Brussels’ battle over whether plant-based foods can be sold as “veggie burgers” and “vegan sausages” ended the year in stalemate on Wednesday, after talks between EU countries and the European Parliament collapsed without a deal. French centre-right lawmaker Céline Imart, a grain farmer from southern France and the architect of the naming ban, arrived determined to lock in tough restrictions on plant-based labels, according to three people involved. Her proposal, dismissed as “unnecessary” inside her own political family, was tucked inside a largely unrelated reform of the EU’s farm-market rulebook. It slipped through weeks of talks untouched and unmentioned, only reemerging in the final stretch — by which point even Paul McCartney had asked Brussels to let veggie burgers be. The Wednesday meeting quickly veered off course. Officials said Imart moved to reopen elements of the text that negotiators believed had already wrapped up, including sensitive rules for powerful farm cooperatives. She then sketched out several possible fallbacks on dairy contracts — a politically charged issue for many countries — but without settling on a clear line the rest of the Parliament team could rally behind. “And then she introduced new terms out of nowhere,” one Parliament official said, after Imart proposed adding “liver” and “ham” to the list of protected meat names for the first time. “It was very messy,” another Parliament official said. EU countries, led in the talks by Denmark, said they simply had no mandate to move — not on the naming rules and not on dairy contracts. With neither side giving ground, the discussions ground to a halt. “We did not succeed in reaching an agreement,” Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen said. Imart insisted that the gap could still be bridged. Dairy contracts and meat-related names “still call for further clarification,” she said in a written statement, arguing that “tangible progress” had been made and that “the prospect of an agreement remains close,” with negotiations due to resume under Cyprus in January. “We did not succeed in reaching an agreement,” Danish Agriculture Minister Jacob Jensen said. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images) Dutch Green lawmaker Anna Strolenberg, who was in the room, said she was relieved: “It’s frustrating that we keep losing time on a veggie burger ban — but at least it wasn’t traded for weaker contracts [for dairy farmers].” For now, that means veggie burgers, vegan nuggets and other alternative-protein products will keep their familiar names — at least until Cyprus picks up the file in the New Year and Brussels’ oddest food fight resumes.

At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

LONDON — The U.K.’s trade deal with Donald Trump was touted as a post-Brexit win. Months later, as America’s global tariff regime starts to take shape, Brits aren’t feeling quite so lucky — and some are downright cheesed off.   Under the Economic Prosperity Deal agreed with the U.S. in May, most British goods exported to America are subject to 10 percent “reciprocal” tariffs. This is in addition to existing tariffs — known to traders as most-favored nation (MFN) rates.  By contrast, the EU struck a deal with Trump in July that would see goods from the bloc hit with an all-inclusive 15 percent tariff — except where the existing MFN rate is higher. That means many U.K. products with an MFN rate above 5 percent will now be hit by higher tariffs than competing EU products — and cheese in the firing line. “Overall, U.K. goods will get somewhat better [treatment] than European Union products,” explained Ed Gresser, director for trade and global markets at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former policy adviser to the United States Trade Representative. “This also appears to be the case for the very top U.K. exports to the U.S. cars, medicines, oil — which bring in the most money, and for wines and liquors.” The U.K.’s trade deal with Donald Trump was touted as a post-Brexit win. | EPA/FRANCIS CHUNG / / POOL “However, there will also be many specific cases in which EU goods get better treatment than British goods,” Gresser added. “These include some probably emotive and visible ones, such as cheddar and Stilton cheese, and Shetland wool sweaters.” Under the current U.S. tariff regime, British cheddar exported to the U.S. would be hit by overall tariffs of between 20 and 26 percent — depending on the packaging and processing — while the EU would get tariffs of between 15 and 16 percent. IRISH COMPETITION The discrepancy has not gone unnoticed by British cheesemakers, who fear they could now be undercut by their European rivals.  “Overall, U.K. dairy — and cheesemakers in particular — have been presented with a worse deal than their EU competitors as a result of the U.S.