EU-Mercosur Trade Deal Faces Disinformation Campaign, Brazilian Ambassador Claims
Brussels, 24 June 2025 – The EU-Mercosur trade agreement, a landmark deal poised to create a massive free trade zone spanning Europe and South America, has become entangled in a web of disinformation, according to Pedro Miguel da Costa e Silva, Brazil’s ambassador to the EU. Addressing the European Parliament’s trade committee on Tuesday, Ambassador da Costa e Silva vehemently refuted criticisms leveled against the agreement, particularly concerning environmental and agricultural standards, and accused detractors of employing double standards and perpetuating misleading narratives. The deal, signed in December 2024, involves the EU and the Mercosur bloc – comprising Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
The ambassador directly challenged assertions about lower sanitary and phytosanitary standards in Mercosur countries. He presented data suggesting that the incidence of animal diseases is higher in the EU than in Brazil, urging a fact-based approach to the debate. Emphasizing that the agreement doesn’t compromise the EU’s right to protect human, animal, or plant health, he stated, "The occurrence of animal diseases is much higher in the EU than in Brazil. It shows the need to check the veracity of some narratives." He further reassured that "nothing in the agreement changes the right of the EU and its member states to protect human, animal, or plant health." This direct rebuttal aimed to counter concerns that have fueled opposition to the deal, particularly among European farmers and environmental groups.
Ambassador da Costa e Silva criticized what he perceived as an unbalanced and biased discussion surrounding the Mercosur agreement. He argued that critics are holding Mercosur to a different, stricter standard compared to other trade partners, effectively trapping the agreement in an "endless loop of negotiations." He highlighted the discrepancy in treatment by comparing the scrutiny faced by the Mercosur deal to the relatively smoother paths of trade agreements with Chile and Mexico, and ongoing negotiations with India and the US. These agreements, he pointed out, have not been subjected to the same level of "accusations, and unreasonable demands and expectations." He urged MEPs to consider this apparent disparity in their evaluation of the Mercosur agreement.
Addressing concerns about potential unfair competition for European farmers, the ambassador downplayed the market access granted to Brazilian agricultural products considered sensitive by European producers. He underscored the limited scope of concessions made in these areas, arguing that the deal does not pose a substantial threat to European agriculture. Furthermore, he highlighted the stringent environmental regulations imposed on Brazilian farmers, particularly regarding land preservation. He pointed to requirements for setting aside a significant portion of land – ranging from 20% in southern Brazil to 80% in the Amazon – for the protection of native vegetation. These requirements, he argued, exceed those imposed on European farmers, demonstrating Brazil’s commitment to environmental protection.
The ambassador’s impassioned defense of the EU-Mercosur agreement comes amidst growing resistance to the deal, particularly in France. French farmers and environmental activists have voiced strong opposition, fearing the influx of cheaper agricultural products from South America, which they believe could undermine European agricultural practices and environmental standards. These concerns have created a significant political hurdle, particularly given the importance of the French agricultural sector.
The future of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement hangs in the balance, with its ratification by EU member states remaining uncertain. Ambassador da Costa e Silva’s efforts to counteract the negative narrative and reassure European stakeholders highlight the high stakes involved in this potentially transformative trade partnership. The ongoing debate reflects the complex interplay of economic interests, environmental concerns, and political pressures that shape international trade negotiations. The ultimate fate of the agreement will likely depend on whether concerns about environmental protection and fair competition can be effectively addressed and a balanced approach can be found that satisfies all parties involved.
