Agriculture

The United States Supreme Court has sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The ruling on Thursday was tied to a case that came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, a Germany-based company that acquired Roundup when it bought its original producer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for US President Donald Trump’s administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company cannot face failure-to-warn lawsuits in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The justices overturned a jury verdict in Missouri awarding $1.25m to a man named John Durnell who said he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate in Roundup. The Supreme Court agreed with Bayer that a US law that governs pesticides precludes failure-to-warn claims that are brought under state law from moving forward in court.

Bayer shares jumped nearly 18 percent following the ruling.

Trump’s administration had backed Bayer in the case.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the ruling, said the US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and has not required a cancer warning on Roundup.

The law preempts Durnell’s claim because it “would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label even though federal law requires Monsanto to use the EPA-approved label without a cancer warning”, Kavanaugh wrote.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said that Durnell’s claim would impose equivalent labelling requirements on Monsanto that the federal law requires and so should not be preempted.

Jackson called the ruling “remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell”.

Bayer acquired Roundup as part of its $63bn purchase of agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018. More than 100,000 plaintiffs have filed cases in US state and federal courts alleging a cancer link, and the German drugmaking and crop science company had said that the lawsuits could threaten its ability to supply the herbicide to farmers.

The torrent of litigation already prompted Bayer to remove glyphosate from its consumer version of Roundup. Bayer said before the Supreme Court ruled that a decision in its favour could largely end the Roundup litigation.

“The US Supreme Court decision is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation. It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles. The ruling should result in the dismissal of current warning-based claims and bar future failure-to-warn claims,” Bayer spokesperson Tino Andresen said in a statement.

The company emphasised throughout the litigation that the EPA repeatedly found that glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved its product labels without a warning.

Facing billions of dollars in potential liability, Bayer announced in February a proposed $7.25bn settlement to resolve tens of thousands of current and future lawsuits. The settlement would not affect claims that stem from pending appeals or that fall outside the deal, according to the company. Those amount to nearly $1bn, it said.

‘Disaster for public health’

Environmental activists and others criticised the court’s ruling on Thursday.

“Once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment. Today’s ruling is a disaster for public health,” said Tarah Heinzen, legal director at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch.

“The harm from this decision will perpetuate our cancer, infertility and general chronic disease epidemic for generations to come,” said Kelly Ryerson, co-executive director of advocacy group American Regeneration and a Make America Healthy Again activist who posts on social media under the moniker “The Glyphosate Girl”.

The sprawling dispute centres on a US law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, that governs the sale and labelling of pesticides and bars states from imposing differing or additional requirements.

The measure prohibits pesticides that are “misbranded” with labels that lack an adequate warning to protect health and the environment.

Bayer has argued that Durnell’s claims are preempted by this law. The EPA has repeatedly approved labels without such a cancer warning, demonstrating that these products are not misbranded, the company said, adding that labels cannot be substantially changed without the agency’s approval.

Durnell’s lawyers said that despite the EPA’s registration of Roundup, the label may still be challenged as misbranded. They also said Durnell’s claims are not preempted because Missouri state law that requires products to adequately warn of dangers imposes the same requirements as FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.

‘A new era’

Union Investment fund manager Markus Manns called Thursday’s ruling a significant milestone for Bayer, adding that a decade after the Monsanto acquisition, the company is “entering a new era”.

“While future lawsuits are not entirely off the table, they will become considerably more difficult. A final breakthrough would come if the settlement is accepted by the plaintiffs and approved by the competent court in July. This would bring Bayer’s glyphosate litigation chapter to a definitive close, allowing management to fully refocus on operational and strategic matters,” Manns said.

Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court in 2019, claiming it failed to warn users of the dangers associated with Roundup and glyphosate.

He was diagnosed with a rare and often aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer that starts in the white blood cells, and attributed the disease to his exposure to Roundup starting in 1996. For about 20 years, he was the “spray guy” for a neighborhood association in St Louis, killing weeds at local parks without protective equipment, according to court papers.

