[iagooar]

This is a bad deal for many European countries that still have a strong farming industry, and for Europeans in general too.

Once again, Germany has pushed through its interests at the expense of other European nations like Poland. This time even France was against it.

What is Germany going to get? A new market for their decaying automobile industry.

What is the rest of Europe going to get? Cheap, low quality food shipped thousands of kilometers. Food produced with lower standards than food produced in the EU - so farmers in Europe now have to face unfair competition.

[dtech]

This is an incredibly mid take.

This is a boon for any European manufacturing and tech company. Not "just" German car manufacturers but especially machining and pharmaceutical companies.

Farming is already incredibly subsidized in the EU, and has an outsized political capital for their importance based on historical momentum. This is also primarily bad for the beef industry, which is produced in the EU using very intensive and polluting (ammonia) methods which are also bad for animal welfare. They deserve no sympathy.

[iagooar]

> Farming is already incredibly subsidized in the EU

As it should be if we don't want to wake up one fine day in the middle of a global war with no food supply because of a naval blockade and have our children starve to death.

[enaaem]

Mercusor nations only get lower tariffs up to a certain amount. For meat that's roughly 1.5% of EU production. That is no threat to Europe's strategic capacity.

[Tade0]

That would happen anyway as the EU is a net importer of fertilizer.

Fortunately there's around 800kg per capita worth of food storage in the EU, so should a war break out we're not all immediately dead - just vegetarian after a period of slaughtering all the livestock that can't be fed.

[petre]

We can always eat bugs that the EU authorized for human consumption. I would at least. Cricket farms are more sustainable than cattle or pig farming. I like to think of them as grass shrimp.

[ivan_gammel]

This kind of incentive should not block trade. If we need sufficient production capacity for security reasons, it’s ok to subsidize it, but the product should still compete on the market and surplus can always be donated to UN. There’s enough starving people on this planet.

[oulipo2]

Right now the current system is totally inefficient, with a lot of food waste, and a lot of ruined landscapes and soil because of pollution and intrants

We need on the contrary to produce less globally, but more organically, and to reduce waste and produce locally

[ivan_gammel]

It may be inefficient, but protectionism is never a solution and we are not yet in a state where food is abundant and accessible to everyone.

[oulipo2]

On the contrary, it's quite apparent today that globalization and free borders have largely failed the people, and that some amount of protectionism should be put back in place

[jltsiren]

If you want to use national security as a justification for subsidies, you need to be careful with what you are subsidizing. Only essential things should be subsidized. Non-essential things can be left to the market, or at least their subsidies require other justifications.

From a national security perspective, it is essential to provide basic nutrition to people when international trade is disrupted. Having access to food people enjoy eating is not essential. The viability of existing agricultural businesses is not essential. The preservation of cultural traditions related to food and agriculture is not essential. And so on.

It's also important to consider where the subsidies should be directed. Here in Finland, the explicit justification for agricultural subsidies has always been the assumption that food produced in "European countries that still have a strong farming industry" might not be available during a crisis.

[toyg]

Most of Europe has long reached a population density that makes it effectively impossible to achieve self-sufficiency, so this argument is pointless.

This is going to be a good agreement if it is policed well enough that Mercosur countries are effectively forced to raise their food-production standards (because accepting imports doesn't automatically mean they can ignore regulations on suitability). Europe gets cheaper basic staples and sells LATAM more services and value-added products.

I'd rather help our Latin "cousins" get out of poverty, than having to deal with the insanity of US culture wars.

[mantas]

Shipping food across the globe works great along with green deal. Such food quality is also questionable in many ways because transportability must be #1 priority.

As another commenter pointed out, beef is especially interesting. On one hand EU cries about greenhouse gas and how we should eat less meat. On the other hand goes to reduce price and increase production of beef which such moves. Pure hypocrisy.

I wonder if someone will double down on checking how Brazil is protecting its rains forests? Or will it just look the other way while Europeans eat cheap food that was grown in what was rain forest very recently?

[toyg]

If anything, deepening economic relationships will strengthen European influence over complex issues.

As for transport - enough of this stuff is already transported across the ocean (from LATAM but also South Africa, for example) that I doubt there will be much of a change.

[mantas]

Yeah, right. We currently see how that worked out with Russia. It turns out EU had little influence, but influence the other way was much stronger.

[CorrectHorseBat]

>Most of Europe has long reached a population density that makes it effectively impossible to achieve self-sufficiency, so this argument is pointless.

Current population density isn't an issue at all, but energy is.

[Saline9515]

The eu is a net exporter of agricultural products, what you are saying is plainly false.

The problem is rather the inputs, mainly from mineral sources, used for the production and imported from countries such as Morocco or Russia (before the war). Mercosur doesn't solve any of those problems, and will decrease the EU food autonomy as farms will disappear due to the LATAM dumping.

[dtech]

Meat is incredibly bad for food security. If this scenario happens we will have to stop nearly all meat production and become forcibly vegetarian, like some countries did in WW2.

[N19PEDL2]

Who could possibly impose a naval blockade on the EU? Not even the US Navy would be able to do so.

[iagooar]

You only need to control 2-3 chokepoints to hugely impact shipment - especially of perishables. The Panama Canal + Caribean + Gibraltar and you get no food in Europe.

[Saline9515]

Most beef in the EU is a byproduct of the dairy industry. Beef meat comes from culled dairy cows, and a lot of production is done on land that isn't suitable for other uses (mountains, for instance). The EU has also the highest norms in the world regarding food production, and they are tightly enforced, unlike LATAM where a lot of cattle is grazed on deforested land with no regulation regarding chemicals.

What you are saying is very misleading if not plain false.