-U.K. agreement,” said Rod Addy, director general of the Provision Trade Federation, which represents British cheesemakers. The difference between U.K. and EU tariff rates “suggests EU exporters, particularly [in] Ireland, may benefit relative to the U.K.,” he added. “Given that cheddar accounts for roughly three quarters of all U.K. dairy exports, that is highly significant.” The U.K. exported 9,855 metric tons of cheese and curd products in 2024 worth over £75 million, data from the Britain’s Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board shows. According to the latest data available for 2025, the U.K. exported around 4,365 metric tons between January and June worth over £36 million. Coombe Castle International, a major exporter of cheese to the U.S., is among the British cheese businesses feeling the strain. Currently, the U.S. market makes up around a third of its business. But they now fear tariffs could reduce demand for their cheeses, amid increased competition from the EU. “It does look like we are now disadvantaged compared to Europe, and that’s certainly going to hurt us when it comes to cheddar and butter, where we’ve got direct competition in the EU,” said Darren Larvin, Coombe Castle International’s managing director. “Tariffs have come at the wrong time. We have a relatively high milk price, a weak dollar and prices are high with the cost of living. All of those put together mean it’s quite tough at the moment. So we could really do without having any further costs.” Larvin said that like “most people” in the industry, Coombe Castle have “had to pass all of that on to the consumer in the U.S. … We’re just not in a position to share any of that [extra cost]. We’ll see how that goes through the chain and what effect that has on demand.” Shortly after the EU’s deal with the U.S. was announced, Larvin contacted the Department for Business and Trade to ask them how they planned to protect U.K. dairy exports to the U.S.  Their response left him nonplussed. In response, an official said only that negotiations to reduce the 10 percent tariff rate were continuing, making comparisons “difficult.” GOVERNMENT ‘MORE CONCERNED WITH LAND ROVERS’ British Stilton makers have also been left disappointed by the U.K.-U.S. deal, with the cheese now facing duties of between 22 and 27 percent, depending on the type of Stilton. “Effectively, it’s another 10 percent on the cost of the product which is very unhelpful for everyone,” said Robin Skailes, managing director of the family-run Stilton maker Cropwell Bishop Creamery, which exports around £2.5 million of cheese to the U.S. each year. “I can understand why the U.S. government are doing it. But what I don’t like necessarily is how our government advertises that as a success and a deal. It’s not a deal because we’re actually worse off than they are in Europe. “What our government should have done is factored in some of the existing tariffs that are already there. … But they may not have even known that. I mean, why would they bother with Stilton? They are more concerned with Land Rovers, that was the big thing. Food is never at the top of their agenda.” It’s too early to tell whether tariffs will reduce demand for British cheese in the U.S. | Til Buergy/EPA As a result of the additional tariffs, Skailes said the firm would take a “massive hit” to their margins and has already had to pass on some of the extra cost to the consumer. “We can share some of the pain, but there’s not a huge amount of margin in food. We’re not selling iPhones — we don’t make trillions of dollars.” For now, it’s too early to tell whether tariffs will reduce demand for British cheese in the U.S. but Coombe Castle’s Larvin is not optimistic. “It will certainly make us less competitive — and we’re certainly less competitive compared to Europe now.”   A spokesperson for the U.K.’s Department for Business and Trade said: “The U.K.’s landmark trade deal is the result of a pragmatic approach to working with the US. We will continue to work with the US to get this deal implemented as soon as possible to give industry the security they need, protect vital jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets through the Plan for Change.”

LONDON — Britain is sleepwalking through its biggest food safety crisis since the horsemeat scandal of 2013, a group of influential MPs warned as they dismissed a recent personal import ban on EU meat and cheese as “toothless.” The government moved in April to prohibit travelers from EU countries from bringing meat and dairy products into the U.K. following an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease across the continent. However, as reported by POLITICO, the ban has not been fully enforced, with experts warning that U.K. health officials lack the funds to uphold the rules. In a damning report on Monday, the parliament’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee warned that “alarming amounts” of meat and dairy products were still being illegally imported for both personal consumption and sale. The committee welcomed the government’s ban on personal imports of meat and dairy from the EU but described it as “toothless,” with prohibited products continuing to enter the U.K. through airports, seaports and the Eurotunnel in freight, parcels, personal baggage and passenger vehicles. “It would not be an exaggeration to say that Britain is sleepwalking through its biggest food safety crisis since the horse meat scandal,” committee chair Alistair Carmichael said. “A still bigger concern is the very real risk of a major animal disease outbreak. The single case of foot-and-mouth disease in Germany this year, most likely caused by illegally imported meat, cost its economy one billion euros.” He urged the government to “get a grip on what has become a crisis” by establishing a national taskforce, boosting food crime intelligence networks, enforcing “real deterrents,” and giving port health and local authorities the resources and powers they need.   