“One-sided and harmful”: European farmers protest against new US trade deal

Xpert pre-release

Language selection 📢

Published on: September 3, 2025 / Updated on: September 3, 2025 – Author: Konrad Wolfenstein

“One-sided and harmful”: European farmers protest against new US trade deal – Creative image: Xpert.Digital

Trade shock with the USA: This agreement costs European farmers billions

### EU's new Trump deal: Why wine is getting more expensive and US meat is flooding the market ### Fatal agreement: How the EU is abandoning its own farmers to avoid a trade war ### 15% tariff on German exports: The high price Europe's farmers are paying for peace with Trump ### USA at an advantage, EU at a disadvantage: The unfair pact that is dividing European agriculture ###

EU Farmers' Association warns of devastating consequences of trade agreement with the USA

The new trade agreement between the European Union and the United States, finalized in August 2025, is triggering a wave of outrage in European agriculture. Leading associations such as Copa and Cogeca, representing millions of farms, are criticizing the agreement negotiated under EU Commission President von der Leyen and US President Trump as fundamentally unbalanced and threatening the existence of domestic producers. The pact is viewed as a strategic mistake that systematically disadvantages European agriculture and massively undermines its competitiveness.

At the heart of the conflict lies a dramatic asymmetry in trading conditions: While European agricultural products, including valuable export products such as wine and spirits, will be subject to a flat tariff of 15 percent in the future, US products will receive easier and preferential access to the EU market. This arrangement comes at a time when European farmers are already under enormous pressure from the world's highest environmental and production standards, rising costs, and fierce global competition. The EU Commission defends the deal as a necessary evil to avoid an escalating trade war, but for critics and affected farmers, the price for this supposed stability is far too high. The agreement not only jeopardizes the economic viability of key sectors but also raises fundamental questions about the strategic direction of EU trade policy and future food security.

Suitable for:

Donald Trump and Ursula von der Leyen – The 15% tariff agreement between the EU and the USA: A comprehensive analysis of the consequences

Europe-wide protests against one-sided customs deal

The recent trade agreement between the European Union and the United States has sparked a wave of protest in European agriculture. Leading agricultural associations Copa and Cogeca, which represent millions of European farmers and cooperatives, describe the agreement as fundamentally unbalanced and harmful to domestic producers. Critics argue that the agreement, finalized in August 2025 and resulting from negotiations between EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump, represents a strategic mistake that systematically disadvantages European agriculture.

The German Farmers' Association has clearly expressed its disappointment with the joint statement between the EU and the US. The association's designated Secretary General, Stefanie Sabet, sharply criticized the EU Commission for unilaterally making agreements to the detriment of European and German agriculture. This approach is unacceptable and will lead to a significant deterioration in the competitive position of European producers.

Dramatic deterioration in trading conditions

The new terms of trade reveal a clear asymmetry in favor of the United States. While European agricultural and food exports to the United States will be subject to a uniform tariff of 15 percent in the future, American producers will receive significantly improved market access to the EU. This tariff increase represents a tenfold increase compared to the average tariffs that applied before Trump's second term and represents an unprecedented burden for European exporters.

Particularly painful is the fact that the US receives preferential market access for its agricultural and food products, while EU producers now face significantly higher tariffs. The agreement grants American producers improved export opportunities for pork products, fruit, vegetables, dairy products, and seafood to the EU without any discernible assurances regarding production and environmental standards.

The European Commission justifies this agreement by arguing that it creates stability and predictability and prevents a trade war. Critics, however, argue that this supposed stability has come at a far too high price. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) described the agreement as a fatal signal, as the EU is willing to accept painful tariffs.

Wine and spirits particularly affected

A particularly bitter aspect of the agreement is the treatment of the wine and spirits industry. Although the minimum expectation was tariff relief for wine and spirits, a solution advocated by stakeholders in both the EU and the US, this demand remained unfulfilled. Instead, these high-value European export products are also subject to the 15 percent tariff.

This development is particularly problematic because the US has traditionally been one of the most important markets for European quality wines and spirits. Around 30 percent of the wine and spirits exported from the EU are destined for the United States. European producers will now have to either accept shrinking margins or raise their prices, which significantly jeopardizes their long-term competitiveness in the American market.

