Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Camilla Laureti
S. Will no longer be valid. And I say that because the work that we need to do, I, as a rapporteur, but all together with the shadow rapporteurs, what we'll need to do is proceed well, but proceed quickly. Now our compromise amendments will need to be focused. And as far as possible, we'll need to tackle the most urgent and most important issues.
And I say that because among the amendments, there are some that are based on the commission's proposal or reflect the commission's proposal. There are amendments which concern other provisions within concerning regulation that entered force in 2022. And then there's a whole series of amendments that concern issues that are new and go beyond the current regulation in force. We started negotiations at the technical and political level, and I am meeting with various shadow reporters. We would like to take the time that is required in order to discuss and negotiate with the council respecting the December 31 deadline for entry into force of the revised regulation.
But that, of course, will mean we have to make some drastic choices. A number of amendments seek to open issues already subject to agreement with member states as of 2018. A certain number concern issues that.
are.
Camilla Laureti
Divisive and will probably be equally divisive amongst the various political groups. So I think we will have to address the issues that the sector wishes us to consider after a few years of entry into force, and we'll have to arrive at some kind of synthesis addressing what we deem to be priorities. Now in terms of the issues that have been raised when it comes to livestock raising, access to grassland and poultry, the open farming, inorganic wine, marine salts, non-biological fertilizers, the exceptions that will probably be prolonged. A number of these issues can probably be dealt with without having to change the regulation. And, of course, we'll have to comply with the rulings of the court of justice.
So these issues can probably be dealt with in the context of the road map and the secondary legislation that the commission has already presented and that is committed to follow through. So when I have the floor and put questions to the commission, I think we need some light as to the commitments that we can enter into as a member of the European Parliament when it comes to the issues that are dealt with in the context of the road map. That I think is important because in that way, I think we'll understand or better understand those issues that will not be part of the discussions on the amendments. On May 21, there'll be a second meeting of shadow rapporteurs. And perhaps I can take this opportunity to thank all those colleagues that I have met with or will be meeting with, because I think we are heading in the right direction.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Camilla. And now I would like to give the floor to G. Schurtos from DG Agri. So you have 8 minutes, please. The floor is yours.
G. Schurtos
Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, and thank you also to the rapporteur. So you have given me basically two jobs this morning. One, to speak about the proposal for the amendment of the organic regulation. The other one is to talk about the report that the commission has published on the presence of products and substances that are not authorized for use in organic production.
So I propose to very briefly say a few words about the basic act modification. Madam Lauretti has already extensively introduced this point. I think from our side, it's important to underline the needs, the three key needs for this proposal. One, to provide clarity in relation to a ruling of the court, mainly linked to the use of the logo. The second, to ensure that equivalence arrangements with third countries continue after the end of this year.
And also, thirdly, to ensure that we address some elements of complexity in the organic regulation really based on large consensus among stakeholders. And as you've already heard, there is a certain urgency to get this change of the organic regulation through by the end of the year, because of these trade agreements. And therefore, I can only underline the commitment of the commission to work with you, work with the report to make sure that we achieve an agreement on this in Brussels as soon as we can. I would like to propose to spend a bit more time on the reports on the substances that are not authorized for use in organic regulation. As you know, organic products undergo a comprehensive certification process.
And over the years, this has proven its reliability, and in fact, is one of the cornerstones of the success of the EU organic sector. And the trusts of citizens in the organic certification system also means that they expect organic products to not carry traces of unauthorized substances. So in the basic regulation, these slides are maybe a bit too difficult to read from a distance, but they will be, of course, shared with you. In the organic regulation, the legislature has set out an article 29, how authorities should deal with these unauthorized substances. Basically, it means that, if there is a substantiated information about such an unauthorized occurrence, there is the need to open an official investigation to identify the source and the cause, of the present or not of this, of this substance.
And typically, that means a laboratory test is the start for launching this investigation. And, the legislature has asked the commission after a few years of the operation of the system to issue a report to inform you how things are going. So for this report that we have now published on March 31, we have used three sources of information. One, we have asked the European Food Safety Authority to make a report for us about the 21 non authorized substances that are most note notified in the organic farming information system. We have asked member states to provide us information about these unauthorized substances that they have to submit to us.
And we've also done a questionnaire with member states around the process of dealing with these unauthorized substances. And basically, the first message I would like to leave with you, from the FSAS study, which is also published, is that the occurrence of residues of pesticides and organic products is much less likely in organic than in conventional products. So for the 21 substances that EFSA has looked at, the presence ranged from 0.04 to 3.95 in products that are organic, and from 0.18 to 17.5 for nonorganic. So that is, in itself, a basic message of good news. Most organic products, second important message, most organic products have no traces of unauthorized substances.
So that is the basis, I think, on which we have to think about this report. But of course, in this report, we look at those cases where there are unauthorized substances. So we look at the bad apples in the basket, but there are few bad apples. So when we look at the 21 substances and then we look at the data from the member states, we wanted to know where these traces are found. So 66% is production level, 10% in preparation, 9% in storage, 6% in distribution, and so on.
You see that in the slide here. So that is where the member states observe these unauthorized presents. And then member states have, as I have explained, the task to find out where the cause of this. In a number of cases, member states have not been able to find the cause. Obviously, this is sometimes quite difficult.
But where they have found it, they're that is listed in this graph as well. So spray drift is the main cause, around 24 percent of the cases. And then there are cases where the operator failed to take the necessary precautionary measures. There are sixteen percent where the operator used products or substances that were not authorized. There was also a case where the contamination occurred further down, further up the supply chain.
And there was, of course, again, the issue, the cases where traces could not be found. So we have a diverse range of reasons that member states have to have been able to unearth around the cause of the unauthorized substances. What we've also asked member states about is the process around this. So, for example, on the timing of the investigations, often they were launched immediately. Although, sometimes, there is a bit of a delay.
And member states prioritize certain product groups, such as those with a shorter shelf life. Most MS member states estimated more than half of all investigations were able to identify the source and cause of contamination. And regarding the duration of official investigations, this varies significantly among the member states. Often twenty to thirty days for more than half of the reports reported by member states, but also often longer. And the reasons for longer duration include, for example, the need for additional sampling and cooperation among authorities.
And of course, this length of duration is very important also for operators because this is a cost. Some other observations are that investigated products are normally prohibited from being placed on the market, though a few member states indicate issues for certain product categories, such as fresh products with short shelf life. And member states reported that in over 90 percent of the cases, operators took corrective measures to avoid further contamination. I think that's also an important finding, that action is taken when issues are found. And finally, some member states have specific national rules.
Of course, it's important to also look at some lessons learned, some feedback that can be implemented. I think it's important to underline the need for strict compliance with precautionary measures to work with operators on that. Also, simplifying the implementation of precautionary measures was flagged as important by member states. Assisting operators by developing documents and providing training along the supply chain to deal with cases of unauthorized substances and improving communication more generally. So to conclude on this report, I think the first thing to underline and to emphasize is that your control system has proven its reliability.
It's one of the cornerstones of the organic sector's success. But of course, when looking for unauthorized substances, they are found. And based on the observance of the system and of the follow-up that has been carried out by member states, we view the current system as working reasonably well. And consequently, the commission does not see the need for adjustment at this early stage of implementation. After all, we've been basing this study on information from the very first years of the operation of the system.