During the committee’s nine-month inquiry into animal and plant health, experts painted a gruesome picture of the situation at the border, describing cases of meat arriving in unsanitary conditions, often in the back of vans, stashed in plastic bags, suitcases and cardboard boxes. At the Port of Dover alone, port health officials say they intercepted 70 tons of illegal meat imports from vehicles between January and the end of April, compared with 24 tons during the same period in 2024. During a Public Accounts Committee session on animal disease last week, Emma Miles, director general for food, biosecurity and trade at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said it was unclear whether the increase in the number of seizures of illegal meat at Dover was due to a rise in crime or to better surveillance. “When you’re catching people it might just mean you are doing better surveillance and enforcement,” she said.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Thursday proposed new legislation to eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, a move that should unlock a reduction in Washington’s own tariffs on European autos. Putting forward the legislation is a precondition for President Donald Trump’s administration to drop tariffs on European cars to 15 percent from the current 27.5 percent. Under the terms of the transatlantic trade deal unveiled a week ago, the U.S. would in turn backdate the reduction in its auto tariffs to Aug. 1. “The first act concerns a proposal to eliminate tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and provide preferential market access for a range of US seafood and non-sensitive agricultural goods,” the European Commission said in a press release. “The second one proposes to prolong the tariff-free treatment of lobster, now including processed lobster.” The agreement, EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said last week, was good news for the bloc’s auto industry, which has been “bleeding a lot of cash” in recent months. “This will save car makers more than €500 million in duties that would have otherwise been paid for exports in one month only,” Brussels added in its statement. The handshake trade deal reached between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland at the end of July would set a baseline U.S. tariff on European exports of 15 percent. The EU would meanwhile scrap industrial tariffs — including the 10 percent it currently levies on autos made in the United States. Brussels has also committed to open its market wider for a basket of U.S. farm exports. The next key question is whether the United States will indeed make good on its side of the bargain. Trump cast the fragile transatlantic trade truce into doubt earlier this week when he threatened new tariffs on countries who apply digital policies that he deems discriminatory.  A senior Commission official was confident this would go through.  “There should not be any doubt: their tariffs on cars and car parts should go down. That is the U.S. part of the bargain,” the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told a briefing.  LOBSTER IN, BEEF OUT Commission officials underlined that no “sensitive” farm goods were included, stressing that U.S. beef and poultry remain explicitly excluded from the concessions. These products are politically explosive in Europe, where stricter hormone and hygiene rules have long limited American imports. Instead, Brussels offered tariff-rate quotas on a limited list of U.S. agrifood exports such as dairy, pork, nuts, seafood and even bison meat. It also kept all U.S. lobster imports tariff-free, a politically potent win in Washington, landing as Maine’s lobster season is in full swing. One official described the concessions as “meaningful, but not very costly” for the EU. That offers little relief for European farm lobbies which were already critical of the outline of the deal last week. Groups like Copa-Cogeca and Farm Europe argue that European agriculture “footed the bill” for the handshake deal. It won no reciprocal gains, they said, while still facing a 15 percent tariff ceiling on most exports to the U.S., including products that previously traded tariff-free, like wine and spirits. Farm groups say rural interests were effectively sidelined while Europe’s carmakers walked away with the prize. EU HURDLES Proposing the tariff legislation is only a first step, as the Commission will still need the assent of at least 15 of the EU’s 27 member countries and a simple majority in the European Parliament for it to take effect.  Since the Commission negotiated the trade deal with the political blessing of member countries, the Council of the EU that represents them shouldn’t present a major hurdle. The European Parliament could be a different proposition, however, with Bernd Lange, the chair of its international trade committee, telling POLITICO on Wednesday “there are disagreements about what the exact reduction in numbers should look like, particularly in the agricultural sector.” Another issue, he added, was how the deal would be implemented and for how long. European lawmakers will reconvene next week in Strasbourg for the first time after the summer recess. Sabine Weyand, the top official at the Commission’s trade department, will testify before the trade committee on Wednesday. “We have a parliament with a very divided configuration, and ‘reason’ may not always be the first characteristic,” said Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, a French lawmaker from the Renew group. That said, Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party that has the largest caucus, has said his conservatives would stand by the deal struck by von der Leyen, describing it as “painful but right.” This story has been updated.