A jury sided with Durnell in 2023, and in 2025, a state appeals court upheld that verdict.

Monduli, Tanzania – When drought wiped out most of her family’s livestock, 30-year-old Nesirkar Loongidong’i, a Maasai mother of four from Selela village in northern Tanzania, found herself with very few options. The dry season had already killed most of their animals.

Today, she makes a living growing and selling drought-resistant livestock fodder.

“Before I planted fodder, I lost most of our goats. Now, people come from other villages to buy grass, and I can support my children. I don’t fear drought anymore,” Loongidong’i told Al Jazeera.

With the income, she has built a house and bought five goats.

Loongidong’i’s story is part of a much larger and fast-growing shift. Across northern Tanzania, Maasai women, part of a community of about 430,000 people, are turning fodder production from a survival tactic into a climate-adaptation business. The work is coordinated by the Pastoral Women’s Council (PWC) and is spreading across pastoral districts.

The PWC is a women-led membership organisation working across three northeastern districts, covering more than 28,000 square kilometres (10,810 square miles) and serving about 456,000 people, most of them Maasai pastoralists. Founded in 1997, it now counts around 6,500 members in 90 villages, with years of work focused on land rights, economic empowerment, and girls’ education.

For Loongidong’i, it all comes down to growing pasture grass without irrigation. Because demand remains steady, so does her income, and with it, her household’s stability. Today, she lives in a home with a metal roof, and nearby, her goats graze in a fenced area as their numbers slowly grow again.

According to Tanzania’s Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, at least 306,358 animals, including cattle, goats, sheep, and donkeys, died between September 2021 and January 2022 due to prolonged drought. In Simanjiro district alone, 92,047 livestock were lost, wiping out livelihoods across pastoral communities.

In response, the PWC established 10 major grass seed banks across eight villages in Monduli and Longido districts. Today, about 75 hectares (185 acres) are under fodder production, with another 37 hectares (90 acres) expected to be added in the 2025-2026 season. Around 250 women directly manage these farms, while thousands of herders now depend on them for feed during dry seasons.

The impact is already visible. In 2025, a single seed bank earned 6.6 million Tanzanian shillings (about $2,500) from seed sales, along with 1,111 hay bales sold at 6,000 shillings ($2.30) each. For many women, this has shifted their role from dependents to economic providers.

Backed by organisations such as the Global Fund for Women and Oxfam, the PWC is now seen as offering a replicable model for protecting a livestock economy worth millions of dollars.

This shift is no longer limited to survival. Across northern Tanzania, it is becoming a quiet but steady form of enterprise, reshaping daily life in pastoral communities.

From survival to business

In Longido and Monduli, deep in northern Tanzania, Maasai life has been slowly changing. As traditional grazing patterns weaken under worsening droughts, women are increasingly taking on roles once tied only to herding, now growing pasture for income on open communal land.

Loongidong’i explains that what began as a way to survive dry years has now become a reliable source of income for many women. In the past, planting hardy grasses such as Cenchrus ciliaris was simply about keeping livestock alive. Today, it is also a business.

To respond to declining rainfall, women grow resilient species such as Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and Masai love grass (Eragrostis superba) on designated community plots. These grasses stay green longer than natural pasture during dry periods. Once harvested, they are bundled and sold to local herders as animal feed.

“Seeds are also saved and traded later when demand rises,” Loongidong’i says, adding that this cycle now supports many households across arid areas.

Herding families also benefit during drought periods, when natural grazing disappears and these managed plots become a lifeline for livestock.

The seed bank project, managed by Naisho, the group Loongidong’i works with under the PWC, generated about 6.6 million Tanzanian shillings ($2,514) from seed sales, alongside more than 1,000 bales of grass. Small in scale, but steady in output, it has proven what organised local production can achieve.

For the Maasai, cattle are more than livestock; they are the centre of daily life, economy, and identity. When rains fail, the impact is immediate: animals weaken, and families struggle.

As in many pastoral communities, women carry much of the responsibility for daily survival, from food preparation to fetching water and caring for children. Now, alongside those roles, they are also becoming earners.

