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.” 

LONDON — The U.K.’s trade deal with Donald Trump was touted as a post-Brexit win. Months later, as America’s global tariff regime starts to take shape, Brits aren’t feeling quite so lucky — and some are downright cheesed off.   Under the Economic Prosperity Deal agreed with the U.S. in May, most British goods exported to America are subject to 10 percent “reciprocal” tariffs. This is in addition to existing tariffs — known to traders as most-favored nation (MFN) rates.  By contrast, the EU struck a deal with Trump in July that would see goods from the bloc hit with an all-inclusive 15 percent tariff — except where the existing MFN rate is higher. That means many U.K. products with an MFN rate above 5 percent will now be hit by higher tariffs than competing EU products — and cheese in the firing line. “Overall, U.K. goods will get somewhat better [treatment] than European Union products,” explained Ed Gresser, director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former policy adviser to the United States Trade Representative. “This also appears to be the case for the very top U.K. exports to the U.S. cars, medicines, oil — which bring in the most money, and for wines and liquors.” The U.K.’s trade deal with Donald Trump was touted as a post-Brexit win. | EPA/FRANCIS CHUNG / / POOL “However, there will also be many specific cases in which EU goods get better treatment than British goods,” Gresser added. “These include some probably emotive and visible ones, such as cheddar and Stilton cheese, and Shetland wool sweaters.” Under the current U.S. tariff regime, British cheddar exported to the U.S. would be hit by overall tariffs of between 20 and 26 percent — depending on the packaging and processing — while the EU would get tariffs of between 15 and 16 percent. IRISH COMPETITION The discrepancy has not gone unnoticed by British cheesemakers, who fear they could now be undercut by their European rivals.  “Overall, U.K. dairy — and cheesemakers in particular — have been presented with a worse deal than their EU competitors as a result of the U.S.-U.K. agreement,” said Rod Addy, director general of the Provision Trade Federation, which represents British cheesemakers. The difference between U.K. and EU tariff rates “suggests EU exporters, particularly [in] Ireland, may benefit relative to the U.K.,” he added. “Given that cheddar accounts for roughly three quarters of all U.K. dairy exports, that is highly significant.” The U.K. exported 9,855 metric tons of cheese and curd products in 2024 worth over £75 million, data from the Britain’s Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board shows. According to the latest data available for 2025, the U.K. exported around 4,365 metric tons between January and June worth over £36 million. Coombe Castle International, a major exporter of cheese to the U.S., is among the British cheese businesses feeling the strain. Currently, the U.S. market makes up around a third of its business. But they now fear tariffs could reduce demand for their cheeses, amid increased competition from the EU. “It does look like we are now disadvantaged compared to Europe, and that’s certainly going to hurt us when it comes to cheddar and butter, where we’ve got direct competition in the EU,” said Darren Larvin, Coombe Castle International’s managing director. “Tariffs have come at the wrong time. We have a relatively high milk price, a weak dollar and prices are high with the cost of living. All of those put together mean it’s quite tough at the moment. So we could really do without having any further costs.” Larvin said that like “most people” in the industry, Coombe Castle have “had to pass all of that on to the consumer in the U.S. … We’re just not in a position to share any of that [extra cost]. We’ll see how that goes through the chain and what effect that has on demand.” Shortly after the EU’s deal with the U.S. was announced, Larvin contacted the Department for Business and Trade to ask them how they planned to protect U.K. dairy exports to the U.S.  Their response left him nonplussed. In response, an official said only that negotiations to reduce the 10 percent tariff rate were continuing, making comparisons “difficult.” GOVERNMENT ‘MORE CONCERNED WITH LAND ROVERS’ British Stilton makers have also been left disappointed by the U.K.-U.S. deal, with the cheese now facing duties of between 22 and 27 percent, depending on the type of Stilton. “Effectively, it’s another 10 percent on the cost of the product which is very unhelpful for everyone,” said Robin Skailes, managing director of the family-run Stilton maker Cropwell Bishop Creamery, which exports around £2.5 million of cheese to the U.S. each year. “I can understand why the U.S. government are doing it. But what I don’t like necessarily is how our government advertises that as a success and a deal. It’s not a deal because we’re actually worse off than they are in Europe. “What our government should have done is factored in some of the existing tariffs that are already there. … But they may not have even known that. I mean, why would they bother with Stilton? They are more concerned with Land Rovers, that was the big thing. Food is never at the top of their agenda.” It’s too early to tell whether tariffs will reduce demand for British cheese in the U.S. | Til Buergy/EPA As a result of the additional tariffs, Skailes said the firm would take a “massive hit” to their margins and has already had to pass on some of the extra cost to the consumer. “We can share some of the pain, but there’s not a huge amount of margin in food. We’re not selling iPhones — we don’t make trillions of dollars.” For now, it’s too early to tell whether tariffs will reduce demand for British cheese in the U.S. but Coombe Castle’s Larvin is not optimistic. “It will certainly make us less competitive — and we’re certainly less competitive compared to Europe now.”   A spokesperson for the U.K.’s Department for Business and Trade said: “The U.K.’s landmark trade deal is the result of a pragmatic approach to working with the US. We will continue to work with the US to get this deal implemented as soon as possible to give industry the security they need, protect vital jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets through the Plan for Change.”

