significantly and will rise even further in the spring when the shortage becomes apparent. (The feta cheese currently on the market has been produced from milk from previous months.) Yet the government is standing firm against livestock jabs. “There is no approved vaccine in Greece,” said Charalampos Billinis, rector at the University of Thessaly and a member of the government’s national scientific committee for the management and control of sheep pox. “And there is no approved vaccine in the European Union.” That’s true — but it doesn’t mean there’s no safe, effective inoculation against sheep pox. Because the disease has not circulated in the EU for decades, manufacturers have not asked the European Medicines Agency to greenlight a vaccine. “This is a standard situation for animal diseases not usually present in the EU,” a Commission spokesperson said in an email. “No manufacturer has economic interest in obtaining marketing authorisation as they do not expect specific diseases to spread.” That’s why EU legislation offers a path for member countries to use vaccines that are approved in other parts of the world when animal diseases re-appear in the bloc, the spokesperson said. Plenty of doses of just such vaccines are available in EU stockpiles, and Brussels is urging Greece to repeat its success from the 1980s, when it used the vaccine to shut down a sheep pox outbreak. “Experience, science and veterinary expertise further support the need to revert to vaccination in Greece now,” Várhelyi wrote to the government in October in a letter seen by POLITICO. That’s where a fundamental disagreement arises. As Billinis argued, exposing the animals to the virus via the vaccine would increase positive testing rates, further prolonging trade restrictions, when the virus can still be contained in other ways. Farmers don’t buy it. “This disease is not leaving Greece; it has come to stay and without the vaccine, it will not go away,” said George Terzakis, president of a local livestock association in Thessaly. He’s among the breeders who allege the government’s vaccine skepticism isn’t so much about science as their desire to hide the full implications of a snowballing farm scandal. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is pursuing dozens of cases in which Greeks allegedly received agricultural funds from the EU for pastureland they did not own or lease, or for animals they did not own, depriving legitimate farmers and livestock breeders of the funds they deserved. POLITICO first reported on the scheme in February. “If our animals were vaccinated, the number of doses used would reveal the country’s real animal population,” Terzakis said. “Everything is being done because of the scandal.” When asked about the allegation, government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis said Athens had “faithfully followed European directives, which are the result of all the recommendations that, at the end of the day, led to specific decisions.” FLOODS AND PLAGUES As the infection spreads, families who have lived with their sheep and goats for generations are watching them vanish in a day, buried in large pits — many times on their land. Some have turned to illegal vaccination. The government estimates that one million illegal doses have been used, distorting epidemiological data. The broader region of Thessaly, which produces a quarter of the country’s food, was hit by devastating floods in 2023, followed the next year by an outbreak of sheep and goat plague and then sheep pox. “The disease spread like wildfire. We didn’t have any time to react,” said Dimitris Papaziakas, a breeder from a village close to Larissa city in central Greece and president of an association of livestock farmers affected by smallpox and plague. In mid-November he had to watch his 350 sheep be culled and then buried outside his sheep pen. “I cannot recall that day without starting to cry all over again,” he said. In one village, Koulouri, only one out of 10 units remains operational. Fasoula, the sheep farmer who penned her 2,500 sheep in May, is still keeping the infection at bay in nearby Amfithea. She constantly disinfects the cars and everything else on the farm, hoping for the best. But she’s concerned about how the animals were buried along the banks of a river. “If there is another flood, everything that has been buried will come to the surface.”

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.

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.