“Women who once depended entirely on their husbands now have their own income,” says Rachel Letiety, a founding member of the PWC. “Families are becoming more stable. Men are beginning to value women’s contributions, especially during droughts.”

Ongoing challenges

Still, the progress comes with challenges.

Loongidong’i says some farms are affected when weeds take over and when fences break, allowing livestock, and sometimes wild animals, to destroy carefully cultivated plots.

“I have seen invasive plants ruin large parts of our farms,” she says. “And sometimes animals enter and destroy what we have worked on for months. It is not easy to guard these fields every day.”

She also points to tensions within groups, where disagreements sometimes arise over responsibilities and how income is shared.

At present, with support from organisations such as Justdiggit, Trees for the Future, and Swissaid, around 200 women are directly involved in the project. Many more benefit indirectly, especially during drought periods when pasture becomes scarce.

“This work prevents our cattle from dying and keeps them healthy,” says Nairiyamu Laizer, a mother of three and secretary of the Naisho group. “It also helps sustain the bulls we raise.”

“If all women take up this opportunity, these projects can lift our economy,” she adds.

“We harvest the grass and sell it; some buyers use it for cattle feed, others for thatching houses. We also grind some of it into animal feed,” she says.

For Loongidong’i and many Maasai women, growing fodder is no longer just about surviving difficult seasons. It has become a new beginning, reshaping livelihoods and the place of women in pastoral life.

“Now women help bring money into their homes,” she says, “and families are becoming more stable.”

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.

European Union agriculture ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss the availability of fertiliser as the war on Iran disrupts global supply chains.

The talks come as the European Commission pushes a new Fertiliser Action Plan aimed at supporting farmers who face a significant rise in costs for fertilisers. It is hoped the measures could boost agricultural production and reduce Europe’s dependence on food imports.

The plan includes possible fertiliser stockpiles, emergency support for farmers and measures to increase imports from countries other than Russia and Belarus, which are involved in the war with Ukraine.

It comes amid disruption in the Strait of Hormuz caused by the US-Israel war on Iran. The vital shipping route normally carries about one-third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser trade, raising fears that rising fuel and fertiliser costs could place further pressure on farmers already struggling with high expenses.

While the EU is less directly impacted by fertiliser shortages than some other parts of the world, disruptions to supplies have exposed divisions within the bloc about how to protect food supplies and shield farmers from rising costs.

How exposed is Europe?

Europe imports large volumes of fertiliser, bringing in two million tonnes of ammonia, 5.8 million tonnes of urea and 6.7 million tonnes of nitrogen fertilisers and mixtures in 2024, according to EU data.

The EU also produces its own nitrogen fertiliser, but this depends heavily on imported gas. When conflicts in the Gulf region pushes up gas prices, it also makes fertiliser made inside Europe more expensive.

The blockade has raised concerns over global food security, particularly in Africa and South Asia, where countries are more dependent on Gulf supplies.

The Middle East accounts for only about 3 percent of the EU’s ammonia imports and 1 to 2 percent of its nitrogen fertiliser imports, so the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has not significantly affected European supplies.

But the bloc is still being hit through higher global prices and rising energy costs because European nitrogen fertiliser is made using gas, which has increased in price due to the disruption in the strait –  while some countries are more at risk to rising costs due to low stockpiles.

Nitrogen fertiliser prices in Europe are now about 70 percent above their 2024 average, according to reporting on the commission’s plan.

That vulnerability became clear after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when soaring gas prices forced several European fertiliser plants to scale back or temporarily shut down because production was no longer profitable.

The commission says its new plan combines immediate measures to improve affordability and security of supply with longer-term steps to strengthen domestic production and reduce dependence on imports.

What is the EU proposing?

The plan includes emergency financial support for farmers through the EU agricultural budget, liquidity schemes and more flexible advance payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.

The commission is also looking at ways to support farmers who reduce their reliance on synthetic fertilisers, including through bio-based alternatives and more efficient fertiliser use.