At the same time, the report that the commission has published also acknowledges some remaining challenges for the various actors, including competent authorities, control bodies, and operators, for instance related to the complexity of supply chains and procedures, the duration of investigations, and diverging approaches. And that is precisely what the commission will try to address in the actions going forward. And with that, I realize now that I've used more time, but I just wanted to end by saying that with the continuous growth, both economically and in terms of cultivated land, it's extremely important to have a good piece of legislation in place. And I really hope that the discussion on the revision of the basic act will underline the importance of this legislative framework for the success of the sector. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry?
Hauser?
Veronika Vrecionová
Hauser? Hauser? Okay. But it's just now I want to do the round of shadows. So you want to mention something?
Martin Häusling
Yeah. Yes, madam chair. Why are they being merged, these two points? This, you know, have an extra agenda point, and now with this extra report from the commission. In my agenda, there are two different points.
And if we are supposed to deal with everything in two minutes, you know, for the two reports, we just can't work this way. Either we have four minutes, so to speak, or we do one after the other. I don't think we should be doing them in one specific single point.
Veronika Vrecionová
No. Okay. But there's a I mentioned it at the beginning. So just now we are in process. So let's start with the shadows.
And first, I would like to give the floor to Maran Wieslov from the EPP, and you can speak Polish if you want. Thank.
Marta Wcisło
Thank you very much indeed, chair, ladies and gentlemen. We have been working intensively in a constructive way on the regulation. As the reporters have said, some 228 amendments have been tabled. We don't have very much time between now and the end of the year. Otherwise, the provisions will no longer be valid.
But at the same time, I think we have to maintain the credibility of the logo, and the production capacity of farmers has to be maintained. But, we cannot expect our farmers to have to comply with tougher standards than is the case with producers in third countries who then export organic products into the EU market. So I think we need to reduce any provisional period to 2031. So that the commission is in a position to conclude agreements more rapidly with some 11 third countries. Secondly, I think we need more simplification.
All organic farmers have too little sort of feed in terms of sources, having to deal with various diseases, and are suffering from contamination from conventional farming. And they cannot bear responsibility for factors over which they have no influence. So this regulation, I think, needs to help organic farmers when it comes to more simplified management. And if we want to see increased organic production and growth in the sector, which is why we've tabled a certain number of amendments that would seek to cut down on the red tape, ensure that controls are more effective, whilst at the same time building more flexibility into the system without undermining the sort of integrity of organic produce in the EU. So we're talking about the need for greater flexibility on the production side and the marketing of organic agricultural products.
So once again, perhaps I can say that we're talking about the sort of marketing of organic agricultural products and the restricted use of protein-based feeds when there is a scarcity of such supply. We also need a more balanced approach when it comes to residues and non-authorized substances. And we're talking about changes to the MRL values. We're talking not only about norms or standards, but we're talking about the future of agriculture. Our aim is to ensure that 25% of the agricultural service area is devoted to organic farming.
Article 29, now. I think we need to be clear as to what unauthorized or prohibited substances actually means, what we understand by that term. I think we need a clear and uniform definition, but I do understand that is going to be difficult, which is why in the amendment, we have tabled this term, non authorized substances or produce products, I think, is something that should be further defined.
Thank you.
Gilles Pennelle
I think the regulation seeks to do away with differences between organic products in the EU and those imported. The equivalence regime was due to end at the '26. In the regulation, it says equivalents are granted will be maintained for a limited period of time. The reporter has said earlier that this is a normal case of renewal or update. That's not at all the case.
It has suggested that we make permanent what was due to be provisional and, in other words, favor the import of organic produce that does not comply with the same standards that EU farmers have to work to. It's not a guarantee of equivalent production. We're not talking about reciprocity in terms of standards. So-called equivalent products can be imported, whereas the costs and the rules of production are not the same. The commission wants to step up the production of organic products, in imports, whereas we're seeing a drop in the sector, in particular in France and a number of member states.
The dynamic has slowed down as of 2022, with a drop in consumer figures that has to do with inflation and the drop in purchasing power. The European organic logo can continue to be used, not under certain conditions for imported products. This, to the detriment of the consumers, in that there is no clear distinction between EU organic products and equivalent organic products that are imported. Therefore, is it really serious to import organic products that, in fact, will be emitting more greenhouse gases than the conventional agricultural product produced locally?
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, sir. And the ECR Shadows, I'm ECR Shadows. That is the reason I want to take the floor now, and I will speak Czech.
I think that the proposal is well balanced, and I believe that we can find a consensus. However, as we have heard, there are many amendments, and let me mention a few of them. Firstly, chicken when transferring to bioproduction. Now there is a limit of three days, which means the transport of chickens at the age of one to two days, and that means that they die much more. So I propose an extension.
Secondly, due to prevention and contamination of bio farmers, taking into account Article 29. Let me ask two questions to the commission. Firstly, how does the commission assess different approaches by member states when determining the source of contamination and the preventive measures? And are you planning to harmonize these? And secondly, taking into account the fact that contamination is often caused by spray drift from conventional farms?
What tools does the commission consider to strengthen prevention and, at the same time, ensure that there's not too much red tape for farmers? And thirdly, I think that assessment is necessary because we need to have an assessment of rules in practice. I look forward to further discussion.
Ole with Shadows of Fresno, please. You have 2 and a half minutes.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. I'd address both issues and respectfully request the time to do it adequately. The European organic sector stands as an important junction, colleagues. Over the past year, two developments have converged, the commission's proposal to amend Regulation EU 2018 848 and the Court of Justice judgment delivered on October 4. The Herbaria ruling did not create this legislative file, but it has sharpened its political and legal significance.
The court clarified how EU organic labelling rules must be applied, particularly for products from third countries, and underscored that organic claims must comply with the requirements set out in EU law. In doing so, it exposed areas where interpretation remains complex, and where uneven enforcement risks undermining trust. That's precisely where the current amendment package becomes essential, in my view. The commission's proposal now under consideration in the European Parliament, including under the repertoire of Camilla Loretta, seeks to address targeted shortcomings in the existing framework, notably on imports, certification, and control systems. These amendments are not about closing Europe off.
They're about ensuring that the rules are applied clearly, consistently, and fairly. Because if we want consumers to trust the EU organic label, then the label must stand for the same level of credibility regardless of where the product is actually produced. The Liberia judgment has made one thing clear: ambiguity creates legal uncertainty, uneven enforcement, and risks distorting competition. The legislative process now gives us the responsibility and the opportunity to respond with greater clarity and coherence. The court has interpreted the law.
It's now up to the legislator to ensure the framework is robust, enforceable, and fit for purpose. Now the implementation of Article 29 under Regulation 28,848 goes to the heart of trust in our organic system, but also fairness, I believe, for our farmers. At its core, this is about how we deal with the presence of non-authorized substances. Do we take a rigid residue-based approach or do we assess whether the farmer has actually complied with the rules? The European framework was meant to be process-based.
It recognizes contamination can happen through spray drift, environmental factors, previous land use, or legacy residues often outside the control of the farmer. Yet, in practice, we see fragmentation across member states. Belgium, Italy have retained national residue levels under Article 2095. Initially, for example, products exceeding the general threshold of 0.01 mg per kilogram cannot be marketed as organic regardless of whether the contamination was intentional or not. This is precisely why harmonization matters, colleagues.
