Commissioner Christophe Hansen, in a written answer on 29 June 2026, signalled that the EU has ample scope to increase domestic protein production within existing WTO commitments, and announced that the Commission's Protein Plan will be adopted on 1 July 2026. The answer responds to a question from S&D MEP Eric Sargiacomo, who had asked whether the EU should seek to replace the 1992 Memorandum of Understanding on Oilseeds with the United States and whether the reference areas for oilseed support had been adjusted after EU enlargements.
Hansen explained that the 1992 MoU remains in force as both a bilateral agreement and a multilateral WTO commitment, and that replacing it would require a Council mandate and complex WTO negotiations under GATT Article XXVIII. He noted that the reference area for oilseeds, initially set at 5.128 million hectares for the then 12-member Community, has been adjusted after successive enlargements and the UK's withdrawal to currently stand at 7.854 million hectares. Under the current CAP, the areas actually supported by coupled payments for soya, rapeseed and sunflower have remained stable at only 13-17% of that limit, meaning there is ample room to expand EU protein production without breaching WTO commitments.
The answer did not propose any immediate diplomatic action to renegotiate the MoU, instead pointing to the forthcoming Protein Plan as the vehicle for the Commission's vision for the sector. The plan, scheduled for adoption on 1 July 2026, is expected to outline measures to reduce EU dependence on protein imports and strengthen open strategic autonomy. The response suggests the Commission prefers to focus on domestic production increases within existing trade frameworks rather than pursuing a new bilateral agreement with the US.
EU farmers and protein crop producers stand to benefit from potential new support measures in the Protein Plan, while US and Brazilian soybean exporters face continued competition in the EU market. The Commission's stance maintains the status quo on WTO commitments, avoiding complex trade negotiations. Environmental and agricultural NGOs may scrutinise the plan for its impact on land use and sustainability. The answer signals a pragmatic, incremental approach rather than a major policy shift.