LONDON — Britain is sleepwalking through its biggest food safety crisis since the horsemeat scandal of 2013, a group of influential MPs warned as they dismissed a recent personal import ban on EU meat and cheese as “toothless.” The government moved in April to prohibit travelers from EU countries from bringing meat and dairy products into the U.K. following an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease across the continent. However, as reported by POLITICO, the ban has not been fully enforced, with experts warning that U.K. health officials lack the funds to uphold the rules. In a damning report on Monday, the parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee warned that “alarming amounts” of meat and dairy products were still being illegally imported for both personal consumption and sale. The committee welcomed the government’s ban on personal imports of meat and dairy from the EU but described it as “toothless,” with prohibited products continuing to enter the U.K. through airports, seaports and the Eurotunnel in freight, parcels, personal baggage and passenger vehicles. “It would not be an exaggeration to say that Britain is sleepwalking through its biggest food safety crisis since the horse meat scandal,” committee chair Alistair Carmichael said. “A still bigger concern is the very real risk of a major animal disease outbreak. The single case of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany this year, most likely caused by illegally imported meat, cost its economy one billion euros.” He urged the government to “get a grip on what has become a crisis” by establishing a national taskforce, boosting food crime intelligence networks, enforcing “real deterrents,” and giving port health and local authorities the resources and powers they need.   During the committee’s nine-month inquiry into animal and plant health, experts painted a gruesome picture of the situation at the border, describing cases of meat arriving in unsanitary conditions, often in the back of vans, stashed in plastic bags, suitcases and cardboard boxes. At the Port of Dover alone, port health officials say they intercepted 70 tons of illegal meat imports from vehicles between January and the end of April, compared with 24 tons during the same period in 2024. During a Public Accounts Committee session on animal disease last week, Emma Miles, director general for food, biosecurity and trade at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it was unclear whether the increase in the number of seizures of illegal meat at Dover was due to a rise in crime or to better surveillance. “When you’re catching people it might just mean you are doing better surveillance and enforcement,” she said.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Thursday proposed new legislation to eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, a move that should unlock a reduction in Washington’s own tariffs on European autos. Putting forward the legislation is a precondition for President Donald Trump’s administration to drop tariffs on European cars to 15 percent from the current 27.5 percent. Under the terms of the transatlantic trade deal unveiled a week ago, the U.S. would in turn backdate the reduction in its auto tariffs to Aug. 1. “The first act concerns a proposal to eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and provide preferential market access for a range of US seafood and non-sensitive agricultural goods,” the European Commission said in a press release. “The second one proposes to prolong the tariff-free treatment of lobster, now including processed lobster.” The agreement, EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said last week, was good news for the bloc’s auto industry, which has been “bleeding a lot of cash” in recent months. “This will save car makers more than €500 million in duties that would have otherwise been paid for exports in one month only,” Brussels added in its statement. The handshake trade deal reached between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland at the end of July would set a baseline U.S. tariff on European exports of 15 percent. The EU would meanwhile scrap industrial tariffs — including the 10 percent it currently levies on autos made in the United States. Brussels has also committed to open its market wider for a basket of U.S. farm exports. The next key question is whether the United States will indeed make good on its side of the bargain. Trump cast the fragile transatlantic trade truce into doubt earlier this week when he threatened new tariffs on countries who apply digital policies that he deems discriminatory.  A senior Commission official was confident this would go through.  “There should not be any doubt: their tariffs on cars and car parts should go down. That is the U.S. part of the bargain,” the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told a briefing.  LOBSTER IN, BEEF OUT Commission officials underlined that no “sensitive” farm goods were included, stressing that U.S. beef and poultry remain explicitly excluded from the concessions. These products are politically explosive in Europe, where stricter hormone and hygiene rules have long limited American imports. Instead, Brussels offered tariff-rate quotas on a limited list of U.S. agrifood exports such as dairy, pork, nuts, seafood and even bison meat. It also kept all U.S. lobster imports tariff-free, a politically potent win in Washington, landing as Maine’s lobster season is in full swing. One official described the concessions as “meaningful, but not very costly” for the EU. That offers little relief for European farm lobbies which were already critical of the outline of the deal last week. Groups like Copa-Cogeca and Farm Europe argue that European agriculture “footed the bill” for the handshake deal. It won no reciprocal gains, they said, while still facing a 15 percent tariff ceiling on most exports to the U.S., including products that previously traded tariff-free, like wine and spirits. Farm groups say rural interests were effectively sidelined while Europe’s carmakers walked away with the prize. EU HURDLES Proposing the tariff legislation is only a first step, as the Commission will still need the assent of at least 15 of the EU’s 27 member countries and a simple majority in the European Parliament for it to take effect.  