A farmer doing everything right should not face the loss of organic status because of accidental contamination or factors beyond their control. The integrity of the organic label must be protected, but that integrity is not strengthened by disproportionate penalties on compliant farmers. So, in conclusion, we need greater consistency in how Article 29 is actually applied. I say clearer guidance for control bodies, and a fair system that distinguishes between deliberate noncompliance and unavoidable contamination. Protecting consumer confidence must go hand in hand with protecting the farmers who uphold organic production every day.
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to.
Martin Häusling
Thank missus L'Orealty very much indeed for the report that she has presented. And perhaps I can recall or remind you that there was a trigger. Well, the Hebariya ruling was a trigger for amending the regulation amongst the proposals of commission. There is a roadmap and points are touched upon there that I think we can discuss at some point. But first and foremost, I think in this sector, we want to create legal certainty.
That is our core concern. We have to work quickly, therefore, and complete this work by the end of the year. I think what is important is the confidence in the organic sector. We shouldn't undermine it in any way. The organic regulation is responsible for the fact that there's a huge amount of consumer confidence here.
Now when it comes to the points that, as we see it, are not very good in the commission proposal, not well addressed, the 5% ruling. According to Annex VII, up to 5% EU organic products, that's the limit in terms of components in EU products. We don't think this is feasible. And I think we should dispense with things that we discussed for many years, organic labeling, country of origin on the labeling. I think these are issues that will only lead to more red tape. As I said, we discussed them at length in the past.
We have no definition of what constitutes a regional partisan. I think we should forgo that. But there are some improvements suggested in the proposal, reintroduction of a threshold. We would reject the 10-tonne figure that has been suggested. And then the reintroduction of the 2% turnover figure when it comes to criteria, we think that's better than hectare-based groups of farmers.
What we reject are the proposals that have been introduced whereby conventional chicks have been for years. We feel that this would be a retrograde step if we are to seek any changes. Here, when it comes to the commission report on pesticides, pesticide residues, I think we have to make it clear, we still have no harmonization throughout the EU. There are some three countries that have a 0.01 figure when it comes to pesticide residues. When we have 7.9% conventional product, that figure is untenable, which is why we're very far removed from harmonization.
What annoys us, and let me say that quite clearly, is that when it comes to imported products, the commission uses that 0.01% threshold. And those who wish to import into the EU can't meet that figure. The commission carries out investigations when it comes to substantiated information with regard to unauthorized products, but that's not a legal concept. What does that mean for importers? There's some unsubstantiated product, and then an investigation is triggered.
Think when it comes to imports, there has to be a process-based approach when it comes to organic products rather than thresholds in terms of pesticides. That's the wrong direction. Importers are saying that we cannot implement this. And the commission has said that investigations may last 40 to 90 days. That is not something that can be implemented.
And I think the commission has seen that a more rapid, better solution is put in place. Otherwise, a lot of importers will just sort of pack up shop.
Veronika Vrecionová
We left Arash Sadi. I don't see him. No. He is not here. There. And Stanislav Stojanov from ESN also, he's not there.
So it means that just now we can start with KGI, and I have here one minute each. And you have one minute each. Please correct the matter first.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you, let me speak in Hungarian. Organic
Farmers face many challenges. Demand for such products has stagnated in recent years, and it is mainly due to the fact that they're generally more expensive, and food inflation across Europe has reduced the number of people able to afford these products. Free trade agreements don't help either. Imports of organic products, there are producers in third countries. They don't have to comply with the same strict rules.
A telling figure is that Brazil exports 60% of its organic products. And a third factor, especially apparently, a 20% cut in the EU's agricultural budget is supposed to take place, and this offers a narrower perspective for organic farmers. And in these circumstances, we think it's important to achieve at least one thing: either the organic label will be reserved for union producers, and therefore, products from third countries cannot use it. It's also odd to use these green labels if we know that imported products travel thousands.
Eric Sargiacomo
kilometers. Thank.
You, madam chair. Thank you to the reporter. Thank you for your work on this amendment to the regulation. I think when it comes to organic farming, it rests on a solid foundation. It's many years of experience.
I think we know the problems that we had with the previous regulation during the negotiations. So I think the reform has to be limited in scope in order to leave the commission the necessary time in order to renegotiate agreements with third countries. However, this ten-year time limit seems excessive. The commission has to be efficient. It's a question of credibility.
Let.
Eric Sargiacomo
me résume. As I say, the 10 year duration is excessive. I think the commission needs to be efficient. It's a question of the credibility of the most ambitious logo when it comes to animal welfare and sustainability. We're talking about harmonization in Europe, and I think we have that when it comes to organic production.
Of course, we have to guard against unfair competition. And when some things are authorized, the U. A, tartaric stabilization for organic wines, that's not the case in the EU. That, of course, does create problems. But of course, the problems don't always arise from abroad.
And there are some problems facing organic farmers that are home-based when France maintains its support for organic farming. That doesn't necessarily build in any visibility as far as the sector is concerned.
Yeah. Thank.
Stefan Köhler
you much indeed, sir. Thank you, Miss Lauretti, for all of your work and your report today on the organic directive. If you look at organic annual production, what we see, we have for pigs and poultry, well, the figures there, I think they show that the rules are very differently applied, and then we need simplification, therefore, for organic producers in Bavaria, for example. We obviously do want more organic farms, or we've seen the number go down. And therefore, the regulation, I think, needs to be adjusted, amended, and we need to be more flexible when it comes to fattening pigs and poultry.
Christine Singer
So we need to do away with all the obstacles. Thank you. I've put forward cross group amendments to have higher standards, but also implementability. We've had farms working for decades, but I think this is a very important part of the sector, pasture farming. So we have to look at how we bring in solutions and flexibility.
We need to make sure that we have practicable alternatives, where things are implemented properly. Also, when it comes to using different fields, for example, the different meadows, need to have more flexibility. In poultry as well, we've also proposed amendments so that access when it comes to chickens raised outside the barn. So all of this is extremely urgent. And I think you see that from the over 200 amendments.
We need to build compromises. And what we want is clear. We want high standards, but at the same time, it needs to be properly implementable.
Thank.
Céline Imart
You, Chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. I submitted some amendments. First of all, the 5% of a protein feed for poultry that should be transitional, because it's fundamental for producers of organic eggs and chicken. On the size of farms, the commission proposes limitless-sized farms. This is a new rule that will lead to competition distortion in the EU.
It will affect those who already respect building rules, among others. In addition, the commission wants to put a reference into poultry and feathers, and this really makes the text even harder to understand. The current wording should be kept as close as possible. I also put in an amendment to on tartaric production for poultry production, and this is a physical, this is a method that's already authorized, and it's also authorized for organic wines. And this would deprive our producers of this wine production technique.
Thank you.
Herbert Dorfmann
Yeah. Thank you, Zian. Thank you very much. This whole debate, well, let's just remember what we're aiming for. It was very clearly presented by the reporters.
We have the ECJ ruling. And by the end of the year, we should by the end of the year, come up with legislation to respond to that ruling. And if we don't do that by the end of the year, then these organic producers will be sort of in limbo. And therefore, we need to focus on what we should be doing and not looking at opening up the whole organic regulation. And, you know, we've had enough time doing that to put it on the right footing.
I think lots of things to talk about today, organic salt, for example. We've talked about this on many occasions in this committee. And if we start that debate again, then at the end of the year, we won't have any new legislation. So if there are things we can go along with now, compromises, they need to be identified, the specific rules. But reopening the whole regulation, having all of our wishes and desires brought in, I don't think is going to be the way forward.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
You know, that doesn't make any sense after just two or three years anyway. Thank you, madam chair. I have three points for you. Well, first of all, there isn't enough organic crops available at the moment. I think amino acids from protein are very important for animal health, and therefore, we need the 5% threshold to be continually suspended.