At the same time, geographical designations of origin such as Champagne, Roquefort, and Parma ham, which are normally protected in EU trade agreements, have not been strengthened. This neglect leaves producers vulnerable to imitation and undermines the value of Europe's food heritage abroad.

Unequal competition from third countries

The situation is further exacerbated by the unequal treatment of various US trading partners. While EU producers now face 15 percent tariffs, rival countries like Australia and Argentina continue to benefit from lower tariffs of only 10 percent. This discrepancy means that European producers are even more disadvantaged in a key segment, further weakening their market position compared to other international competitors.

This unequal treatment reinforces the existing disadvantages faced by European producers and makes it clear that the agreement is far removed from the principles of reciprocity and fair trade that the EU normally seeks in its trade relations.

Structural challenges of European agriculture

The current trade problems come at a particularly unfortunate time for European agriculture, which is already suffering from significant structural burdens. The sector is under pressure from rising costs, extensive regulatory requirements, and increasing global competition. This triple burden makes the additional trade barriers particularly problematic.

European environmental and production standards are significantly higher than in many competing countries outside the EU. A study by the HFFA Research Institute and Ruhr University Bochum calculated that these standards burden German agriculture with costs of approximately €5.3 billion, or €315 per hectare. If comparable competitive conditions existed as in major competitor countries, the costs would only be approximately €1.2 billion, or €69 per hectare.

Structural change in European agriculture is accelerating steadily. Between 2020 and 2023, the number of farms in Germany fell by 7,800 to 255,000. While smaller farms are disappearing, the average farm size is growing from 63 to 65 hectares. This trend is evident throughout Europe, where fewer and larger farms are taking over production.

Economic impact on German agriculture

Germany occupies a special position in the European agricultural landscape. As the EU's largest milk and pork producer, Germany holds market shares of 21 and 20 percent in these important product categories, respectively. In beef and eggs, Germany ranks second after France, with 15 and 12 percent, respectively. This strong position makes German producers particularly vulnerable to the new trade barriers.

The US is already one of the EU's most important trading partners in the agricultural sector. In 2024, almost 13 percent of all agricultural exports from the EU went to the US, with wine, spirits, and vegetable oils dominating the product range. EU-US trade in agricultural goods amounted to €45.8 billion in 2024, of which 72 percent was exported from the EU to the US.

The economic consequences of the new agreement are already foreseeable. Experts predict a negative impact of 0.2 percent on German gross domestic product. Sales of German goods to the US could fall permanently by almost 16 percent, although some goods could be diverted to other countries. Value added in German industry is expected to decline by around 1.5 percent.

Impact on various agricultural sectors

Meat production, traditionally a strength of German agriculture, faces particular challenges. Germany produces 16 percent more meat than is consumed domestically; for pork, this figure is as high as 19 percent. These export surpluses make the German meat industry particularly dependent on international markets and thus vulnerable to trade barriers.

The dairy industry is another critical sector. Germany remains the largest producer in the EU, with an annual production of approximately 32.6 million tons of milk. Total milk production has remained virtually constant in recent years, although the number of farms has declined and is concentrated on fewer, but larger, farms.

In contrast, meat production has been declining since 2016 and amounted to only 5.93 million tons in 2023. The development is particularly dramatic for pork, where production and stocks fell by 25 percent by 2024. This already difficult market situation is further exacerbated by the new trade barriers.

🎯🎯🎯 Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & SEM

AI & XR 3D Rendering Machine: Fivefold expertise from Xpert.Digital in a comprehensive service package, R&D XR, PR & SEM - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month

Precautionary principle vs. aftercare principle – Who wins the agricultural market? Is food security at risk?

Comparison of trading conditions and standards

A key aspect of the current debate concerns the different production and environmental standards between the EU and the US. The EU applies the precautionary principle, while the US applies the post-care principle, which allows a substance to be used until it is proven to pose a significant risk.

These differences manifest themselves concretely in areas such as the use of chlorine-treated chickens, hormone-treated meat, and genetically modified crops, whose imports the EU prohibits. The US has long been concerned about the lack of access to these products to the European market, and American farmers had expected that Trump's trade agreement would regulate this access.