[mytailorisrich]

Restricting the analysis purely to economics is a big mistake, imho, like it was during the Brexit referendum in the UK.

Even in France agriculture is a very small percentage of the GDP and jobs. But what has happened is a demonstration of the loss of sovereignty with the EU effectively imposing something against the wish of the country. So the significance is political, and we'll see if that has tangible political effects or not.

[oulipo2]

In a time where:

- there are climate change issues

- there are many issues with pollution getting in the food chain

- we need to be more autonomous, and less depending on other nations, because of idiots like Trump

I think on the contrary we should defend our local agriculture, when it is respectful of nature

[lm28469]

Amazing, we sell them our gadgets and in return we get growth hormone beef and other agricultural products which don't even meet 1980s EU regulations, big win indeed

God forbid we subsidize food too, it's only like the #1 priority when it comes to sovereignty after all, we should definitely not produce locally and rely on foreign countries for our food autonomy

[bboozzoo]

How come folks seem to focus on beef, while IMO the real stakes are in obtaining access to important minerals. Lithium, nickel, copper, graphite, niobium, etc. are often listed. There's a nice breakdown on EC pages:

https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-cou...

[lm28469]

Why do we focus on the shit part of the deal? Do I need to explain that really?

[surgical_fire]

Because that part of the deal is not shitty.

You are just fearmongering based on lies. "Hormone raised cattle", and shit like that.

South America likely has the best beef in the world (I can speak from experience having lived on both sides of the pond). Good that I might have access to real meat here for once.

[lm28469]

> South America likely has the best beef in the world

lol

> Good that I might have access to real meat here for once.

lmao

It's one of the most corrupt part of the world and they 100% definitely use antibiotics and hormones banned in europe for safety reasons

[bboozzoo]

The shit part is what easily stris emotions and can be played by various actors and their agendas.

[lm28469]

Yes of course, and the energy or minerals lobbies don't have any kind of agendas of course. They're obviously working for your well being and not serving their interests

Also, one of the most corrupt country in the world will obviously play by the rules

[lukan]

As far as I know, there is a limitation to how much food is shipped and tied to a percentage of EU farming. So no, the european market will not be flooded.

[0dayz]

No need to add racism to the argument.

This exact thing is was said about Poland when they joined the EU, the truth was that French/Spanish/German farmers didn't want to give up non specialized farming, and the same argument has been made and was a primary reason why Ukraine is not in the EU.

Plus it's odd that specifically this deal is so bad, but deals with importing Asian grown food via trade deal is fine.

[mytailorisrich]

Wait and see how it goes. This deal might have real political consequences countries opposed to it, especially in France because of the opposition to the deal and by demonstrating that the country no longer has control: so this is a vindication for eurosceptic parties and embarrassing for the most pro-EU ones. This may just be short-term anger, and the whole establishment will push for it to be forgotten asap as the Presidential elections are in just a bit more than a year away.

[kledru]

Isn't it geopolitics over economics, future-building when preexisting relationships are increasingly unreliable?

"paying a premium to have options in multiple possible futures"

[dlisboa]

From a pragmatic perspective it’s just common sense. Europe cannot produce food at prices its population expects. It has no cattle herd to speak of yet consumes lots of beef. It wants for multiple commodities which don’t grow there. And as time goes on there’ll be less and less food production in Europe.

And the idea that food products from SA are low quality is a very old and uninformed take. For better or worse SA has invested heavily in technology in the agricultural sector. Researches from Europe go to Brazil to learn about cattle genetic improvement and farming, not the other way around.

Most of the EU economy comes from services and manufacturing. They’re ensuring a market for that larger base. Angering the small percentage of farmers to ensure food supply and manufacturing survival is the trade off.

[mantas]

The prices partially were affected by green deal stuff and other home-grown regulations. Maybe regulations should be lowered instead of letting in cheaper produce from locations where such regulations don’t apply?

[surgical_fire]

Funny, I think this deal was better for the EU than for Mercosur. Still a net positive for both sides though.

That European farmers are crying over wanting more protectionism is nothing new.

The quotas for food imports to EU are dismal, and the food needs to adhere to EU standards anyway. But even that is being cried about as "unfair competition".

[raverbashing]

Farmers like to complain and always get new privileges with every protest

I for once are happy they are getting a reality check for once

[iagooar]

I hope you won't get a reality check if one day there is a famine in Europe caused by outsourcing the entire farming to other continents. The very first thing any enemy force would do is a naval blockade, the rest is patience and lots of deaths.

[bildung]

Farming already is heavily subsidized in every EU country. The whole sector only exists as is precisely because of the fears you point out. And that is perfectly fine, because statistically speaking it already is a rounding error both in share of employment and share of GDP (1.2% of EU GDP), only kept alive for the exact purpose you talk about.

So even if these lobby talking points would be true, and everything had to be 100% subsidized, that wouldn't be a problem.

[surgical_fire]

Buddy, we are talking about a quota that is less than 2% of the beef produced in EU.

If having 1% of beef imported causes a famine, then the farming in Europe is actually pretty awful.

[throw789]

Is it fair for Europe to colonize north america, Australia, canada, New Zealand and dumping what's produced there on other countries?

[AdrianB1]

Is it fair to put an entire continent in a position where it does not belong? If I recall correctly Australia and New Zealand were mostly colonized by the British Empire, not by "Europe", Canada by UK and France, US by Western Europe, etc. Europe is a continent, not a country, and Europe did not colonize anything, some countries did.

[iagooar]

Europe did not colonize the world - some European countries did. I come from Poland, a country that never colonized another country, so I do not need that moral lecturing.

It is not even a matter of fairness, but of defending one owns interests.