AOSTA, Italy — The 380,000 wheels of Fontina PDO cheese matured each year are tiny in number compared to the millions churned out by more famous rivals — but that doesn’t make the creamy cheese any less important to producers in Valle d’Aosta, a region nestled in the Italian Alps.  Fontina’s protected designation of origin (PDO) provides consumers at home and abroad a “guarantee of quality and of a short supply chain,” explained Stéphanie Cuaz, of the consortium responsible for protecting the cheese from cheap copycats, as she navigated a hairpin turn on the way to a mountain pasture. With fewer than a hundred cows, a handful of farm hands and a small house where milk is transformed into cheese, the pasture at the end of the winding road feels far away from global trade tussles its flagship product is embroiled in. The EU’s scheme to protect the names of local delicacies from replicas produced elsewhere has proved controversial in international trade negotiations. For instance, in 2023, free trade talks with Australia were swamped by complaints from its cheese producers railing against EU demands that they refrain from using household names like “Mozzarella di Bufala Campana” and “Feta.”  Fontina was caught in the crossfire, having been included in the list of names the EU wants protected Down Under. Fontina DOP Alpeggio is a variant of the cheese produced during the summer months using milk from cows grazing in alpine pastures up to 2,700 meters above sea level | Lucia Mackenzie/POLITICO. No such protections exist in the U.S., where in the state of Wisconsin alone, there are a dozen “fontina” producers, one of which won bronze at the World Cheese Awards in 2022.  Europe’s small-time food producers find themselves in a bind: their protected status is vital for promoting their traditional products abroad, but charges of protectionism have soured some trade negotiations. Nonetheless, many of the bloc’s trading partners clearly see the benefits of the system, baking in similar protections for their own products into trade deals. PROTECTION VS PROTECTIONISM Fontina cheese can only be labeled as such if several strict criteria are met. Cows of certain breeds need to be fed with hay of a certain caliber and, crucially, every step of the cheesemaking process must take place within the region’s borders.   For Cuaz, who grew up on a dairy farm in Doues, a small town of around 500 people perched on the valley side, the protection of the Fontina name is vital to keep farming alive and sufficiently paid in the region. Tucked up against the French and Swiss borders, Valle d’Aosta is Italy’s least populated region, home to just over 120,000 inhabitants speaking a mixture of Italian, French and the local Valdôtain dialect. Fontina — which with its distinctive nutty flavor can be enjoyed on a charcuterie board, in a fondue, or encased in a veal chop — is one of over 3,600 foods, wines, and spirits registered under the EU’s geographical indications (GI) system. This protects the names of products that are uniquely linked to a specific region. The idea is to make them easier to promote and keep small producers competitive. In the EU alone, GI products bring in €75 billion in annual revenue and command a price that’s 2.23 times higher than those without the status, the bloc’s Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen proclaimed earlier this year. He called the scheme a “true EU success story.” The GI system is predominantly used in gastronomic powerhouses like Italy and France, and Hansen hopes to promote uptake in the eastern half of the bloc.  Italy has the most geographical indications in the world, accounting for €20 billion in turnover, the country’s Agriculture Minister Francesco Lollobrigida pointed out, describing the system as an “extraordinary value multiplier.” ‘NOTHING MORE THAN A TRADE BARRIER’ While several trading partners apparently share the enthusiasm of Hansen and Lollobrigida  — the EU’s trade agreements with countries from South Korea to Central America and Canada include protections for selected GIs — others view the protections as, well, protectionist. The U.S. has long been the system’s most vocal critic, with the Trade Representative’s annual report on intellectual property protection calling it out as “highly concerning” and “harmful.” Washington argues that the rules undermine existing trademarks and that product names like “fontina,” “parmesan” and “feta” are common and shouldn’t be reserved for use by certain regions. That reflects the U.S. dairy industry’s resentment towards Europe’s GIs: Krysta Harden, U.S. Dairy Export Council president, argued they are “nothing more than a trade barrier dressed up as intellectual property protection.” Meanwhile, the National Milk Producers’ Federation blames the scheme, at least in part, for the U.S. agri-food trade deficit.  American opposition to the system doesn’t stop at its own trade relationship with the EU. The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office also accused the EU of pressuring trading partners to block certain imports and vowed to combat the bloc’s “aggressive promotion of its exclusionary GI policies.” DOUBLING DOWN Unfazed by the criticism, Hansen continues to tout geographical indications as vital in the EU’s ongoing trade negotiations with other countries.  The EU’s long-awaited trade accord with the Latin American Mercosur bloc is heading toward ratification and includes GI protections for both sides. Speaking in Brazil last month, Hansen went out of his way to praise his hosts for protecting canastra, a highland cheese, and cachaça, a sugarcane liquor, against imitations.  Fifty-eight of the GIs protected under the agreement are Italian, Lollobrigida told POLITICO. This protects Italy’s reputation for high-quality food, he said, and ensures “that Mercosur citizens receive top-quality products.” The EU recently concluded a deal with Indonesia which will protect more than 200 EU products, and a geographical indication agreement is actively being discussed in talks on a free-trade deal with India that both sides hope to wrap up this year. As negotiations with Australia pick up once again, the issue of GI cheeses is expected to return to the spotlight. The U.S. pushback on GIs in other countries has fallen on deaf ears, argued John Clarke, the EU’s former lead agriculture negotiator. He criticized detractors for peddling “specious arguments which bear no relationship to intellectual property rights.” American claims that some terms are universally generic are “illegitimate” and ultimately “very unsuccessful,” in Clarke’s view. “They came too late to the party,” he said, “and their arguments were not very convincing from a legal point of view.” CULTURE AND COMMERCE  The uptake of GIs in other countries demonstrates the additional value the schemes can bring for rural communities and cultural heritage, Clarke posited.  