The EU’s farming dilemma: Sustainability, regulation, & survival

Farmers are at the center of politics in Europe, where stakeholders push individual stances toward decarbonization and market competitiveness.

BRUSSSELS, Belgium — Mass protests in European capitals have captured global attention — not for their sheer size, but for their striking photos of tractors lined up for miles long, deliberately moving slowly, creating traffic chaos in the streets of Paris. In Belgium, farmers sprayed manure on government buildings, and in London, protesters waved brightly colored signs reading, “No farmer, no food, no future.”

The largest gatherings took place in spring 2024, protesting a long list of grievances on diesel subsidies slashed in Germany, plummeting farm incomes in France, and the looming threat of Green Deal legislation that swept across the European Union.

A carefully crafted image was spread worldwide: Europe’s farmers, angered by environmental regulations and sluggish bureaucracy, take to the streets. Demonstrators turned agriculture policy into a flashpoint for debate in recent years.

That image has been recognized by fellow farmers as a symbol of financially unsustainable times. It also contrasts with the perception of the EU as progressive and advanced in sustainability — something Europe’s farmers have made clear: Regulation, beyond a certain point, is simply not sustainable.

Since then, farmers have sat at the heart of politics, with all nine major parties vying to be known as the “farmer’s party.” In June 2024, the EU had an election to form a new five-year government, and right-wing parties gained traction across Europe, famously in Hungary and the Netherlands.

These parties are now calling for a “simplification” of agricultural regulations.

» Related reading: See more in this farm series here

Led by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen of the center-right EPP party, the new administration has shifted priorities, aiming to give Europe a competitive edge in the global marketplace.

This has led to some environmental regulations being placed on hold under what the commission refers to as the “competitive compass,” a seemly new identity for slow-working government.

The government of many

Made up of 27 member nations, the EU is a diverse market of farmers who farm on 50 percent less land, but have five times as many farmers, as the U.S., according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Dominated by a growing population and 24 official languages, the individual nations’ cultures and ideals bring many voices to the table — and many mouths to feed.

The continent is a net importer of raw commodities, but an exporter of high-value produce and processed foods. It relies on agricultural trade relationships with Brazil, Ukraine, and the U.S. for commodities like cereals, oilseeds, cocoa, and fruits.

The EU’s legislative process, often described as “too democratic” due to its length and slow pace, involves three bodies: the commissioners, the council, and members of Parliament. With so many parties offering differing views, they form a diplomatic “trilogue” to reach consensus. This work is carried out between two capitals, Brussels and Strasbourg, in an organized yet decentralized effort.

One lobbyist described the process as a “woodchipper effect”; another as a “European gravy train”  — the underappreciated effort of so many politicians in their lives.

This shift signals a transformation in EU farm policy, as the slow and complex consensus-driven process begins to fuel intense debates over deregulation — echoing political trends in the United States.

Three specific areas of policy in the EU impact U.S. agriculture.

• After a one-year delay in the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), farm groups hope to collaborate with the new administration to ease the administrative burden. The EUDR requires anti-deforestation traceability for soy, cattle, cocoa, and palm oil, along with three other commodities imported or produced in Europe. Last year, grain and feed companies scrambled to build the resources needed to prepare for the regulation.
• Secondly, under new leadership, there is hope to ease restrictions on New Genomic Techniques (NGTs). Europe has long been known for its restrictions on the import of genetically engineered crops and advanced plant breeding techniques. If a docket of legislation removing restrictions on patenting NGTs passes in the council this year, it could lead to increased adoption of precision breeding, CRISPR-Cas9, and gene editing. This would also change the trade dynamics with countries that still uphold the traditional restrictions that Europe once had.
• Finally, the EU will open debates on reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which governs national agricultural policies and supports EU farmers, like the U.S. farm bill. Its budget falls within the seven-year EU budget framework, influencing spending. However, the CAP is reformed every five years, with the next period anticipated to be 2028 to 2032. Uniquely, CAP discussions open almost three years in advance to be able to plan, unlike the U.S., which after years of talks is past due on a new farm bill.

U.S. and EU policy agendas are aligning in 2025, with center-right leaderships focusing on competition, including in farm policy. For the EU, the challenge is how to align the two buzzwords of the year — decarbonization and competitiveness — supported by different parties.

Reconciling with the world

Marion Picot is secretary general of the European Council for Young Farmers. She notes that progress has made by encouraging agriculture production in sustainable ways, but she also said, “We realized that we were so ambitious that we forgot we still needed the means to meet our ambitions.”

The sector argues that while accelerated climate decarbonization policies set ambitious goals, the policies themselves are not yet practical for farmers.

Many of these ideas coming from the European Green Deal, a proposal in the last EU mandate that worked to strengthen environmental regulation to achieve climate goals. Also known for its agriculture leg called the Farm to Fork strategy, it served as the climate change initiative of transforming the food supply chain in the previous mandate — facing heavy criticism from U.S. leaders when being negotiated.

European leaders are now realizing that North America does not share the same perspective on climate goals. Picot explains that some countries, including conservative farm leaders in the U.S., found the Green Deal to be very paternalistic.

“The European Union has had difficulty accepting that,” she said.

Since the 2024 protests and new leadership, many of the Farm to Fork proposals have yet to be implemented.

Regardless of when environmental regulations are implemented, Picot said our own “toolbox is not complete yet” for farmers to make operational changes desired by policymakers. That toolbox includes a risk and crisis management framework, (which not all member countries choose to utilize), financing instruments from the European Bank, and a revision of the Unfair Trading Practices (UTPs) Directive, which applies to farmers of all ages across Europe.

When the toolbox wasn’t complete in 2024, farmers could not adapt to climate change, tough markets, or geopolitical powers that ravaged Ukrainian grain markets.