In a second measure, the EU has moved to suspend duties on some nitrogen fertilisers, including urea and ammonia, from countries other than Russia and Belarus. Some nitrogen fertiliser imports currently face tariffs of between 5.5 and 6.5 percent. The Reuters news agency reported that the suspension could save importers about 60 million euros ($68m).

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the plan was aimed at building “a stronger European fertiliser industry” while supporting farmers and accelerating “sustainable, home-grown solutions”.

But Irish Agriculture Minister Martin Heydon warned that rising fertiliser prices caused by the Middle East crisis would affect the cost of food production and the competitiveness of European farmers.

“The rise in fertiliser prices as a result of the Middle East crisis will impact on the cost of food production and, consequently, on the economic sustainability and competitiveness of European farmers,” he said.

Which countries are most exposed?

The impact is not evenly spread across Europe, with Ireland particularly vulnerable because it has little domestic fertiliser production and depends heavily on imports. Its livestock-heavy farming system also relies on nitrogen fertiliser for grassland, with many farmers buying supplies between February and September.

Ireland imported 1.7 million tonnes of fertiliser in 2025, leaving farmers exposed to international price swings.

Other countries are better prepared. Finland has long maintained security-of-supply stockpiles that include fertiliser, grain and fuel. Sweden has also announced plans to stockpile fertiliser, seeds and grain as part of its “total defence” strategy after joining NATO.

There are also divisions inside the EU over how far Brussels should go. Italy and France have pushed for relief from the bloc’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which adds costs to carbon-intensive imports.

Some farming unions argue that the carbon levy has become another cost for farmers at a time of crisis. Environmental groups, however, have warned Brussels not to weaken nitrogen pollution rules, saying that doing so could increase pollution and health costs if excess nitrates enter water supplies.

Poland and Germany, meanwhile, home to major nitrogen fertiliser producers, have been more focused on opposing any measures that could weaken protections for domestic industry – and are therefore more opposed to reducing levies on imports.

Will food prices rise?

EU officials are not expecting an immediate food price shock, with many farmers in the bloc still using fertiliser bought long before the Iran war disrupted supply chains.

But officials are concerned that higher fertiliser costs could create problems in supply chains later in the year. Fertiliser affects food prices with a delay, as gas becomes fertiliser, fertiliser then feeds crops, and crops eventually become food – so the effects are often felt up to six months after the initial disruption.

Meanwhile, there are fears that anger in rural areas already hit by higher fuel, energy and input costs could lead to a backlash against green policies in the EU at a time when right-wing and populist parties are gaining ground in Europe.

But Europe still remains less exposed than many regions. The most severe risks are in countries more dependent on Gulf fertiliser and energy supplies, especially in parts of Africa and South Asia.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 22 (UPI) — Lebanon’s agriculture sector emerged as another victim of Israel’s widespread attacks across southern Lebanon, damaging vast areas of farmland, displacing the majority of the region’s farmers and threatening the country’s food security, economic resilience and cultural identity.

The sector, which is key to Lebanon’s economy and plays a vital role in sustaining rural communities and preserving cultural traditions, had not yet recovered from the impacts of the 2023-2024 war between Hezbollah and Israel when it was again hit by resumed hostilities in March.

The fresh escalation severely disrupted farming activities, with an estimated 22.5% of agricultural areas (56,264 hectares) damaged, including farms and greenhouses, and nearly 80% of farmers (more than 6,593) displaced and unable to access their land due to Israeli military activities, according to an updated report released by the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture on May 5.

The report indicated that the most affected crops in the south are bananas (95%), citrus trees (97%), olives (91%) and small-scale farming, which accounts for 80% of Lebanon’s total agricultural area.

Moreover, more than 1.8 million heads of livestock (cows, goats, sheep and poultry), 29,121 beehives, and 2,030 tons of fish have been lost.

Nizar Hani, the minister of agriculture, said the sector suffered its biggest losses compared with previous wars, adding that agricultural losses have doubled since the March 2 escalation to about $1.5 billion, out of an estimated total war damage that exceeds $20 billion.

