Animal Welfare Gaps Raise Serious Concerns Over EU-Mercosur Agreement

Concerns raised by EU consumers and farmers that animal welfare and farming standards in Mercosur countries fall short of EU expectations are grounded in reality, according to Sinergia Animal, an NGO promoting farmed animal welfare in the Global South and based in Brazil.

Sinergia Animal works in the Mercosur region and testifies that there remain significant disparities between welfare regulations and wider industry norms compared to the EU. The organisation stresses that if animal products are to be exported from Mercosur countries, robust enforcement of rules to reduce the suffering of farmed animals must be a prerequisite.

"The EU-Mercosur agreement risks exporting cruelty and environmental destruction under the guise of trade. The vast majority of meat imported from Mercosur countries is produced under conditions that fall far below EU animal welfare standards. At the same time, increased demand for meat and animal feed will accelerate deforestation in vital ecosystems, pushing wildlife and biodiversity to the brink. These trade deals fundamentally contradict the EU’s stated ambition to improve animal welfare and build sustainable food systems.” Jacqueline Guzmán, Global Corporate Engagement Director, Sinergia Animal

One of Sinergia Animal’s most recent reports focuses on the treatment of pigs in Brazil. “Brazil is currently the world’s fourth-largest pork producer and exporter, accounting for 4% of global production. The country has about 2.1 million sows and slaughters approximately 57 million pigs per year.” According to the report, the way the majority of these animals are farmed today is unacceptable by ethical animal welfare standards. For example, in the EU, the use of gestation crates for sows is strictly limited to 28 days, with pregnant pigs required to be moved to housing allowing greater freedom of movement after this period. The European Commission has committed to proposing legislation to phase out cages in livestock farming. In contrast, on some farms in Brazil, sows are still kept continuously in gestation crates, in a space so small they are unable to turn around, a practice widely recognised as causing severe animal suffering. 

Jacqueline Guzmán asks 

“will the Mercosur agreement require Brazilian producers to raise their welfare standards, or will it pressure Europe to lower its own? There is a real danger that the EU-Mercosur deal would increase imports of meat produced through intensive and cruel farming systems” 

Sinergia Animal highlights a range of urgent issues that must be addressed before any trade agreement between the two blocs can be approved. Guzmán notes that, beyond animal welfare concerns, there is the pressing global issue of deforestation, driven both by land clearance for grazing and by the expansion of crops such as soy grown to feed farmed animals. She adds that increasing meat imports would, 

“drive further deforestation in some of the world’s most biodiverse regions. This is a step backwards for animal welfare, wildlife protection, and sustainable food systems. Member States must reject trade agreements that allow cruelty and environmental harm to be outsourced beyond Europe’s borders. By expanding imports of meat produced under lower welfare standards, the EU is effectively rewarding cruel farming practices while undermining its own environmental and deforestation commitments. Without binding animal welfare requirements for imported products, these trade deals threaten animals, wildlife, and the credibility of EU policy.” Speaking on behalf of Sinergia Animal Jacqueline Guzmán suggested that the push for an agreement was an “important  opportunity for Mercosur countries to raise animal welfare standards to meet those of Europe.”  

Key areas of concern in relation to meat imports from Mercosur

• Animal welfare and the lack of effective regulations

• Deforestation caused by factory farming, grazing, and animal feed crops

• Traceability of meat originating from Mercosur countries

• Risks to human health, including antimicrobial resistance (AMR), zoonotic diseases and unhealthy diets

• The wider impact on Indigenous communities, agriculture

• Insufficient measures to ensure enforcement of environmental and social regulations