When it comes to poultry and laying hens, well, chicks are up to the age of 40. They need these amino acids. Otherwise, they are not as healthy. And therefore, we would suggest that the derogation should be kept in up to forty weeks. And then when it comes to greenhouses, my last point, the current rules for organic products ask for specific fertilizers, but that really doesn't have any value inside greenhouses.
So we need to adjust and amend that specific point of the greenhouses. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
End of our list of speakers, and that is the reason I would like to give the floor again to Mr. Schulthus, so you have eight minutes for your replies and remarks.
G. Schurtos
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let's see. I need to get my notes right. You have addressed many topics. Maybe I can start with the issue of trade, linked to the proposal that the commission has made.
So I think what is very important to underline is that currently for organic products, there are two ways of trading. There is a compliance system. Third countries comply with the EU rules. This is certified, and the commission does audits in the third countries. And then there is the compliance system for a number of third countries.
Third countries where we have, for a long time already, an administrative agreement where there is a recognition of the equivalence of the organic system for a certain range of product categories with the EU system. And these equivalent countries make up the large bulk of our trade in organic, particularly also our exports in organic. So there is a strong interest also to make sure that these equivalents, these equivalent trades continue. And, so it's not a departure from equivalence as some members have suggested. Now the commission is committed to continue this equivalence, wants to turn, as is also provided for in the legislation today, wants to turn these administrative agreements into trade agreements for equivalent trade.
And I think that it is very important that we maintain this because this has benefits for the EU. Most of the products we import are tropical products. Let's face it. And it has a great advantage for the EU in terms of exports, our olive oil, our wine, and so on that we export to these other countries. And, what we have done now with the Herbaria ruling is to with the Herbaria, the court basically underlined the importance of the logo, and the need for having transparent information that this logo transmits to the consumer as to the organic rules that are underlying it.
So what we have said is a number of specific issues that are divergent in some of these equivalent countries, the import should also comply with that if you want to carry the EU logo. So it's a way of saying, yes, we need to make sure that this logo transmits a very clear message to the consumer about the organic rules that have been respected, while at the same time maintaining this very important system of equivalent trade. One of the comments was made was that turning these equivalent administrative agreements into trade agreements during a period of 10 years is too long. I think we have proposed ten years, because you should never negotiate with your back against the wall. We need time to ensure we have a good agreement for Europe.
Then, I'd like to focus on a number of other issues related to the proposal that's on the table, and on the amendments where some questions were raised. For example, a number of amendments raised, and you raised this, madam chair, relate to issues that are also covered by a road map of changes in secondary legislation that the commission is planning to deliver in the next one and a half year. This relates, for example, to the outdoor space for pigs. It relates to the protein feed for poultry, pigs, where a report, by the way, is being finalized for you. And of course, it relates to the issue of grazing where we have already provided a clarification in our frequently asked questions.
Another topic that was raised is the issue of winemaking rules. Some technical modifications to the rules for winemaking under organic farming were proposed. There, we have a situation that part of the winemaking rules are subject to modification that can be done through delegated and implementing acts, and part of the rules for winemaking are in the basic act and cannot be modified. And given the technical nature of some of these amendments, our suggestion would be that the experts that we consult on organic production rules are consultants on these matters, and that the commission would ideally have the possibility to modify those rules on the basis of that expert advice. Overall, I think the main gist of the number of your members on this discussion on the organic regulation is something we would really like to underline, namely the need to make the necessary adjustments to this regulation, while at the same time ensuring that the modifications are in place well before the end of the year so that organic trade can continue and so that we achieve clarity for the operators.
Maybe in addition, I say a few try to provide a few replies to some of the questions raised in relation to the report on the unauthorized substances that I introduced at the start of this debate. Firstly, as to what are unauthorized substances, I think it's very important to say that under organic rules, what is not expressly authorized is unauthorized. So therefore, there is quite a lot of clarity, and that is also evident from the different reports that the commission has used for its report. In terms of the differences in the way member states approach the findings of unauthorized substances and the follow-up. Madam chair, you asked specifically what the commission would do about that.
I think that is precisely the key follow-up action that we believe is necessary to work with member states to improve the way this follow-up takes place, to also make sure that member states learn from each other in terms of best practices. That is the path we need to take to improve the operation of this system. And particularly, you asked about spray drifts and what the commission can do in terms of prevention. As you know, there are articles in the organic regulation identifying the responsibilities of organic operators in terms of precautionary measures. So it's important that that is being followed up.
We have already, through the organic action plan, worked with organic operators to ensure that the regulation is properly understood and properly implemented. And of course, we should also look at the wider toolbox of the CAP where we have knowledge interventions in term, which also can and should help precisely to support the proper implementation of rules and the proper practices that can be implemented to reduce these situations. Maybe one observation also on the question related to deliberate and non-deliberate contamination. I think it's very important to underline that often it is not known when a contamination is found, whether it's deliberate or not. However, when a member state has made an investigation and observes that there is a nondeliberate occurrence, and there is, later on, a second or a third observation from the same source, of course, the member state has the possibility to use that earlier investigation to interpret a second or a third observation.
So member states have the possibility to use the knowledge they've obtained to, in fact, address this difference. I hope I have answered most of the sort of questions or issues that came up, but, of course, the commission remains available for your discussions about the reports in front of you. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And before I give the floor to the reporter, I give just now ten seconds to mister Cohen, who will have some technical remarks. Please, very short.
Barry Cowen
I know I was late for the debate, but I've seen the report. I've listened to the commission's response, and I'm just conscious of this issue of cross-contamination. And farmers across the EU want fewer rules, not more, in imposing additional obligations on conventional producers simply because enabling farmers compared to organic would be deeply unfair unless their dedicated funds are available to offset the real cost and minister support involved. So my message to the repertoire and to the is not to punish farmers who have done nothing wrong, and we must avoid adding more red tape to an already heavily regulated sector. Sector.
Veronika Vrecionová
That's all. Mister Cohen, I thought it's technical remarks. So, madam Laborete, you have now I don't know how five minutes.
Camilla Laureti
Five minutes. You, president. I will speak in Italian. Alors. Thank you.
I think there are some things on which we are in agreement, and there are other areas where we are less in agreement. And, of course, we will need discussion, and I think that has been shown quite clearly in the discussion in the AGRI Committee here this morning. I think we all agree that we are going to have to complete this work by December 31. Otherwise, they're calling into question agreements that, for the European organic sector, well, the issues are just too important. The sector has its own difficulties.
We should try not to add to them. I think we all agree on that. We shouldn't forget that we're reopening this regulation in the light of the ruling, as our colleague Doffman has said, the ruling of the European Court of Justice. Otherwise, we would not be discussing it today. We're talking about a regulation that we are looking at again as a result of that ruling.
I think the main points have to do with simplification. I think adding red tape for farmers isn't in anybody's interest. And then there's the issue of legal certainty. So we don't want to be changing the rules or regulations constantly because those who have invested in order to implement the regulation are going to have to make changes in the short term. There are a certain number of other more delicate points, the 5% ruling, for example, the ten-year period labeling, poultry, livestock, grazing.
