A cross-party group of 22 MEPs has asked the European Commission whether it assessed the risk that the EU-Mercosur trade agreement could entrench the market dominance of Brazilian meat giant JBS, warning of geoeconomic dependence and fair competition concerns. The written question, submitted on 7 May 2026, cites intelligence analyses and journalistic investigations documenting JBS's history of corruption, illegal deforestation, and animal welfare violations, and asks whether the Commission will suspend or reassess the agreement, which began provisional application on 1 May 2026.
The question, led by Céline Imart (PPE) and co-signed by MEPs from The Left, PfE, Renew, S&D, ECR, and ESN, targets the world's largest animal protein producer. It notes that JBS's international expansion has historically benefited from Brazilian state support, raising concerns about structural dependence for EU food sovereignty. The MEPs ask three specific questions: whether the Commission conducted a comprehensive risk assessment of strengthening such actors during negotiations; what concrete guarantees exist to ensure fair competition; and whether the Commission intends to suspend or reassess the agreement.
Policy orientation and expected follow-up The question reflects a protectionist and food-sovereignty-oriented stance, seeking to limit exposure to a dominant foreign actor with a controversial record. It implies that the Commission may have overlooked strategic vulnerabilities in the agreement's impact on EU agricultural supply chains. The Commission is required to respond within approximately six weeks; its answer will signal whether it considers such risks within the scope of the agreement's safeguards or views them as outside the trade deal's remit.
Stakeholder impacts EU livestock farmers and meat processors could face increased competition from lower-cost Brazilian imports, potentially squeezing margins. EU consumers might benefit from lower prices but could face reduced transparency on production standards. JBS and other Mercosur exporters would gain expanded market access, while EU food sovereignty advocates see the agreement as increasing dependence on a single, state-backed supplier with compliance controversies.
← Atlas › News › International trade