In Valle d’Aosta, the GI system “keeps people and maybe also young farmers linked to this region,” argued Cuaz, adding that young people leaving rural areas in favor of urban centers is a real problem for her region. From tournaments to find the “Queen” of the herd that are a highlight of summer weekends to the “Désarpa” parade marking the end of the season as cows return to the valley from their Alpine pastures, Fontina cheese production keeps traditions alive in the tiny region every year. The dairy industry even plays a role in making use of abandoned copper mines, where thousands of cheese wheels mature annually. Thousands of cheese wheels are matured the Valpelline warehouse, built in the tunnels of a former copper mine. | Lucia Mackenzie/POLITICO. Supporters of the GI scheme also point to the food and wine tourism opportunities it offers. Les Cretes vineyard, winery and tasting room represent one such success story.  The flavors imbued into traditional and native grape varieties by the soil of the Valle d’Aosta’s high-altitude vineyards justify its inclusion as a geographically protected product, explained Monique Salerno, who has worked for the family business for 15 years and is in charge of tastings and events. The premium price on the local wines is vital to keep the producers competitive, given that the steep vines need to be picked by hand, she added. The business expanded in 2017, building a tasting room to draw tourists to Aymavilles, the town with a population of just over 2,000 that houses much of the vineyard. TARIFF TROUBLE While American critics have, in Clarke’s view, “lost the war on terroir,” Europe’s small-time food producers are not immune to the rollercoaster of tit-for-tat tariffs that have dominated recent EU-U.S. trade negotiations.  Like the vast majority of European products heading to the U.S., cheese is subject to a 15 percent blanket tariff. In the meantime, however, organizational mishaps led to some temporary doubling of tariffs on Italian cheeses, angering major producers.  The whole saga has caused uncertainty, said Ermes Fichet, administrative manager of the Milk and Fontina Producers’ Cooperative.  The Les Cretes vineyard on the slopes surrounding Aymavilles. | Lucia Mackenzie/POLITICO The U.S. is Fontina’s largest overseas market, accounting for around 60 percent of direct exports. However, producers aren’t fearing for their livelihoods, yet, as most Fontina cheese isn’t exported at all: an estimated 95 percent of wheels are sent to distributors in Italy. Rather, the impact of U.S. trade policy is long term. The American market would in theory be able to absorb all of Fontina’s production, Fichet explains, but the sale of similar cheeses at lower prices there makes it difficult to expand market share.  According to figures released by the USDA’s statistics service, over 5.1 million kilos of “fontina” cheese was produced in Wisconsin alone in 2024. That comes out to a higher volume than the 3.1 million kilos of GI-certified Fontina originating in Valle d’Aosta annually.  And looking elsewhere isn’t an easy option for the small-time cheese makers, even if future trade agreements include GI recognition. While markets in countries like Saudi Arabia are growing, they would never close the gap left by U.S. producers if trade ties worsen, said Fichet.  Responding to the foreign detractors, he highlighted the benefits from the scheme at home. Fontina DOP “allows us to maintain the agricultural reality of certain places … it’s an extra reason to try to help those who are committed to carrying on with a product that is, let’s say, the little flower of the Valle d’Aosta.”

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

BRUSSELS — Donald Trump’s tariffs have stung both the EU and India into mounting a big push to get their long-delayed trade deal over the line — fast.   Brussels and New Delhi only have three months left to deliver on their joint pledge to seal a deal by the end of the year — with the toughest issues related to agriculture and sustainability yet to be resolved.   Despite unprecedented political will, policymakers and experts alike recognize it won’t be an easy run to the finish line.   “The negotiations remain extremely challenging,” the EU’s lead negotiator Christophe Kiener told European lawmakers last week. “It was absolutely expected that when we start negotiating on the most difficult issues, the most sensitive areas, it would not be easy.”   As crunch time approaches, with another round of talks scheduled for next week, here are five things to know:  1. There’s renewed appetite on both sides — thanks to Trump.  Spurred by Trump’s tariff crusade, which hit Indian imports with tariffs as high as 50 percent and didn’t spare the EU either — albeit with a lower rate of 15 percent on most goods — both sides are frantically hunting for alternative trade partners.  “When we knew Trump would come into office, Delhi started sending smoke signals to capitals across Europe saying: We are serious about trade and we want to make this work to hedge against the uncertainties of tariffs and the U.S.’s commerce-first approach,” said Garima Mohan, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund who leads the think tank’s work on India.  Roger that, said Brussels.   Taking her whole College of Commissioners to India a few weeks into Trump’s second mandate, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to seal a deal by the end of the year — something even they recognized would be a steep target.   “It will not be easy. But I also know that timing and determination counts, and that this partnership comes at the right moment for both of us,” von der Leyen said at the time.   