I think these are the more delicate points that we will have to try and come to grips with, what points we'll take forward, others which we will not. But in order to understand that, we will do our bit within the European Parliament, so that we can abide by the deadline. Our next shadow meeting was May 21, and we'd be voting in the agro committee in July. So I think it's important that we have some idea of what is foreseen in the roadmap. I think we need that information from the commission because there are things that we will not need to discuss in terms of amendments, I think, in the light of the content of the roadmap.
So that is certainly something that we will need to discuss together.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. Thank you to all speakers and to all our colleagues. We are at the end of these items. And let's I am going to open item number one. In 2025, the EU exported 4,400,000 tons of pork and byproducts to sales countries.
China, which accounted for about a quarter of this volume, remained by far the top destination. However, the quantities exported to China were more than 7% lower than those of the previous year. This decrease was largely attributable to the antidumping tariffs imposed by this country on EU PORC from September 25. These tariffs, initially between 15.6% to 62.4%, were reduced to 4.9% to 19.8% in December and extended for a period of five years. In this context, I am grateful to Elizabeth Seracusa from DG AGRI and Christina Miranda Gonzalez from DG INTPA for joining us to take stock of Chinese antidumping duties and share the Commission's analysis regarding their compliance with WTO rules.
It is also clear that, over time, export volumes of pork to China are on a downward trend. In the years, they have decreased by 42% from 1.8 to 1,000,000 tons. I would therefore also ask the commission whether the changes in China's tariffs policy can explain this decline in whole or in part. So I'm going to give the floor to madam Siracuza and madam Gonzalez, and you have eight minutes in total. So please, madam, the floor is yours.
Let's see. They are not here.
No. Not yet.
Veronika Vrecionová
No? Not yet. Okay. I thought we were too early, but it's time. Okay.
I'm sorry. We have to wait. We have to wait. Then, okay. Let's just wait.
And you think that they will come?
Yeah. Yeah. They will come.
They are okay.
They are on their way.
Veronika Vrecionová
We have now few minutes. We have to wait. We have to just now have a break for 15 minutes. They ask 15?
15. 1.1. One.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. 15 minutes. It's quite long, but because we don't have a commission here.
Don't know why.
Then we have the.
coordinators. So.
No. No. No.
Veronika Vrecionová
Can we maybe briefly go through the coordinators? Yeah. We did it with Theresa yesterday. Okay. This is, I think, it will be.
So please, I think that we can continue. We have here a commission now. And, let me again welcome here Madam Siracuza and Madame Gonzalez. And because we already start with introducing this item, but now I would like to give you the floor for your presentation, and you have 8 minutes in total. 4.
Four, please, the floor is yours.
Elisabetta Siracusa
Thank you very much, Chair, and I apologize for the delay. And thank you very much for the opportunity to update you on developments in this dossier in the past few months. As you are well aware, the antidumping duties applied by China to imports of pork from the EU are one of a number of so-called trade defense investigations initiated by China against imports in the agri-food sector. In particular, there have been three instances where the agri-food product from the EU has been targeted. And as we have indicated many times, we consider these investigations and the related duties that have since been applied to be unjustified, and indeed retaliatory in nature.
The agri-food sector is one of those sectors for which the EU has a positive trade balance with China. So the products that were selected in these cases are designed to put pressure on certain member states and on certain EU agri-food producers who may be already facing difficulties due to other factors. Before proceeding with the latest developments, I would like to briefly recall some points on our trade with China as regards pig meat. The EU exported around 2,000,000,000 worth of pig meat to China in 2024. This is close to the amount exported in 2024, which stood at 2200000000.
However, it should be underlined that pork exports to China have been steadily going down since 2019. An African swine fever outbreak required massive culling in China, and this vastly reduced the domestic offer. In that context, at the highest point in 2020, EU exports of pigment to China reached more than 7,000,000,000. And the composition of these exports is also worth recalling. China is the most important export market for pig offal for EU producers.
If we compare the relative scale of export to China, China is the second destination for equipment, accounting for around 16% of export value. The UK, just to make a comparison, is our first export destination with 28.5%. There are some member states concerned, Spain being the biggest exporter, followed by The Netherlands, Denmark, France, Ireland, and others. Chair, the latest development is that China announced on 12/16/2025 that it was imposing antidumping duties on a number of your companies. As its investigation concluded that certain pork products originated in the EU were dumped on the Chinese market, causing injury to the domestic industry.
The final rates announced range from 4.9 percent to 19.8 percent depending on the company. It should be underlined that these are much lower than the ones announced by China in its preliminary decision in September 2023, which ranged from 15.6% to 62.4%. Some aspects of this investigation and its resulting duties are common to other cases of investigations by China, such as high tariffs announced at an earlier stage of the procedure, followed by a reduction, and, of course, differential rates for different companies originating in different member states. The investigation has in common with others also the fact that it is in a sector that is currently experiencing difficulties in China, notably due to the overproduction. While the reduction in tariffs between the preliminary phase and the final determination is a positive aspect, there is no doubt in our view that these investigations, as I indicated earlier, are retaliatory.
They are based on questionable allegations and insufficient evidence, and we consider them to be unwarranted. To make an example, export of China, as I indicated, had decreased by more than 50% in recent years prior to the investigation and hold a market share of less than 2%. These exports thus cannot be a cause of injury to the Chinese domestic industry. Since the final announcement by the Chinese authorities, as I indicated earlier in December, the EU has been assessing the determinations issued by China regarding the imposed duty. After completing a detailed legal analysis, the EU will consider its next steps, which may include initiating litigation through the WTO.
But we are, of course, in close contact with stakeholders and have in mind, first and foremost, the protection of the legitimate interests of EU businesses. As of today, it is too early to clearly see the impact of these tariffs on our pork or dairy exports, sorry, on our pork exports to China. For pork, early data for February 2026 show a decrease of exports to China, but we need further analysis to determine the role of tariffs as China has also been importing less pork globally. We should have a better view in the coming months, when we have more data and feedback from the sector. For example, we know that there is a situation of overproduction domestically in China.
As regards the market situation in the EU, despite recent price increases, producers have faced weakened margins in recent months, while future volatility in energy and feed costs continues to create uncertainty. Big prices have risen over the past two months, with a notable recovery in Spain and Portugal. Piglet prices have also increased. However, both remain below last year's levels and the five-year average. In 2025, EU pigment production as a whole increased by 3.3%, and EU pigment exports grew in 2025 by plus 2.4%, driven by higher shipments to The Philippines, South Korea and Vietnam.
Meanwhile, export to China, as indicated earlier, declined as well as exports to the U. K. And Japan, although China remains the top export market. To complete the market picture, imports remained broadly stable. To conclude, Chair, I would like to underline that in matters relating to trade with China, a coordinated and united approach among member states, among national authorities, and, of course, also stakeholders is of crucial importance if the EU wants to achieve results and benefits from the full economic power of its single market.
In particular, where there is a specific attempt, as we have seen in these cases, to separate and treat differently stakeholders and member states. I'd be happy to answer, of course, any further questions and provide more detail, notably about the procedure. Thank you very much, chair.
Veronika Vrecionová
And madam Gonzalez, if you want to take the floor, you have 4 minutes, please. I don't know. Madam Gonzales? Okay. No?
You don't want to take the floor? No. It's okay. This case opens the round of coordinators. First, Herbert Dorfmann.