Hani said Israel is establishing a buffer zone in southern Lebanon “empty of any life, where no one can pass through, hide or live,” through destruction of entire villages, properties, orchards and olive trees.

He said southern Lebanon produces 70% of the country’s citrus fruits and 90% of its bananas, supplying the local market and exporting to neighboring countries such as Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

And he told UPI that the heavy agricultural losses, inflation, and resulting job losses had a direct impact on food security, with 24% of people living in Lebanon — including Syrian displaced persons, Palestinian refugees and others — requiring immediate assistance.

According to an analysis by the Agriculture Ministry, in collaboration with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Programme, 1.24 million people were expected to face food insecurity between April and August 2026, marking a significant increase from the November 2025-March 2026 period, when an estimated 874,000 people experienced acute food insecurity.

Nora Ourabah Haddad, the Food and Agriculture Organization representative in Lebanon, warned that damage to irrigation systems, productive infrastructure, livestock systems and agricultural supply chains is further weakening local production capacity.

Haddad referred to substantial declines in the production of milk, meat, eggs and honey after 1,600 farms were affected and more than 1.8 million animals killed during the war.

She said the scale of the damage is “extremely serious” and extends far beyond the affected agricultural land that included some of the country’s most productive farming areas.

“What is at stake today is Lebanon’s capacity to sustain local food production, protect rural livelihoods and preserve the resilience of its agrifood systems at a time when the country is already heavily dependent on food imports and facing severe economic pressures,” she told UPI in an interview.

Haddad said food prices rose by 8.4% in the first quarter of 2026, while transport costs increased by 21%, adding that higher fuel and logistics costs expected to continue to drive up prices.

This time, farmers fear prolonged displacement after being forced to leave their land and homes under Israeli evacuation orders in early March — as many were preparing for the planting season.

Hussein Salameh, head of an agriculture cooperative in the Bint Jbeil-Marjeyoun area, recalled how they fled without having time to take any belongings, move their cows away or release them.

Salameh, an inhabitant of the village of Aitaroun, said the displaced farmers mostly feel “frustrated and abandoned” after exhausting their savings on working their land and repairing their damaged homes when they first returned after the Nov. 27, 2024, cease-fire.

He noted that Hezbollah did not provide them then with any financial assistance, saying it no longer had the funds to do so.

Unlike other displaced employees or skilled workers who could still find work in their areas of refuge, they have lost their only source of livelihood away from their land, he said.

“This is a big tragedy. … Farmers have only their land to live on and survive,” he told UPI.

The fear is that when farmers remain separated from their land, livestock and livelihoods for extended periods, many gradually lose the ability to sustain themselves and may eventually abandon agriculture altogether, Haddad warned.

Helping farmers protect what remains of their livelihoods by providing emergency agricultural support and restoring the country’s agricultural capacity before losses become “irreversible” were emerging priorities for the Food and Agriculture Organization, she said.

However, soil contamination presents another major concern after Lebanon and international rights groups accused Israel of unlawfully using white phosphorus and the herbicide glyphosate during its attacks on southern Lebanon, destroying crops and damaging beehives and livestock.

“This is an international environmental crime,” Hani said, adding that Israel “sprayed everything with glyphosate.”

The destruction and uprooting of old olive trees — some of which have been cultivated and preserved across generations, and in some cases for centuries — was equally painful.

“It is the loss of a living heritage … olive trees are deeply connected to family history, local traditions, food culture and rural economies,” Haddad said, adding that their destruction carries not only economic consequences, but also profound social and cultural impacts on farming communities.

Restoration is possible, but it requires time as newly planted trees require many years before becoming fully productive.

“Some of these ancient olive trees may also contain unique genetic heritage that has adapted to local environmental conditions over centuries, making parts of this loss potentially irreversible from a biodiversity perspective,” Haddad said.

Even if hostilities were to stop today, recovery in southern Lebanon’s agriculture sector would not be immediate and would require extensive international funding and support.