The EU has been on a negotiation roll, revamping its pact with Mexico, and concluding talks with the South American bloc of Mercosur countries and with Indonesia.   2. The two have a complicated trade history.  While India is playing hard to get, it is nonetheless seeking to overcome some of its protectionist instincts, deepening ties with Japan and negotiating a deal with Australia. A deal with the EU, its second-largest trading partner, remains a key objective. But historically, their trade relationship has never been easy.   “I know from experience how difficult India can be, how difficult it is to strike the final deal on the more sensitive issues. I suspect that that’s where we are now,” said Ignacio García Bercero, the EU’s chief negotiator for India until 2013. That’s when talks went into snooze mode over thorny issues such as India’s agricultural protectionism and its generic pharmaceuticals. They were relaunched at India’s request in 2022.   Although negotiators stress things are different this time around, they can’t escape sometimes conflicting economic approaches given India’s protectionist history.   “If we look at what is left, it’s the most important stuff … those are exactly the same things that we were dealing with in 2012, 2013, when the negotiations derailed last time,” said Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki, associate researcher at the Jacques Delors Institute.  3. Ukraine isn’t making things any easier.  While Brussels is counting on India for its diversification push, it won’t find it easy to remain a credible threat to Russia while doing more business with a country that maintains historically close ties with Moscow.  An EU official, granted anonymity to discuss closed-door discussions, conceded “one of the biggest issues where [the EU and India] have differences is Ukraine.”  The world’s most populous country sent 65 troops this month to join Russia’s annual Zapad military exercise, in which the Kremlin simulated a nuclear attack on NATO countries. At a recent summit in China, Modi held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin as they approached their host, President Xi Jinping.  At a recent summit in China, Narendra Modi held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin as they approached their host, President Xi Jinping. | Pool photo by Suo Takekuma via AFP/Getty Images Trump, meanwhile, is calling on the EU to hit New Delhi with tariffs as high as 100 percent for enabling Russia’s war in Ukraine.   “It’s not all joyous music and singing and dancing. There is an acknowledgement that we need to do more to bridge gaps where they are,” the official said, referring to a communication on India the EU executive put out in mid-September.  Ultimately, by engaging with India, the intention is to ensure the gap left by the U.S. isn’t filled by other, politically hostile, powers.  For India, giving up its ties to Russia is a no-go, as that would constitute a major concession to China, India’s long-standing Asian rival.   “The Russia-China factor is a huge concern for India,” said Mohan.  4. There’s a bunch of tricky technical bits.   Aside from the geopolitics, divergences are also creeping up in a host of nitty-gritty areas.   For one, there are long-standing disagreements on cars and car parts, wines and spirits, and other agricultural products. Earlier this year, the two sides agreed to set aside particularly sensitive agricultural sectors, such as dairy and sugar, to facilitate the talks.   On top of that come other issues related to agriculture, such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The EU also takes issue with the Indian Quality Control Orders, which prescribe that certain products must conform to Indian standards before being sold there.  Sustainability provisions and the EU’s green agenda are also complicating the negotiations.   “India had been clear from the outset that it did not particularly like the way the European Union wants to link sustainability-related issues and trade, but they’ve obviously accepted that we will need to have a chapter on this,” said Kiener, the EU negotiator.   However, New Delhi still takes issue with making the Trade and Sustainable Development chapter binding and enforceable through a dispute settlement mechanism. It has also threatened to retaliate against the EU’s carbon border tax, as POLITICO reported earlier this year. “The carbon border adjustment mechanism that the EU has visualized does not meet the test of fair play,” Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said then.   If that wasn’t enough, a historical issue has also cropped up in the talks: An India-Pakistan dispute over the two countries’ rival claims to basmati rice. New Delhi is pressuring the EU to designate the grain Indian — but if Brussels does so, it risks a rift with Pakistan.  In short, sealing the agreement will likely entail a trade-off between the political benefits of a fast deal against the economic gains of a potentially more comprehensive agreement.   5. They are a temperature check of the EU’s trade priorities.   Ultimately, the deal will be a test of just how much of its (green) trade ambitions the EU is willing to sacrifice on the altar of geopolitics.   Considering Trump’s attempts to upend or at least significantly harm the rules-based trade order, calls have been growing for the EU to be more pragmatic and aim for quicker and less comprehensive deals.   But not everyone agrees that will ultimately be beneficial in the long-term.   “We hope that the result of the trade negotiations will be a commercially meaningful agreement,” Angelika Niebler of the European People’s Party, chair of the European Parliament’s delegation for relations with India, said in Parliament’s trade committee last week.   The India deal will also reveal just how important the bloc deems its aim to advance the bloc’s environmental agenda through trade deals.   “Clearly, India has [a] different geopolitical alignment, and they have always been somewhat closer to the Russia operation,” said García Bercero, the former EU negotiator who now works for the Bruegel think tank.   “But at the end of the day, I don’t think that this would need to be an obstacle to concluding an agreement.”