You have two minutes, please.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you, chair. And thank you, Florent. Thank you very much indeed, and, chair, thanks for the presentation, Commission. This pork problem is linked up to lots of other products, milk, for example, where China has come forward with antidumping tariffs, but it has nothing to do with antidumping. So I think it's difficult for me to understand when it comes to pork production, how we can dump here in Europe.
You know, there's no specific promotion or encouragement. They're talking about production in China. They actually support their own production. So I don't really understand the issue of the anti-dumping tariffs. It's tragic.
You know, WTO is a toothless tiger. They should be acting in such a situation, but they're not, you know, similar to other disputes. What I can say, though, is we do need to see what is happening in pork production in Europe. I think it's good that we produce this and that we transform it, process it to better quality products. But imports of feed from other parts of the world and then transforming, processing pork, well, I don't think that can be a European business model that can work. Lots of producers the past few years, well, I think, we heard from Laura this morning.
We know where production is taking place. And this actually has very little to do with farming. Some of the companies only actually buy feed, and then they export a lesser quality product than our pork. So that business model I don't think is really the basis for reasonable farming in Europe. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Mario is not there. So if somebody from S and D wants to take the floor. Okay. Madam Maestre, she was first served. You can finish.
You have finished. One of you. It depends. Okay, Mr. Bonacini.
Stefano Bonaccini
Thank you, Chen. I think we're faced with a situation which has likely become structural rather than sort of short-term cyclical when it comes to the sort of pig meat situation. I think this is a trade dispute that has nothing to do with the agricultural sector or with more electric vehicles. There's the problem of swine fever. It hampers access to the market with particular problems or impact in countries such as Italy, but not only, but it has to be seen in part of our overall context given the tariffs imposed by the US and pig meat imports into the US.
That's a sub dysymmetry, which hits hard our farmers' downward pressure on prices and jeopardizes the whole sector. I think we need to act at various levels. At a diplomatic level, first and foremost, I think we need to open structured channels of communication with Beijing to avoid any escalation. We need to safeguard access to the market as far as our producers are concerned. Secondly, at a commercial level, we need to activate trade defense instruments and, if necessary, have recourse to the WTO in terms of litigation.
And thirdly, at a strategic level, I think we need a new policy for the agri food sector promotion. I think we need some kind of structured plan. We need adequate resources. We need to diversify and ensure our presence in terms of excellence on the global market. This is something we've been calling for months.
The commission through Van der Leyen had called for a threefold increase in the funds in the sector, and we're at last moving from words to deeds. The more we promote European produce, open up markets, those are our priorities. The face of giants such as the US and China and the geopolitical weight of the EU, we need to coordinate with other strategic sectors, Melkosua, Australia, Mexico, India.
Thank.
Gilles Pennelle
you. Madam Chair. Globalization, what we were sold in the 90s is over. For China, for the US, for the large powers, it's all over. But apparently not for us in the EU.
We still believe that this is great, this idea of globalization. I'm completely shocked by what the commissioner said on this dossier. You know, it was a short intervention where we're told that what China's doing is unjustified, but in reality, nothing is being proposed. In reality, the European Commission is just happy to look at what's happening elsewhere. But the train has already left the station.
When it comes to fertilizer, same thing. No reaction. No proposal from the European Commission. Face, when it comes to China, you know, it's in an economic war, the US as well. We need to rearm ourselves.
We need to show that we have power. We need to negotiate, but we don't see anything coming in from European Commission. So, obviously, our pig meat producers, they have no weapons. I'm thinking of our French pig meat producers who do export to China, some of the offal, which the Chinese require, pig heads, for example, and they are there on their own, faced with the Chinese giant. I've heard a couple of solutions from the commission.
We're going to start a procedure at the WTO, but the WTO is dead. It is no longer reliable. It no longer has credibility. But it's the same software we have in the EU. We are a has-been.
We think the world is the same as it was in the nineties, but this is an economic war that hasn't been declared. But, if there is a war, you have to defend your own production. We need to go back to being a power for Europe, but that's not on the Commission's agenda. Thank you.
Thank you.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, madam chair. Thank you, commission. Thank you for the explanation. When it comes to these antidumping tariffs from China on pig meat, well, unjustified, you said the commission. And, of course, yes, it is unjustified.
There's no reason for dumping. There's no reason for anti-dumping tariffs. And the tariffs, actually were reduced, but that still means that the European sector, our pig meat sector, is having to deal with these trade obstacles. And, you know, when it comes to parts of the pig, China is a very important market, Ofel, we just heard. So it's a problem we have to deal with.
The big question is, what is the commission doing? Listening to the commission's representative today, well, they are monitoring apparently, but they're not demanding specific measures. The commission has said we're thinking possibly maybe to go for a procedure at the WTO. But what were you waiting for, commission? Why does it take so long?
Why are you not being more assertive to defend our pig meat producers? And you see that China is using this instrument for geopolitical reasons. You can see this by the way they are working, especially in Africa with African countries. You can see that China has reduced the import tariff there. So it's very clear that China is using this tool as a geopolitical tool, as an instrument to support and protect its own sector. So, basically, we need more assertiveness from the Commission.
Why have you not started a dispute procedure at the WTO? So, again, we'd like some information. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you, chairman, and thank you to the commission. The Chinese tariffs on pig meat are a serious setback for our industry. This has to do with the overproduction in China, and almost 25% or more tariffs to certain member states is unfair. And this is also very difficult for the whole EU in this international context. China is an important export market for us, and this has a significant effect on our enterprises, our farms.
We have other problems as well. And these tariffs pose an important pressure on those countries who are dependent on exports. We export from Finland a lot of products, which do not have a lot of demand in Finland, but in China, they do. And robust action here is something that we have to resort to. The commission has to act.
Now that the WTO is not able to act in a robust manner, the EU has to act. We have to support pig meat producers and other producers as well. We have to ensure stable and fair markets. And my question to the commission is, what actions are you going to take? Are there alternative export markets?
Have they been developed? What kind of measures have you taken to decrease dependency on China? And what are you really going to do to protect the competitiveness of our producers? Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Much, Jose, and Greens. Thomas Weitz, you want to take the floor? Okay. Mister Heusling.
Martin Häusling
Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Commissioner, thanks for the report. Well, we're in between the rock and a hard place between the US and China.
They are trying to exert their trade power vis-à-vis Europe. What can we say is an answer? Well, we're just, you know, shrinking away. We're being hesitant, even though we are the biggest consumer market in the world. Why are we being so hesitant?
I just don't understand it. You know, we're doing the same for the USA and China. So we're not gonna achieve anything if we are reticent. These antidumping tariffs, you know, this is basically the Chinese leadership imposing trade restrictions. Maybe has to do with overproduction on the Chinese market.
I don't know. But we need an economic answer, but we also need to have a thought about what we are producing. For years, we've been saying we produce pig meat. We are transferring, processing things in Europe. We make hams and sausages, and everything else is exported.
That's what it said in Germany, but it's no longer the case. We can't just rely on the fact that everybody's gonna take off our hands what we don't use. We'll have to have a think about how we can adapt production to our core European market and close that circle instead of exporting things wherever and hoping that things will be okay. We've seen within the EU, there was no real solidarity either when Germany was affected by African swine fever. I'm not gonna name names here, but other countries were very happy that they were able to get into the export market. So that was within the EU.