OTTAWA — Canada is delaying its plans to slap retaliatory tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum after President Donald Trump sent a letter extending the deadline for trade negotiations between the two North American neighbors — though he also threatened to impose higher tariffs. Mark Carney’s government was preparing to double its countertariffs on U.S. metals on July 21 — to 50 percent from 25 — but Trump’s letter has moved the prime minister off that target. Two senior government officials told POLITICO that Canada will not further retaliate against U.S. steel and aluminum on July 21, the previous deadline for the talks, after the two sides agreed to extend their negotiation deadline around a new economic and security deal to Aug. 1. Canada’s current 25 percent countertariff on U.S. steel and aluminum will remain in place during the negotiations. But if a deal is not reached by the new deadline, both sides are threatening to raise and expand their duties on the other’s goods. In a letter addressed to Carney on Thursday, Trump wrote that Canadian goods imported into the U.S. could face a blanket 35 percent tariff starting next month. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations, said the administration plans to impose the tariff only on goods that do not comply with the 2020 USMCA, though the ultimate details will be up to Trump to decide. Trump doubled tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports entering the U.S. to 50 percent in June, but Ottawa has yet to match the move — despite pressure from the steel industry, labor unions and Ontario Premier Doug Ford. “Everything is pushed back to Aug. 1,” said one official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Trump and Carney didn’t speak Thursday, the prime minister’s office said, but high-ranking officials from both sides met that day, before Trump posted the letter. Unlike other countries, Canadian officials did not appear rattled by the letter. The prime minister remained on vacation in the Ottawa region. “On we go!” a Canadian diplomat, who was granted anonymity, told POLITICO. Speaking to reporters Friday, Trump noted his trade letter to Carney “was sent yesterday. They called. I think it was fairly well-received. So, we’ll see what happens.” This is the second time the deadline for the U.S.-Canada talks has moved. The leaders agreed to a July 16 deadline during the G7 Leaders’ Summit but later moved that to July 21. Carney said Canada will work toward the revised deadline. “Throughout the current trade negotiations with the United States, the Canadian government has steadfastly defended our workers and businesses,” Carney said on X. Carney will meet with his Cabinet on Tuesday to discuss the negotiations, and on July 22 he will meet with Canada’s premiers. “In the face of President Trump’s latest threat, we need to come together. We need a plan on how Canada will respond and how we’ll protect our workers, businesses and communities,” Ford said on the social media site X. Trump justified the latest threat to increase tariffs by pointing to fentanyl trafficking — even though America’s own data shows that less than 0.1 percent of fentanyl seized by U.S. authorities was at the Canada-U.S. border. He also railed against Canada’s tariffs on U.S. dairy — which are levied only if U.S. dairy exports exceed a predetermined quota. “Frustratingly, the U.S. has never gotten close to exceeding” the quotas, the International Dairy Foods Association said in March. British Columbia Premier David Eby called Trump’s letter “flailing and factually incorrect.” “Other F words come to mind,” Eby said on X. “Just one more reminder of why Canadians need to come together, to grow our economy and stand strong.” Ari Hawkins contributed to this report from Washington.

CARDIFF, Wales — At the edge of a sprawling wheat field on the outskirts of Cardiff, arable farmer Richard Anthony sticks a shovel in the ground and offers up a fistful of soil for a sniff.  “The first thing [I do when] I walk into a field: I catch a handful of soil,” he says. “[The] first thing I do is smell it, to see if it smells healthy.” His mind is on climate change. The clump in his palm is indeed healthy — but it’s dry. It comes at the tail end of an unusually hot spring. Anthony and his wife, Lyn, are planting crops in increasingly short “weather windows,” dodging the wet days of the previous fall. “It does worry me,” he told POLITICO, acres of wheat plants swaying behind him. “But we, as farmers, have always had to adapt. And we’re having to adapt to climate change.” Farmers like the Anthonys are looking for guidance from the Senedd — the Labour-led devolved Welsh parliament down the road in Cardiff Bay. “Farming is seen as the biggest problem with climate change, and we’re not. We’re the only industry that can actually do something about it,” Anthony said. But Welsh ministers’ key environmental plans are in disarray, delayed for over a year after farmers angrily rejected proposals they say would hit jobs and livelihoods. Annoying farmers is bad news for Labour in Wales, a country where 90 percent of land is given over to agriculture. And it has consequences in Westminster, too, for a U.K. government that can’t afford another political bloody nose. Welsh national elections next May will be a crucial mid-term litmus test for the appeal of Keir Starmer’s embattled Labour. The 2026 Senedd vote is seen by party leaders in London “as a staging post between now and [the general election in] 2029,” said one Welsh union boss in February. Labour is going backward in Wales.  