Since the Commission negotiated the trade deal with the political blessing of member countries, the Council of the EU that represents them shouldn’t present a major hurdle. The European Parliament could be a different proposition, however, with Bernd Lange, the chair of its international trade committee, telling POLITICO on Wednesday “there are disagreements about what the exact reduction in numbers should look like, particularly in the agricultural sector.” Another issue, he added, was how the deal would be implemented and for how long. European lawmakers will reconvene next week in Strasbourg for the first time after the summer recess. Sabine Weyand, the top official at the Commission’s trade department, will testify before the trade committee on Wednesday. “We have a parliament with a very divided configuration, and ‘reason’ may not always be the first characteristic,” said Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, a French lawmaker from the Renew group. That said, Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party that has the largest caucus, has said his conservatives would stand by the deal struck by von der Leyen, describing it as “painful but right.” This story has been updated.

OTTAWA — Canada is delaying its plans to slap retaliatory tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum after President Donald Trump sent a letter extending the deadline for trade negotiations between the two North American neighbors — though he also threatened to impose higher tariffs. Mark Carney’s government was preparing to double its countertariffs on U.S. metals on July 21 — to 50 percent from 25 — but Trump’s letter has moved the prime minister off that target. Two senior government officials told POLITICO that Canada will not further retaliate against U.S. steel and aluminum on July 21, the previous deadline for the talks, after the two sides agreed to extend their negotiation deadline around a new economic and security deal to Aug. 1. Canada’s current 25 percent countertariff on U.S. steel and aluminum will remain in place during the negotiations. But if a deal is not reached by the new deadline, both sides are threatening to raise and expand their duties on the other’s goods. In a letter addressed to Carney on Thursday, Trump wrote that Canadian goods imported into the U.S. could face a blanket 35 percent tariff starting next month. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations, said the administration plans to impose the tariff only on goods that do not comply with the 2020 USMCA, though the ultimate details will be up to Trump to decide. Trump doubled tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports entering the U.S. to 50 percent in June, but Ottawa has yet to match the move — despite pressure from the steel industry, labor unions and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. “Everything is pushed back to Aug. 1,” said one official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Trump and Carney didn’t speak Thursday, the prime minister’s office said, but high-ranking officials from both sides met that day, before Trump posted the letter. Unlike other countries, Canadian officials did not appear rattled by the letter. The prime minister remained on vacation in the Ottawa region. “On we go!” a Canadian diplomat, who was granted anonymity, told POLITICO. Speaking to reporters Friday, Trump noted his trade letter to Carney “was sent yesterday. They called. I think it was fairly well-received. So, we’ll see what happens.” This is the second time the deadline for the U.S.-Canada talks has moved. The leaders agreed to a July 16 deadline during the G7 Leaders’ Summit but later moved that to July 21. Carney said Canada will work toward the revised deadline. “Throughout the current trade negotiations with the United States, the Canadian government has steadfastly defended our workers and businesses,” Carney said on X. Carney will meet with his Cabinet on Tuesday to discuss the negotiations, and on July 22 he will meet with Canada’s premiers. “In the face of President Trump’s latest threat, we need to come together. We need a plan on how Canada will respond and how we’ll protect our workers, businesses and communities,” Ford said on the social media site X. Trump justified the latest threat to increase tariffs by pointing to fentanyl trafficking — even though America’s own data shows that less than 0.1 percent of fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities was at the Canada-U.S. border. He also railed against Canada’s tariffs on U.S. dairy — which are levied only if U.S. dairy exports exceed a predetermined quota. “Frustratingly, the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding” the quotas, the International Dairy Foods Association said in March. British Columbia Premier David Eby called Trump’s letter “flailing and factually incorrect.” “Other F words come to mind,” Eby said on X. “Just one more reminder of why Canadians need to come together, to grow our economy and stand strong.” Ari Hawkins contributed to this report from Washington.

