With the summer lull in Brussels drawing to an end, the EU is bracing for a showdown on the agri-food front. At stake is the Commission’s push to cap the amount of subsidies any single farmer can receive – a reform whose negotiations with the Council of the EU are slated to begin in the autumn. This bold move notably pits the EU executive against certain member-states and large agri-food producers.
Indeed, while most European farmers would be spared by the rules proposed under the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) proposal, the continent’s farming giants stand to lose significant sums. Anticipating their resistance, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen has remained firm, reminding that “if we have to deal with the same amount of money and we want to better support young farmers, new farmers, small farmers,” this additional funding must come “from somewhere.”
Since taking office, Hansen has steered an encouraging pivot in EU agri-food policy, with the long-overdue CAP reform proposal aligned with a broader trend of farmer-friendly decisions. With EU producers facing rising international trade threats, staying on this course will be vital.
Setting CAP system straight
Brussels’s past efforts to limit subsidy flows to the largest farms through “capping” have collapsed under pressure, and Hansen’s announcement of the reform in July has been met with similar hostility – hardly a surprise given it strikes Europe’s biggest landholders. Yet the proposal offers a much-needed correction to a subsidy system that has long disadvantaged small producers – the very farmers who underpin Europe’s food traditions and world-renowned GI exports.
In the 2023 financial year, just 20% of farms received 80% of direct CAP payments. Most of these are area-based subsidies, calculated per hectare regardless of actual production, allowing large landholders to draw enormous sums. To redress this imbalance, the Commission’s plan would set payments between €130 and €240 per hectare and cap overall income support at €100,000 per farmer, with progressive cuts above €20,000 – namely, a 25% reduction between €20,000 and €50,000, and a 50% reduction between €50,000 and €70,000.
Despite the uproar, the reality is that most farmers would escape unscathed. More than 90% of EU producers received less than €20,000 in decoupled payments in 2023, well below the level where cuts begin. What’s more, in every member state except France and Luxembourg, under a quarter of farms would even be affected. As Théo Paquet of the European Environmental Bureau has rightly posited, this reform should mark a first step toward “real redistribution” and the gradual phasing out of area-based payments detached from production results.
Moving past flawed Nutri-Score system
Under Commissioner Hansen’s leadership, the CAP payment proposal marks the latest in a series of strong policy decisions that benefit the EU’s small local producers, who were utterly neglected by the last Commission’s ‘Farm to Fork’ policy agenda. One of F2F’s original pillars, the front-of-package (FOP) nutrition label is among the high-profile policies to get axed from the Commission’s agenda, with Hansen leaving it out of the new ‘Vision for Agriculture’ and work programme unveiled earlier this year.
The EU executive’s U-turn on the FOP label proposal has dealt a major blow to France’s Nutri-Score system, once considered the front-runner for EU-wide implementation before attracting an ever-growing coalition of member-states, farmers and researchers opposed to the label. For its critics, Nutri-Score epitomizes F2F’s shortcomings: a one-size-fits-all algorithm that penalises GI heritage products such as cheeses and cured meats, distorts consumer perception and threatens the livelihoods of the small producers Hansen aims to support.
Experts argue its absence will hardly be felt. For example, food law specialist Katia Merten-Lentz has observed that existing labelling rules already protect consumers, while Nutri-Score’s withdrawal would bring “relief to most businesses.” Scientific opinion has also shifted, with researchers spotlighting issues with the independence of pro-Nutri-Score studies, as well as the label’s limited effect on healthier diets and evidence of negative impacts on consumer choices – as confirmed by a new Medical University of Warsaw study published in August.
Despite mounting political opposition, growing scientific criticism and even the retreat of many former industrial supporters like Nestlé and Danone, certain member-states and supermarket chains continue to prop up Nutri-Score. The Commission must therefore remain vigilant to ensure these attempts do not undermine farmers, distort fair competition or compromise the integrity of the single market – particularly as other pressing threats loom on the horizon.
Shielding farmers from unfair trade
Looking ahead, the EU’s upcoming trade deals with major partners will test the Commission’s resolve to pursue a genuinely pro-farmer agenda. As Brussels juggles political complexity, it must ensure trade ambitions don’t override the needs of European agriculture. Tariff negotiations, market access and safeguard mechanisms must be crafted with one boosting agri-food exports and the other firmly on protecting local farm livelihoods and food sovereignty.
Mercosur looms as a critical litmus test. Though the political deal was struck in December 2024, final ratification is expected by December, with both Council and Parliament approval pending, and national parliaments still in play. To secure France’s support, Brussels has introduced “circuit-breaker” safeguards for sensitive products like beef and poultry to prevent sudden import surges. Recently, EU politicians and farm leaders have warned that the Mercosur deal could severely undermine the competitiveness of domestic agriculture unless these protections endure.
Getting Mercosur right has become all the more important in light of Brussels’s apparent capitulation to Trump’s demands in the US-EU trade deal, with new details confirming enhanced market access for US agri-food exports in the EU without meaningful concessions gained to protect European farmers. If Brussels allows such asymmetries to persist, its credibility in defending EU farming may unravel under international pressure.
From looming trade agreements to mounting global competition and environmental pressures, the EU faces a pivotal moment. In the crucial months to come, staying the course will mean keeping small and local farmers at the heart of the agri-food system – not as an afterthought, but as the foundation of resilience, fairness, and food security. Europe’s strength tomorrow depends on protecting the diversity and vitality of its farms today.
Photo by Bernd ? Dittrich on Unsplash