European farmers must comply with significantly stricter environmental, climate, and animal welfare regulations than their American competitors. These regulations include, among others, the EU Water Framework Directive, the amended Fertilizer Regulation, EU rules on the marketing of pesticides, and specific standards for animal husbandry.

Suitable for:

Unequal trade balance USA-EU? Digital US services are missing-Revaluation of transatlantic trade is necessary!

Political reactions and demands

The reactions of European agricultural policymakers to the trade agreement have been distinctly critical. COPA and COGECA are urgently calling for an impact assessment of the agreement on the EU agricultural sector, including a detailed analysis of substitution effects. The associations are also demanding that the EU Commission continue negotiations with the US on tariff reductions for key agricultural exports.

The German Raiffeisen Association is particularly concerned about price fluctuations resulting from the American protective tariff policy. The most problematic issue is not so much the direct Trump tariffs, but rather a possible counter-reaction from the EU. If raw material imports from the US were to be subject to tariffs, this would have significant repercussions, particularly for the corn market.

The Farm Europe think tank warns that the Commission has so far failed to defend the EU's aggressive interests in the agricultural and food sector. If one considers the agreement as a starting point for future negotiations, one realizes that European agriculture is already lagging behind considerably.

Long-term prospects and uncertainties

The long-term effects of the trade agreement are not yet fully foreseeable, but the trend is worrying. Transatlantic trade relations, which have so far been a lifeline of global trade, could be fundamentally altered. With an annual trade volume of €1,680 billion, the US and the EU have the most extensive economic relationship in the world.

The EU is the world's largest agricultural and food exporter, with the US in second place by a wide margin. In 2023, the EU exported agricultural and food goods worth €229 billion, primarily to the UK, the US, and China, with a trade surplus of €70 billion.

However, experts warn of the unpredictability of the Trump administration. Erratic policies and sudden changes of direction make it difficult to predict whether the current agreement will last in the long term. Trump never completely takes tariff threats off the table, and further disruption from Washington is to be expected.

Impact on competitiveness

The new trade regime significantly exacerbates the existing competitive problems facing European agriculture. Export-based business models of European companies for the US market will only function to a limited extent in the future. A return to the old normal of a flourishing and largely barrier-free exchange of goods and services is not to be expected in transatlantic trade for the time being.

For many smaller European export companies, relocating production to the US is too costly, time-consuming, and, given the erratic US policy, risky. Only large corporations may have the option of relocating European production to existing plants in the US to avoid tariffs.

The situation is complicated by the parallel efforts to simplify the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. The European Commission has presented a comprehensive package of measures that could save up to €1.58 billion annually for farmers and €210 million for national administrations. These simplifications are intended to support the competitiveness, resilience, and digitalization of the agricultural sector.

Systemic impacts on food security

The trade agreement also raises questions about Europe's long-term food security. EU Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen emphasizes that food security has been taken for granted for too long and that the agricultural and food sector is of strategic importance for European security.

In this context, it is important to reduce dependencies that represent vulnerabilities. The EU is working on a protein strategy to increase protein production in the EU and diversify suppliers. At the same time, the Commission is committed to greater reciprocity in trade relations and greater harmonization of production standards.

The discrepancy between high European standards and lower requirements in third countries remains a key problem. The Commission believes that a dangerous pesticide that is banned in the EU should also not be permitted in imported products.

Necessary reforms

The current situation makes it clear that fundamental reforms in European trade policy are necessary. The systematic discrimination against agriculture in EU trade negotiations has become a worrying trend. The Commission must explain how the current results are consistent with the stated goals of the agricultural sector's strategic role for Europe, the strengthening of rural areas, and fair trade.

European agriculture faces the challenge of maintaining its competitiveness in a deteriorating international environment. This requires not only a revision of the trade strategy but also a fundamental discussion about the balance between high environmental and production standards on the one hand and international competitiveness on the other.

The coming months will show whether the EU is able to mitigate the negative effects of the trade agreement and achieve a more balanced position in transatlantic trade relations. Without significant adjustments, European agriculture risks a further deterioration of its already difficult situation in an increasingly competitive global market.