We needed a bit more solidarity. We shouldn't be playing ourselves off against each other. So others took over our sector. So that shouldn't fly in Europe either.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Yeah. We want to make a political choice. We're either in favor of globalization, or we're not. And we're in favor of globalization when there's plenty of money, and then we're not in favor of globalization when it goes against us. And, in an Irish context, like we're talking about a massive market here, we're talking about a €100,000,000 and it's great money for our economy, but you'd have to look at the long term sustainability of depending on something like this because we are just wide open to threats and we don't seem to be able to do anything about it.
But I think we also need to look at what's seen as what's important by the people who run the European Union, which is more important, the German car industry or the Irish pork industry? Which is more important, basically helping the European or German car industry in Mercosur, or is it suckler farmers in Rascomann, which is more important? And it seems that parts for machines ultimately win out here. And someone said to me there recently that, I have to say, I think the new EU Commissioner, as he was at the time for agriculture, has to be the best agriculture commissioner for the European car industry there ever has been, but not certainly not the best when it comes to agriculture. So we've got to make up our minds whether we agree with globalization or not.
We've got to look at how we actually feed this industry, where do we get the proteins to feed the pigs, who are we dependent on there. But in the short term, there are people in Ireland and people all around Europe dependent on this industry. It has been the policy of the European Commission and the majority of European governments to go down the road of globalization. We've gone down that road now. So what are the European Commission going to do about it and what are the powers going to do about the fact that we're now being open to being bribed and we are being bribed.
I know the tariffs have been reduced somewhat, but is it against WTO rules, or is it not? Or as a previous speaker said, what does the WTO mean anymore? Does it mean anything?
Ivan David
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't want to repeat arguments that were really very important. And Mister Dortmund has already mentioned it, Mister Flanagan. China obviously will fight for the independence in this area, as for food import and as for fighting against African swine fever, and all of that we have to take into consideration. WTO, well we will see what they will say about it, but I believe it is really not realistic to believe that China will want to be or react as a clean import, to believe that China would not want to be independent enough. That's, in my opinion, totally unrealistic.
When talking about fair trade solidarity, we have already mentioned it in the EU, if you have national subsidies, those countries that are basically using certain dumping prices and are exporting their excess to East European countries that are not so capable to protect themselves. Yes, when Germany suffered from African swine fever, yes, obviously we have immediately realized that each country takes care of itself and what is an advantage for itself is a disadvantage for other people. So if we believe this is going to change, it's really, I believe, not realistic. We should behave correctly within the interest of the EU, and we shouldn't believe that China will be forever importer based on conditions that are based on somebody's health.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, chair. Dear commission, I requested an emergency debate on this topic on 09/10/25. So eight months have gone by since we requested immediate action on the Chinese duties on EU pork. And now you tell us nothing has happened since. I find it quite disturbing that we need 8 months to react.
Meanwhile, the EU pork industry, with Spain and the Netherlands especially, are subject to unfair duties. So we want more action to ensure that not once again agriculture becomes collateral damage in broader EU trade politics. And there's something else, Jared, that I find disturbing here. If I understood correctly, Mister Dorfman of the EPP just said that swine production has nothing to do with agriculture. And that's disturbing because that means that the EPP thinks that some farmers are better than others, and forgets the huge role the swine industry plays in our bioeconomy to upgrade our waste streams.
I have a couple of questions to the commission. I'll be quick, chair. Is the commission considering WTO action, or will it continue small talk for another 8 months? How will the commission ensure that China does not use agricultural sectors as leverage in unrelated trade disputes? What support is available for affected pork producers and exporters?
And how will the commission help diversify export markets for fifth-quarter products? Thank you very much.
Céline Imart
You, Chair. We export more than one-fourth of our pig meat production to China. The new antidumping rules imposed by Beijing have serious consequences on our sort of farms and farmers. It was cognac. Now it's the dairy products.
And now pig meat, each time, the same investigations are carried out, the same pressure brought to bear, the same message. When China responds to Europe, it's the farm sector that serves as the target. In the meantime, Gigi Santi has found serious shortcomings when it comes to checks on imports of poultry into the EU. And over ten years, we've gone from 20,000 to 100,000 tons, an increase fivefold in imports into the EU. So what is the commission doing?
Is it enough just to follow the impact of Chinese measures and then wonder afterwards about compatibility with WTO rules? That's not a serious approach. Whilst we're analyzing the situation. It's farmers, suffering unfair competition. We're analyzing the situation, but China strides ahead.
So my question is simple. When are we going to start implying trade defense instruments that we have at our disposal in order to respond to the unfair practices that China is meeting out on our farmers, who were the first victims. Please.
Barry Cowen
Chair and members, look, pork producers are already dealing with a difficult environment over the last number of years. Pig production is uniquely exposed, of course, due to tight margins and its dependence on global export markets, and these Chinese tariffs on pork. And with Spanish product blocked from third country markets being redirected into EU domestic markets, it means that prices are decreasing and intensifying competition across the EU. So no member state is fully insulated from that pressure. In Ireland, like many others, I'm sure we've seen volume fall in early 26, and our sector cannot absorb these shocks indefinitely.
So I call on the commission, like others, to first pursue direct dialogue with China on the suspension of these tariffs. Eight months on, the European pig sector remains collateral damage in a dispute that wasn't of its making. In the long term, I, you know, we must also strengthen our market access, and I'm conscious of existing and ongoing EU trade negotiations with the Philippines. For example, where there's a real opportunity, I would hope that meaningful pig meat market access is secured as part of those arrangements, and I'd ask my colleagues in international trade, together with myself, to ensure that every effort is made to realize that ambition too.
Thank you. Madam Maestra, please.
Cristina Maestre
Thank you, chair. It's quite shocking what we're hearing, and the commission is really barely helping here. It's quite alarming what we're hearing here. The sector in Spain is suffering from this. The government of Spain also took the initiative because the commission was not to speak with China to persuade them to reduce these duties.
Luckily, in some sectors, this is now around 6%, 4%. But in any case, the damage is very clear. Spain has lost 50% of its exports to China. And Spain. We have also lost, well, the sector has lost so much, and the commission doesn't have any data on this at all and the hue, the impact this is having.
But the Spanish sector has lost more than €200,000,000 per year because of this. So, what is happening? What measures will be taken at the WTO? Has arbitration been requested at the WTO? What is going to be done?
Thank you.
Thank.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
You, chair. Thank you to the commission. The EPP has it clear. The impact of this from China has led to a drop of prices, so 30%. And it's also led to a third drop in exports.
This has serious repercussions, and we are seeing the political situation and how this is being affected, too. It's very unfair. We're talking about the sector in Spain and how it's one of the most affected. Where I'm from, Andalusia, it's one of the most affected, too. We need a dialogue and proactivity.
We have to investigate the WTO to clarify whether or not this is causing material damage. If there are any negative repercussions, we need to speak with China and, engage in dialogue and be proactive to lower these tariffs. Now is the time to act as it has not been done now because it's affecting the whole food sector.
Thank you.
Thank.
Asger Christensen
You, Chair, and thank you for putting this topic on the agenda. My colleagues and farmers really have their backs against the wall. They have suffered huge losses. Well, across all countries, this has happened, and now it's time for the commission to act to roll out some kind of measure against what China is doing. We'll have to apply some other type of method.