Welsh polls published Tuesday show Labour, in charge at the Senedd since 1999, dropping to third place, losing support to both populists Reform UK and nationalists Plaid Cymru. The party is being punished, experts say, for its own perceived inertia and a far too cozy relationship with Westminster. “The Welsh government are in a very difficult situation, in that both they are unpopular as incumbents and they’re also paying a price for the unpopularity of the U.K. Labour government,” said Jac Larner, a politics lecturer at Cardiff University. “So at the moment there is a general resistance, I think, to taking any tough decisions.”  THE CLIMATE MOMENT Faltering climate policy contributes to the sense that Welsh ministers are “losing perceptions of competence,” Larner argued. The challenge is substantial. Within the next decade, agriculture could become Wales’ largest source of emissions. To hit a U.K.-wide target of net zero by 2050, most emissions cuts will have to come from high-polluting sectors like farming. The Welsh government’s solution is the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) — a program designed to help farmers adopt low-carbon activities like planting more trees. The thinking is that with the offer of cash, farmers will dedicate more of their land to mopping up planet-wrecking emissions, making the most of its natural potential to sequester carbon and store it deep in the soil. Wales should reap the benefits of these “natural carbon sinks,” says the U.K.’s independent climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee.  But ministers paused the SFS roll-out after initial plans, published in December 2023, provoked protests and a backlash over a draft 10 percent tree-planting target, which farmers said would cost thousands of agricultural jobs. The Welsh government says details will now be finalized this summer, with the scheme up and running in 2026. With 90 percent of its land used for farming, Wales is seeing instability over climate and agriculture policy. | Abby Wallace/POLITICO “I think we’ve come from such a bad place, it’s going to be quite hard to lift it back up,” said Abi Reader, a dairy farmer and deputy president of the National Farmers Union Cymru.  Behind Reader, on her farm in the Cardiff town of Wenvoe, a large shed groans as rows of cattle diligently shuffle into the parlour, waiting to be hooked up to clinking machines for milking. “It’s difficult to say whether we should be signing up to it [the SFS] or not, because we’ve got no details of any of the costings,” Reader said.  “We’re all business people at the end of the day and, you know, we’ve all already done our budgets for next year. And there’s nothing to go to a bank manager with and say: ‘I want to borrow this, or can you support me for that?’” ‘BANG, BANG, KICK A MAN’ The SFS has caused unrest on another politically sensitive topic: livestock. A Welsh government estimate suggested the scheme could reduce livestock numbers by as much as 120,000. If ministers in Cardiff follow separate CCC advice published in May — on how to hit climate goals by 2033 — cattle and sheep numbers in Wales need to fall by nearly a fifth. Some of this will come from wider trends toward lower meat and dairy consumption — but it will also be driven by policies like the SFS, which incentivize farmers to rely less on livestock. The Welsh government must “engage with farmers and their communities, and support them to diversify their incomes,” the CCC said. This advice has spooked farmers, who see a threat to years of family-owned businesses. “Would that mean I’d have to move away from here?” asked third-generation beef farmer Tom Rees in his kitchen in Cowbridge, gesturing to the fields beyond the window where his father and grandfather also farmed. His farm slopes downhill toward a patch of land that often floods when a neighboring river overflows. It’s sliced up into rectangular fields by colorful hedgerows that act as corridors for local wildlife and as shelter for his cows on sunny days — but planting hedges isn’t how Rees wants to earn a living. “I went to college to study agriculture, to come on the farm because I wanted to produce food,” he said. “I don’t want to plant a woodland.” Rees hopes to pass the farm on to his 15-month-old son Henry — but is worried