CARDIFF, Wales — At the edge of a sprawling wheat field on the outskirts of Cardiff, arable farmer Richard Anthony sticks a shovel in the ground and offers up a fistful of soil for a sniff.  “The first thing [I do when] I walk into a field: I catch a handful of soil,” he says. “[The] first thing I do is smell it, to see if it smells healthy.” His mind is on climate change. The clump in his palm is indeed healthy — but it’s dry. It comes at the tail end of an unusually hot spring. Anthony and his wife, Lyn, are planting crops in increasingly short “weather windows,” dodging the wet days of the previous fall. “It does worry me,” he told POLITICO, acres of wheat plants swaying behind him. “But we, as farmers, have always had to adapt. And we’re having to adapt to climate change.” Farmers like the Anthonys are looking for guidance from the Senedd — the Labour-led devolved Welsh parliament down the road in Cardiff Bay. “Farming is seen as the biggest problem with climate change, and we’re not. We’re the only industry that can actually do something about it,” Anthony said. But Welsh ministers’ key environmental plans are in disarray, delayed for over a year after farmers angrily rejected proposals they say would hit jobs and livelihoods. Annoying farmers is bad news for Labour in Wales, a country where 90 percent of land is given over to agriculture. And it has consequences in Westminster, too, for a U.K. government that can’t afford another political bloody nose. Welsh national elections next May will be a crucial mid-term litmus test for the appeal of Keir Starmer’s embattled Labour. The 2026 Senedd vote is seen by party leaders in London “as a staging post between now and [the general election in] 2029,” said one Welsh union boss in February. Labour is going backward in Wales.  Welsh polls published Tuesday show Labour, in charge at the Senedd since 1999, dropping to third place, losing support to both populists Reform UK and nationalists Plaid Cymru. The party is being punished, experts say, for its own perceived inertia and a far too cozy relationship with Westminster. “The Welsh government are in a very difficult situation, in that both they are unpopular as incumbents and they’re also paying a price for the unpopularity of the U.K. Labour government,” said Jac Larner, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University. “So at the moment there is a general resistance, I think, to taking any tough decisions.”  THE CLIMATE MOMENT Faltering climate policy contributes to the sense that Welsh ministers are “losing perceptions of competence,” Larner argued. The challenge is substantial. Within the next decade, agriculture could become Wales’ largest source of emissions. To hit a U.K.-wide target of net zero by 2050, most emissions cuts will have to come from high-polluting sectors like farming. The Welsh government’s solution is the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) — a program designed to help farmers adopt low-carbon activities like planting more trees. The thinking is that with the offer of cash, farmers will dedicate more of their land to mopping up planet-wrecking emissions, making the most of its natural potential to sequester carbon and store it deep in the soil. Wales should reap the benefits of these “natural carbon sinks,” says the U.K.’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee.  But ministers paused the SFS roll-out after initial plans, published in December 2023, provoked protests and a backlash over a draft 10 percent tree-planting target, which farmers said would cost thousands of agricultural jobs. The Welsh government says details will now be finalized this summer, with the scheme up and running in 2026. With 90 percent of its land used for farming, Wales is seeing instability over climate and agriculture policy. | Abby Wallace/POLITICO “I think we’ve come from such a bad place, it’s going to be quite hard to lift it back up,” said Abi Reader, a dairy farmer and deputy president of the National Farmers Union Cymru.  Behind Reader, on her farm in the Cardiff town of Wenvoe, a large shed groans as rows of cattle diligently shuffle into the parlour, waiting to be hooked up to clinking machines for milking. “It’s difficult to say whether we should be signing up to it [the SFS] or not, because we’ve got no details of any of the costings,” Reader said.  “We’re all business people at the end of the day and, you know, we’ve all already done our budgets for next year. And there’s nothing to go to a bank manager with and say: ‘I want to borrow this, or can you support me for that?’” ‘BANG, BANG, KICK A MAN’ The SFS has caused unrest on another politically sensitive topic: livestock. A Welsh government estimate suggested the scheme could reduce livestock numbers by as much as 120,000. If ministers in Cardiff follow separate CCC advice published in May — on how to hit climate goals by 2033 — cattle and sheep numbers in Wales need to fall by nearly a fifth. Some of this will come from wider trends toward lower meat and dairy consumption — but it will also be driven by policies like the SFS, which incentivize farmers to rely less on livestock. The Welsh government must “engage with farmers and their communities, and support them to diversify their incomes,” the CCC said. This advice has spooked farmers, who see a threat to years of family-owned businesses. “Would that mean I’d have to move away from here?” asked third-generation beef farmer Tom Rees in his kitchen in Cowbridge, gesturing to the fields beyond the window