“We recognize that in certain regions, we’ve pushed too far, and the effects on our climate are very visible,” Picot said. She added we didn’t need to convince her members on the climate objectives because “climate is at the center of their everyday concerns, with higher frequency and intensity.”

North America remains closely linked to EU developments, as European consumer preferences — favoring organic products over genetically engineered crops, for example — shape global demand and influence U.S. producers.

Farmers’ perspective

Farmers have long made their voices heard in this conversation, with many leading voluntary conservation and sustainability efforts.

For Dutch farmer Judith de Vor, her travels around the world have shown her that the key question isn’t just whether these policy changes are right for today, but whether the necessary discussions are happening now to shape the future.

“Here’s our mindset. They come with some regulations, which are probably not what we want, but if we know what we have to do, then we can work on it,” she said. “Then 10 years from now in 2035, some people choose to stop farming, but others say, ‘OK, we will go on and implement that kind of rule on our farm.’ ”

She is one of many farmers advocating for their sector, knowing today’s policies shape the future. “We [the agrifood sector] are only thinking about what is not possible instead of what our vision is,” she said.

De Vor is a dairy farmer, with her husband, Rick, outside of Rotterdam, Netherlands. Her 120-cow dairy farm operation is an average size in the Netherlands, adapting her farm to the eco-schemes of her milk processor, which she says gives her sellers choice and adequate pricing.

She also serves as a global communicator, Global Farming Network member, and former Nuffield Scholar, traveling to share how her farm stays ahead of sustainability and policy changes.

According to de Vor, resource limits, land competition, climate change, and profitability are farmers’ top challenges, with many CAP proposals set to address them.

Europe national agriculture policy is split between two “pillars,” direct farm payments and rural development, like the U.S. farm bill that is split between nutrition and farm assistance.

Farms such as de Vor’s in the European Union receive direct payments to support their agricultural production. Under the CAP, anyone who farms agricultural land receives payments based on hectares farmed — a policy instrument that some lawmakers have considered attaching more environmental provisions to in order to access those funds.

Used as a safety net, direct payments to farmers serve as the EU’s policy mechanism to make farming more profitable and guarantee food security by delivering public goods not typically covered by markets, provided those farmers meet basic land management provisions.

Some may equate this to the subsidies that farmers receive in the U.S., however, de Vor says that does not accurately describe how she sees support on her farm.

“I never use the word ‘subsidy,’ because what we do is produce a common good. We all need it — whether it’s taking care of nature or the landscape,” she said.

The CAP applies to almost 7 million European farmers, providing direct farm payments based on land usage rather than income. It makes up 72 percent of the seven-year legislation that is currently funded until 2027 but has drawn criticism for disproportionately benefiting large agribusinesses and will be at the center of the program’s negotiations in the coming two years.

An EU Commission report indicates that 80 percent of CAP funding goes to just 20 percent of farms, highlighting concerns about how the program’s payments are distributed.

Perhaps the mindset of the European farmer — one who farms on an average of 39 acres, where consumers are deeply connected to local, organic food purchasing, and where food prices are significantly lower than the U.S. — is centered around the common good.

A mindset that extends to how they improve their farming practices amid a climate crisis.

Why farmers took to the streets, protesting

When farmers took to the streets across Europe in spring 2024, their goal wasn’t just to voice their grievances to the government — it was to make them impossible to ignore. Blockading major cities brings national attention.

As one agrifood journalist covering Parliament put it, “You’ll never miss a farmer protest in Brussels or France.” Protesting in Europe is a fixture of national life, for farmers.

Ana Rocha, director of the EU’s Agri & Forestry Policies for the European Landowners Association and a longtime parliament policy advisor, said that this policy environment requires that “you should have a long breath, and then you will survive.”

Every agriculture issue or protest, depending on who you were talking to, “had a completely different story,” she said.

In 2024, in Germany, a fertilizer tax increased prices and diesel subsidy was cut, sparking outrage. France saw declining farm incomes and political upheaval during a snap election. Meanwhile in Poland, cheap Ukrainian imports dropped the price of grain. The EU itself continues to reshape policy, fueling more frustration over the sustainable use of pesticide regulations.

When a country’s farm groups protest, it is often a coordinated effort, through the farm organization’s advocacy team. However, what was seen in spring 2024 was new, unforeseen, and massive in scale.

“I think it was the first time that it was social media led, which was leading to panic with policy makers, enforcement, neighbors,” Rocha said.

Unlike in the U.S., where major economic agricultural policy is largely dictated at the federal level, European farmers must navigate both EU-wide regulations and national policies.

Protesters in France, well known vocal activists, have cultural significance behind the act.

“The French love a good demonstration,” multiple Brussels policy makers said in conversation.

Recent protests have been divided by national stance. Demonstrations in November 2024 and January 2025 opposed the Mercosur trade deal, which some EU producers fear will undercut prices and the U.S. uncertain shift the demand of U.S. products.

Germany and Spain support the deal, while France, Belgium, and Poland oppose it. Later this year, EU council members will hold reconciliation talks to negotiate possible changes.

Farmer protests in Europe can sometimes resemble a football tailgate or pre-game gathering. When not violent, people gather early with friends and neighbors, showing up regardless of the cause and always having something to complain about.

But unlike football, the season never ends, and farmers in Europe feel like they have been losing for too long.

This is the first in a four-part series of on-the-ground reporting from Europe, exploring the demands of consumers, the actions of policymakers, and the perspectives of agricultural producers working within the diverse, parliamentary framework of the European Union.

Jake Zajkowski is a freelance agriculture journalist covering farm policy, global food systems and the rural Midwest. Raised on vegetable farms in northern Ohio, he now studies at Cornell University.