about uncertainty over the SFS, as well as issues around bovine tuberculosis and inheritance tax changes. He said: “Dad’s left the farm in a better place than when he took it on. We want to take it on a bit further, so we could leave it for Henry. … [But] with the government in Westminster and the government in the Senedd — you just really feel, Why are we bothering? “It’s bang, bang, kick a man while you’re down. That’s what it feels like, and that’s what a lot of farmers feel like in Wales.” The Welsh government refused to comment on the SFS, confirming only that details will be published this month. A spokesperson said the government is “reviewing” the CCC’s advice, which will inform decisions on a new climate goal for Wales before the end of the year. “We’re trying to take forward a future for agriculture in Wales, which is to do with thriving, living businesses and communities within Wales,” Huw Irranca-Davies, Wales’ cabinet secretary for climate change and rural affairs, told POLITICO in an interview last year. ANNOYING VOTERS Labour’s support has traditionally been low in rural Wales, where votes flow instead to the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru. But the mess over agricultural policies is deepening Labour’s woes, argued Cardiff University’s Larner. “By annoying these people, you kind of block off the possibility that any of these people at all will vote Labour,” he said, “So it’s just a kind of narrowing of the vote pool in which you can fish for extra voters come other elections.” Meantime, Plaid Cymru and Reform are making their pitches to rural voters. “You have to take the farmers with you on this journey. And that’s one lesson, I think, that the Welsh government has learned the hard way,” said Llyr Gruffydd, Senedd member for North Wales and Plaid’s agriculture and rural affairs spokesperson. Plaid will “reassess” the SFS when more details are published, Gruffydd said. His party is not about to announce plans to “plow a different furrow,” he said, but he didn’t rule out ditching the unpopular scheme either. When Plaid sees the plans, Gruffydd argued, it can decide “whether this is something that we can pursue, whether we feel we need to amend it — or, God forbid, whether we have to say, let’s get back to the drawing board.” Nigel Farage’s Reform, riding high in the polls and fresh from smashing Labour in local elections in May, wants to scrap net-zero targets altogether. “Farmers want lower costs to stay afloat. Net stupid zero adds costs for no benefit,” said Deputy Leader Richard Tice. Reform is set to benefit, too, from anger over the fate of Welsh steelmaking. Thousands of job losses loom at the Port Talbot plant as it shifts to a lower-emitting electric arc furnace, a political gift to Farage when he argues that climate-friendly policies wreck traditional industries. “That’s the one big example we’ve seen of net-zero related policy, and is one of loss of jobs with not very much put in place to support workers to do anything different,” said Joe Rossiter, co-director at the Institute of Welsh Affairs. “When it all shakes out, I do think the fight will be Labour vs. Reform for the top spot,” said one Labour insider who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. The U.K. government “has been completely focused on making sure the transition to green steelmaking is as good as it can be.” Asked about the example of Port Talbot, Reader, the dairy farmer, was nervous about the precedent it set for other climate policies. “If they damage Welsh agriculture in the same way [as steel], I think that’s really letting down Wales,” she said.  ALL IN IT TOGETHER The Welsh government’s other big problem? It has cuddled up so tightly to Westminster that Labour’s performance in Cardiff will rebound in London and vice-versa. “There’s no ‘other’ for them to blame, because they’ve tied themselves very closely, rhetorically as well, to the U.K. government,” Larner said. Some Welsh Labour MPs defend the U.K. government’s record. “If you look at the amount of money that the Labour Party is investing in the agricultural sector, that shows a huge commitment to the industry,” said Henry Tufnell, Labour MP for Pembrokeshire. After months spent arguing the benefits of having Labour governments in both Cardiff and London, Senedd First Minister Eluned Morgan in May pivoted to emphasize the divide between them. Expect more attempts to put “clear red water” between the two camps, Larner said. Yet when Starmer addressed the Welsh Labour conference in north Wales last month, the old closeness was back. “Next year it’s a clear choice. Two Labour governments working together for the people of Wales … or risk rolling back all the progress we are making,” the prime minister said. As Starmer spoke, a clutch of farmers protested outside. ‘Starmer: farmer harmer,’ read one placard. Voters will say soon enough what they make of that bond between Labour in Wales and Westminster.