where his father and grandfather also farmed. His farm slopes downhill toward a patch of land that often floods when a neighboring river overflows. It’s sliced up into rectangular fields by colorful hedgerows that act as corridors for local wildlife and as shelter for his cows on sunny days — but planting hedges isn’t how Rees wants to earn a living. “I went to college to study agriculture, to come on the farm because I wanted to produce food,” he said. “I don’t want to plant a woodland.” Rees hopes to pass the farm on to his 15-month-old son Henry — but is worried about uncertainty over the SFS, as well as issues around bovine tuberculosis and inheritance tax changes. He said: “Dad’s left the farm in a better place than when he took it on. We want to take it on a bit further, so we could leave it for Henry. … [But] with the government in Westminster and the government in the Senedd — you just really feel, Why are we bothering? “It’s bang, bang, kick a man while you’re down. That’s what it feels like, and that’s what a lot of farmers feel like in Wales.” The Welsh government refused to comment on the SFS, confirming only that details will be published this month. A spokesperson said the government is “reviewing” the CCC’s advice, which will inform decisions on a new climate goal for Wales before the end of the year. “We’re trying to take forward a future for agriculture in Wales, which is to do with thriving, living businesses and communities within Wales,” Huw Irranca-Davies, Wales’ cabinet secretary for climate change and rural affairs, told POLITICO in an interview last year. ANNOYING VOTERS Labour’s support has traditionally been low in rural Wales, where votes flow instead to the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru. But the mess over agricultural policies is deepening Labour’s woes, argued Cardiff University’s Larner. “By annoying these people, you kind of block off the possibility that any of these people at all will vote Labour,” he said, “So it’s just a kind of narrowing of the vote pool in which you can fish for extra voters come other elections.” Meantime, Plaid Cymru and Reform are making their pitches to rural voters. “You have to take the farmers with you on this journey. And that’s one lesson, I think, that the Welsh government has learned the hard way,” said Llyr Gruffydd, Senedd member for North Wales and Plaid’s agriculture and rural affairs spokesperson. Plaid will “reassess” the SFS when more details are published, Gruffydd said. His party is not about to announce plans to “plow a different furrow,” he said, but he didn’t rule out ditching the unpopular scheme either. When Plaid sees the plans, Gruffydd argued, it can decide “whether this is something that we can pursue, whether we feel we need to amend it — or, God forbid, whether we have to say, let’s get back to the drawing board.” Nigel Farage’s Reform, riding high in the polls and fresh from smashing Labour in local elections in May, wants to scrap net-zero targets altogether. “Farmers want lower costs to stay afloat. Net stupid zero adds costs for no benefit,” said Deputy Leader Richard Tice. Reform is set to benefit, too, from anger over the fate of Welsh steelmaking. Thousands of job losses loom at the Port Talbot plant as it shifts to a lower-emitting electric arc furnace, a political gift to Farage when he argues that climate-friendly policies wreck traditional industries. “That’s the one big example we’ve seen of net-zero related policy, and is one of loss of jobs with not very much put in place to support workers to do anything different,” said Joe Rossiter, co-director at the Institute of Welsh Affairs. “When it all shakes out, I do think the fight will be Labour vs. Reform for the top spot,” said one Labour insider who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The U.K. government “has been completely focused on making sure the transition to green steelmaking is as good as it can be.” Asked about the example of Port Talbot, Reader, the dairy farmer, was nervous about the precedent it set for other climate policies. “If they damage Welsh agriculture in the same way [as steel], I think that’s really letting down Wales,” she said.  ALL IN IT TOGETHER The Welsh government’s other big problem? It has cuddled up so tightly to Westminster that Labour’s performance in Cardiff will rebound in London and vice-versa. “There’s no ‘other’ for them to blame, because they’ve tied themselves very closely, rhetorically as well, to the U.K. government,” Larner said. Some Welsh Labour MPs defend the U.K. government’s record. “If you look at the amount of money that the Labour Party is investing in the agricultural sector, that shows a huge commitment to the industry,” said Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Pembrokeshire. After months spent arguing the benefits of having Labour governments in both Cardiff and London, Senedd First Minister Eluned Morgan in May pivoted to emphasize the divide between them. Expect more attempts to put “clear red water” between the two camps, Larner said. Yet when Starmer addressed the Welsh Labour conference in north Wales last month, the old closeness was back. “Next year it’s a clear choice. Two Labour governments working together for the people of Wales … or risk rolling back all the progress we are making,” the prime minister said. As Starmer spoke, a clutch of farmers protested outside. ‘Starmer: farmer harmer,’ read one placard. Voters will say soon enough what they make of that bond between Labour in Wales and Westminster.