And I would ask the commission, are there no tools that can be used in this trade dispute, because it's always farmers who are at the front line of this trade war.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. I think the evidence is very clear. Of course, our colleagues and farmers in Spain, The Netherlands, France, and in Ireland are feeling the pinch because of what's going on here. Ireland's pig meat sector is highly exposed to the Chinese market. In 2024, we exported over 60,000 tonnes of pig meat there worth close to €100,000,000.
So the anti-dumping measures on EU pork are not theoretical. They're already impacting Irish farmers, processors, and rural jobs. And they risk turning agriculture into collateral damage in a wider trade dispute, and it's not sustainable. My question is straightforward. What concrete steps is the commission taking to challenge these tariffs?
Will it provide targeted support for exposed member states like Ireland, while accelerating market diversification? I've taken note of what the commission spokesperson said. You know, if there are questionable allegations that we made against our produce, they have said there's insufficient evidence and it's unwarranted. Let's go further than just talking. Let's ask the WTO to take action like we did two years ago on dairy products.
Let's move in and take action. The time for talking is over. Thank you.
Thank you. Thomas White.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Just, colleagues, I mean, I think we need to be honest with our producers. And I'm talking about the farmers that mainly base their production on imported fodder. We have to be honest that Brazil, meanwhile, is selling as much soy to China as they sell to us. Yes, it was a successful business model to import, further to produce chicken and pork here in the European Union, and then to sell it to China.
But China, meanwhile, has understood that they can do that themselves. They are buying the soy directly in Brazil, and they're producing it themselves. And then they're coming with, yes, unfair trade measures to restrict imports. But we have to see that this was a business model that went well for, I think, two or three decades. But we also have to realize that it is slowly phasing out.
This market is slowly phasing out. So let's be honest to farmers when it comes to investments. Let's be honest also when it comes to the future of that kind of pork production that is not based on our own land, on our own corn, on our own soy that we produce, but mainly or foremost based on imported fodder. That kind of business model, I think, is coming not to an end, but at least decreasing in capacity. And I think we should be honest to our farmers that this is not the best model for future investments.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And let's go back to the commission. So madam, you have four minutes for your replies, or eight minutes together with your colleague. I don't know how you want to arrange it.
Elisabetta Siracusa
Thank you very much, chair. I will attempt to give as exhaustive answers as possible. So there are questions that are essentially on two aspects. The first one is, of course, how we deal with trade, and trade in particular with China, and I'll come back to that in a moment. And the second is about the market itself, the state of the pig meat market itself, and what are we doing both from an internal point of view and an external point of view to ensure that our producers are protected, are defended, and, of course, our products, our production is promoted.
So these, of course, are connected issues. Let me begin with the trade issue. I think one question that has been recurring is about the WTO. So, what are our plans with regard to the WTO? I think it is important to make a distinction among the different cases that we have with China.
We have currently three cases, two of which are on antidumping duties, including the case on pig meat, and one case is on subsidies, the case on dairy. These are different cases which concern different WTO rules. But what is important is that, as regards pig meat, we are talking about antidumping duties. Antidumping duties refer in WTO law to the actions of single companies which are accused. It is alleged that they dump on third country markets in order to take advantage, and they actually export at prices which are below or which are inferior to the prices that they usually practice in the domestic market.
So this is the allegation here. As we've said repeatedly, we do not consider that there is any basis for these allegations. And we consider that the duties that have been applied, the anti-dumping duties, have been applied in a differential manner to different companies according to the determination of China are unjustified. Let me recall, however, first of all, that in September 2025, when I believe this matter was last discussed, the duties announced by China were in the order of 15.6% to 62.4%, so very high duties. But it is part of this case and other cases, as I've indicated, that these duties which are announced in anticipation are then lowered when it comes to the final determination.
And it is the case here as well because the duties that are applied currently are 4.9% to 19.8%. And it is clear that this lowering is a good thing, but we still maintain, as I indicated, that these duties are unjustified. But it does make a difference, chair, to the question of the WTO. It makes a difference because WTO antidumping cases are actions that have to be thought very carefully and well thought through with the cooperation of the industry. And this is why I indicated that our main interest here is to protect the interests of EU businesses.
And we are working very closely with the stakeholders to look at what is the best way to do that in this context. So there isn't a clear-cut answer to your questions on the WTO. I'm afraid I am, you know, I am unable to say that it is a very simple way to go to the WTO and get the question sorted. Antidumping cases in the WTO can be long and prolonged, that can take time, and do require that we work together very closely with industry. This is what we are doing now.
Let me reassure you that we are in constant contact with the industry, and we are elaborating with our stakeholders the best way forward in this specific case. As I said, this is a non dedumping case, so it is a little bit different from other cases that can be brought to the WTO in other areas such as subsidies. So this is what we are looking at in terms of the WTO. But, of course, this is not our only action in terms of international trade. What is important in international trade, and this has been mentioned, is the diversification of our markets.
We have to ensure that we are able to continue to export both offers and, of course, high-quality products. And how do we do this? We do this via the diversification, in particular, as regards us and other components of the pig towards Southeast Asia. And we are negotiating, as you know, agreements with Thailand and the Philippines. So those are promising markets.
I did mention the Philippines as one of the third country markets in which our exports are growing at this very moment. And on top of that, of course, we are, as I indicated, negotiating FTAs with these countries. At the same time, we continue to open other markets. And of course, some of our recent trade agreements have been mentioned as well, because we consider that we need to continue diversification, and we need to continue to have more opportunities for our exporters. So this is a little bit what we do from the point of view of trade.
So this is not an easy or simple situation or solution. Of course, the connection, as we have indicated, the connection with other cases and, in particular, the electric vehicle is evident, and we have indicated that indeed we consider these cases to be retaliatory in nature. This does not mean that we are passive, but it also means that we are realistic as to what can be done and what the interests of the European Union as a whole are in its relations with China. Now, from the point of view of the markets itself. So we have indicated some of the situation on the market currently.
And it is, as I indicated, we have some preliminary data indeed from 2022, but it is not so easy to attribute what part of the market situation is attributable to the tariffs to China. And let me assure you that we're in constant contact with stakeholders. So the effect of the tariffs with China, we do keep a close eye on that, and we, in order to be able to determine when we should intervene on the market. But the market itself, as I indicated, has seen indeed some early results, which point to a decrease of U. Export to China.
But also, I understand that there is the potential influence also of African swine fever cases that have determined, indeed, the impossibility of exporting from certain areas. So we need to look at this more carefully. And as I said, once as I repeat, we are in close contact with the stakeholders, and we're trying to solve the situation the best way possible for the interest of businesses, not for the WTO, not for a policy, but for the interest of our new businesses. Also, from the point of view of what we do, on our, as regards the market and how we deal and how we support farmers, let me recall that we will have the livestock strategy, which will be indeed made public in July. And, of course, the livestock strategy also concerns a very important sector, which is the pig meat sector in the EU.
As I indicated, there has been a period of higher prices. These prices have recently, as I indicated, gone down. So the recent prices are lower than before, but the period was very high prices. But we are hopeful indeed that those increases in exports are something that can rebalance the market to a certain extent. So I will stop here, Chair.
There is no easy answer to a solution, as I said, of antidumping, which is one of the most complex ones. But as I indicated, we work hand in hand with the sector at all times. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, madam. And I also would like to thank our colleagues. So we are in the end of this item, and I think that we will see again in the afternoon at 3:00. And yes, I know and we will have voting time, so please be on time. And now we have coordinators meeting, but it's supposed to start in 15 minutes.
But if all coordinators are there, we can start early, but I don't.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.