LONDON — Keir Starmer hailed a “landmark deal” with the European Union back in May which he promised would slash red tape. One month on, however, and Starmer’s promises still seem like a distant dream in Northern Ireland, as businesses brace for yet more Brexit paperwork. From July 1, a whole raft of new food products sold in Northern Ireland will have to carry “Not for EU” labels as part of the third and final phase of a controversial labeling rollout. The rules — set out in the Windsor Framework deal between the U.K. and EU — are supposed to ensure that goods are not moved onward from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, an EU member country. But in light of the U.K. prime minister’s fresh EU deal, businesses are questioning why the new labels should be introduced at all. Under the terms of the deal agreed by Starmer, Britain is preparing to sign up to European single-market regulation on animal and plant health, known as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) rules, removing the need for the labeling. “We are being required to implement a very cumbersome and onerous regulation from July 1 until the date that the [SPS] deal is put into law, which may only be a matter of months,” said Roger Pollen, head of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland.  “There will almost certainly be manufacturers who will say: ‘No, we’re not doing that’, and stop supplying the market, leading to gaps on shelves and broken supply chains, simply because the EU are sticking on a point of principle despite the imminent SPS deal.” ‘FRANKLY FARCICAL’ The labels are deeply controversial for businesses, who claim they are not only off-putting to consumers but costly for manufacturers and “cataclysmic” for food exports.  The latest rollout will cover some fruit and vegetables, fish, and composite products such as pizzas and quiches. Meat and dairy products sold in Northern Ireland already carry the labels. The requirement was originally supposed to apply U.K.-wide, but that plan was scrapped last year following a huge backlash from businesses — with the caveat that they could be reimposed if supplies to Northern Ireland are detrimentally affected.  A senior retail figure, granted anonymity to speak freely, said industry was “furious at the government’s failure to stand up to the EU and demand that retailers be treated as trusted traders. If the U.K. and EU have agreed to align on SPS standards, then it is frankly farcical to proceed with phase-three labeling.” Meat and dairy products sold in Northern Ireland already carry the labels. | Janos Vajda/EPA A spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, tasked with the implementation of the Windsor Framework, acknowledged that the need for the labels would likely be “diminished” as a result of any SPS agreement. “In the meantime,” they said, “it is important to implement the existing arrangements for the Windsor Framework and we will continue to work closely with businesses across the United Kingdom to support them in implementing these arrangements.” That message was hammered home at a recent meeting of the Specialised Committee on the Implementation of the Windsor Framework — co-chaired by the U.K. government and the European Commission — where both sides reiterated their commitment to the “full, timely and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework,” including the “correct implementation of the labelling safeguards.”  A Commission spokesperson said suspending the implementation of the Windsor Framework until an SPS agreement is reached “creates risks for the integrity of the EU internal market, which the EU does not accept. It is important to recall that the EU and the U.K. currently have different SPS rules. “Honouring existing agreements is a question of good faith, this is why the EU and the U.K. both committed to the full, timely and faithful implementation of existing international agreements between them,” they added. ‘EU HAS SHOWN NO COMPROMISE’ But the lack of flexibility has left industry disappointed — and in some cases blaming the EU.   “The EU has shown no compromise and insisted on ‘full and faithful’ implementation of the rules despite agreeing to probably remove them in the near future,” the retail figure said. “The government’s failure to resist this unreasonable behavior is extremely disappointing and U.K. consumers will end up bearing the costs [with] increased prices.” Pollen agreed. “The only people who can actually step in and be magnanimous about this are the EU and they’ve resolutely refused to do that so far.  “I think they should just be pragmatic and say: Look, we’ve reached this overarching agreement on SPS with the U.K. On that basis we are not going to require businesses supplying Northern Ireland to have to go ahead with phase-three labeling for a grace period of a year to 18 months. “Then, if the deal is ‘papered up’ in law by that stage, this bureaucratic labeling won’t be required at all.”  But a figure close to discussions about the future of the scheme — granted anonymity to speak freely — called for realistic expectations of when an SPS deal was likely to happen. “First of all, the U.K. needs to align itself to EU standards, where it has diverged,” they said. For example, the U.K. has authorized emergency use of certain pesticides that are banned in the EU. Some suppliers may decide to drop out of the Northern Ireland market altogether. | Mark Marlow/EPA “Then, on the EU side, the Commission will not have their mandate to get into technical discussions from the European Council until at least mid-Autumn and the European Parliament will want some sort of input into the technical process.  “Either way, those things aren’t going to happen overnight, and while relationships from the political agreement are still buoyant, the technical discussion will be much more intense and fervent.” ‘THROUGH-THE-LOOKING-GLASS POLICY’ Despite industry’s concerns, retailers are generally “well prepared — especially when it comes to own-brand products,” the same senior retail figure quoted earlier said. But they added that there are still a “considerable number of suppliers, including sizable brands who are not ready, and who don’t want to play ball.” While some suppliers may decide to drop out of the Northern Ireland market altogether, others are getting round the issue by bringing unlabeled goods through the “red lane,” a customs channel for goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain that are intended to move into the EU, where they face full EU customs checks. The absurdity isn’t lost on Pollen. “They [businesses] are prepared to go through that added bureaucracy just to ease a different type of bureaucracy. It’s through-the-looking-glass policy.” With the U.K. and EU unlikely to budge on labeling any time soon, Rod Addy, director general of the Provision Trade Federation, which represents food processing, manufacturing and trading companies, is pinning his hopes on a swift SPS deal.    “Our view would be that the government and industry need to quickly identify the most important sticking points and come up with quick fixes so the deal can be pushed through relatively quickly and business and government can enjoy the benefits in months, not years,” he said. 