Farmers would also need time to recover from the “deep psychological impact” of being uprooted from their land, after their “cultural and environmental values” were destroyed, according to Hani.

To Salameh, Israel was not just targeting Hezbollah but carrying out what he described as “collective punishment” against everyone living in the south, including those opposed to the Iran-backed group.

“Would such collective punishment ensure security for Israel? Would that bring peace?” he asked.

China will buy ‘at least’ $17bn worth of US agricultural goods annually, the White House says.

China will buy “at least” $17bn worth of agricultural goods from the United States annually following US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s summit in Beijing, the White House has said.

China will make the purchases through 2028, with the 2026 target applying to the remainder of the year on a proportionate basis, according to a fact sheet released on Sunday.

The White House said the deal is in addition to China’s commitment to buy at least 87 million metric tonnes of US soya beans, which was made at Trump and Xi’s summit in South Korea in October.

China will also restore market access for US beef by renewing the expired listings of more than 400 production facilities, and resume imports of poultry from states determined by the US Department of Agriculture to be free of avian influenza, according to the fact sheet.

Trump and Xi also agreed to establish two new bodies – the US-China Board of Trade and the US-China Board of Investment – to manage trade and investment between the sides, the White House said.

China has yet to confirm or comment on the White House’s announcement.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House’s update provides further clarity on the outcome of Trump and Xi’s two-day summit, which was heavy on pageantry and camaraderie but light on concrete agreements.

During their two days of talks in Beijing, Trump and Xi sought greater alignment on economic issues and trade, while largely skirting the sensitive issues of Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In a readout after the summit wrapped up on Friday, the White House said the two sides had discussed ways to “enhance economic cooperation”, and that they agreed on the need to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Beijing did not explicitly state that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but stressed the importance of reaching “a settlement on the Iranian nuclear issue and other issues that accommodates the concerns of all parties”.

Neither White House statement contained any mention of Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing views as an integral part of its territory.

The omission of any reference to the island – the defence of which Washington is committed to supporting under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act – came after Xi warned of “clashes and even conflicts” between the superpowers if the issue is not “handled properly”.

After nearly a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes between Washington and Beijing, US-Chinese trade is down sharply from its peak.

Their bilateral trade in goods last year came to some $415bn, down from more than $690bn in 2022.

Published on
12/05/2026 – 19:47 GMT+2

An EU committee made up of experts from member states voted on Tuesday to ban imports of Brazilian meat starting 3 September due to the use of antimicrobials to stimulate animal growth.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to remove Brazil from the list of countries that comply with EU food safety standards comes as the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay provisionally entered into force on 1 May.

The deal, which liberalises trade of agri-product between both sides of the Atlantic, remains fiercely opposed by EU farmers, who fear that different production standards on both sides of the Atlantic will create unfair competition from Latin American imports.

“The fact that the Union is able to enforce the rules is essential for trust, a level playing field, and good relations with our trading partners,” an EU diplomat told Euronews.

An official with knowledge of the file said that the vote was unanimous and makes Brazil the first country removed from the list of states complying with EU restrictions on antimicrobial use in animals.

The list of third countries which comply with EU requirements, and therefore can export food-producing animals to the EU, will be formally adopted in the coming days.

The European Commission has consistently said EU food safety rules would continue to apply to agricultural products imported from Latin America after the deal enters into force.

Commission’s spokesperson Eva Hrncirova confirmed to Euronews that from 3 September Brazil will no longer be able export to the EU commodities such as bovine, equine, poultry, eggs, aquaculture, honey and casings.

“Trade agreements do not change our rules,” Hrncirova said, adding: “The Commission establishes the Union’s mandatory sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and both our farmers and exporters from third countries have to comply with them.”

Brussels has also negotiated safeguards aimed at protecting EU farmers, including mechanisms to monitor potential market disruption from a surge in imports from Mercosur countries. Quotas were also introduced for sensitive products, including poultry and meat.

Once compliance with the safety rules is demonstrated by Brazil, the EU will be able to resume the imports, and Brazil will be able to benefit from the same tariff relief as the other Mercosur countries.