LONDON — Banned snacks have been pulled from sale in the Eurostar departures area at Brussels Midi station after warnings they could breach United Kingdom biosecurity rules. Since April, it has been illegal to carry foods like cured meats, cheese and milk into Britain from the European Union in a bid to stop the spread of foot-and-mouth disease to British farms. But POLITICO this week reported that the duty free shop in the departures area was still selling EU pork products that could land travelers with a £5,000 fine if brought into Great Britain. The retail outlet, which Eurostar said is managed by Belgian public railway company SNCB, is only accessible to London-bound passengers. British pig farmers described the revelations as “alarming” amid concerns that a foot-and-mouth outbreak could ruin U.K. agriculture. On Friday, following the publication of the POLITICO report, a spokesperson for Eurostar said the products had been removed. “Following the UK Government’s decision to ban the import of meat and dairy products from the EU, Eurostar has communicated the new regulations to customers on its website and placed clear signage at relevant departure points,” they said. “The Eurostar terminal and retail concessions at Brussels-Midi are owned and managed by SNCB (and not by Eurostar). They have confirmed these products have now been withdrawn.” SNCB has been contacted for comment. The controls, launched on April 12, are “critical to limit the risk of foot-and-mouth disease incursion,” according to the U.K.’s deputy chief veterinary officer for international and trade affairs, Dr. Jorge Martin-Almagro. The shop, which sold items including a 40-pack of cured sausages, is five meters from a U.K. Border Force post where British border officials are permanently stationed checking passports. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “This government will do whatever it takes to protect British farmers from foot-and-mouth disease. We are working closely with Border Force, ports, airports and international travel operators, to increase awareness of the new restrictions including via prominent signs.” The ban on personal imports was introduced following the detection of foot-and-mouth cases in Hungary and Germany earlier this year. But experts have warned that U.K. health officials lack the funds to enforce the rules, as POLITICO reported in April. A 2001 outbreak in the U.K. saw 6 million cows and sheep slaughtered on farms and restrictions on access to the countryside introduced in a bid to halt the spread of the disease. The estimated cost of the episode to the British economy was £8 billion.

LONDON — The U.K. government has put planned Brexit border checks on fruit and vegetables on hold while it negotiates a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with Brussels. The proposed SPS deal, committed to by both sides at a U.K.-EU summit last month, would remove the need for border checks on plant and animal products entirely. While the agreement will take months to negotiate, on Monday the government announced it would postpone the introduction of the next raft of checks on so-called “medium risk” fruit and vegetables imports in light of talks. The checks on fresh produce were yet to be introduced and have been repeatedly delayed amid concerns about disruption they pose to supply chains. Industry figures welcomed the move and said it was “common-sense,” pointing to earlier calculations that the checks would have led to £200 million in higher costs and resulting higher prices. “This Government’s EU deal will make food cheaper, slash bureaucracy and remove cumbersome border controls for businesses,” Biosecurity Minister Helene Hayman said. “A strengthened, forward-looking partnership with the European Union will deliver for working people as part of our Plan for Change.” SPS checks on food imports including meat, fish and dairy were introduced from April 30 2024 by the Conservative government after years of delay — but checks on fresh produce are yet to go live. A planned October 2024 date was put back by the Labour government to July this year, but this has now effectively been delayed indefinitely. The government has said the checks are now scheduled to come in on January 31 2027 — by which time they will likely not be required due to the planned SPS agreement. That agreement will see the U.K. align with EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules in order to cut red tape on food, plants and animals at the border. Nigel Jenney, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium, said: “This is a unique and sector-specific exemption, and one we’ve fought long and hard to achieve.” “We’re proud to have secured a common-sense solution that protects our diverse and critical industry — from supermarket supply chains to the thousands of SMEs in wholesale and foodservice.”