(on the EU-Mercosur Free Trade agreement)

Ana Luísa Azevedo Lopes (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

1. Introduction

The protection of animal welfare has become an increasingly visible element of European Union (“EU”) action, particularly in policy areas traditionally dominated by economic considerations. The signing in January 2026 of the EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement (“EMTA”)[1] has made this a particularly salient issue for animal rights organisations and European citizens, serving as a contemporary example of how animal welfare is addressed both internally, and in the Union’s external action. Late in February 2026, President Ursula Von der Leyen announced that the Commission is moving forward with the provisional implementation of the agreement, although she stated that it can only be fully concluded after consent from the European Parliament.[2] This decision makes the subject of this article even more timely, as we shall examine the potential effects of such agreement on animal welfare matters across the EU.

That being said, whilst EU legislation has long addressed animal welfare in sectors such as agriculture, transport, and slaughter, the introduction of Article 13 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) marked a significant symbolic development at the level of EU primary law, formally recognising animals as sentient beings.^[3] Despite this recognition, the legal status and practical relevance of Article 13 TFEU remain uncertain. The provision does not establish concrete obligations or enforceable rights but rather requires that animal welfare be taken into account in the definition and implementation of certain Union policies. This raises a fundamental question as to how animal welfare operates within the EU legal order when it comes into tension with other objectives pursued by the Union, particularly those linked to economic integration and trade.^[4]

This paper approaches Article 13 TFEU through the lens of normative conflict, examining how animal welfare is balanced against competing policy objectives within the EU legal framework. Particular attention is paid to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), focusing on the Zuchtvieh-Export judgment (C-424/13),^[5] which offers a revealing illustration of the limits attributed to animal welfare considerations in contexts involving cross-border economic activity and trade with third countries. The choice of this judgment is justified by its clear exposure of the tension between the protection of animals and the logic of market integration. In addition, the analysis incorporates the Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België judgment (C-336/19),^[6] which provides a critical perspective on the balancing of animal welfare against fundamental rights, specifically the freedom of religion. This case is essential to the study, as it demonstrates the Court’s evolving interest, while simultaneously exposing the structural challenges of integrating Article 13 TFEU into the Union’s complex hierarchy of values.

This analysis serves to highlight the broader structural challenges faced by Article 13 TFEU when animal welfare considerations intersect with the Union’s commercial and strategic interests.

2. The recognition of animal welfare in EU primary law

The recognition of animals as “sentient beings” constitutes a significant rupture with the traditionally anthropocentric view of law, in which animals were regarded primarily as economic assets or factors of production.

The first shift emerged with Protocol No. 10 annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), which introduced for the first time an obligation for the Union and the Member States to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating policies on agriculture, transport, the internal market, and research. Although protocols annexed to the Treaties possess the same legal value, as said in Article 51 of the Treaty on the European Union (“TEU”), constituting primary law, their positioning outside the main body of the Treaties has been argued to contribute to their reduced visibility and limited normative influence in practice. In this sense, despite representing an important legal recognition of animal welfare, it wasn’t until the Treaty of Lisbon (2009) that this issue gained a spotlight position, as outlined in Article 13 of the TFEU.^[7]

This article serves as a cross-cutting principle, whose primary function is to integrate animal welfare concerns into policies that pursue diverse objectives. The creation of this article represents a milestone in the evolution of EU law regarding animal protection. By clearly recognising animals as “sentient beings”, EU primary law moves away from a strictly instrumental conception of animal protection, traditionally associated with economic efficiency or product quality.^[8]

This process of recognising the animals’ capacity to feel is part of a broader movement toward affirming ethical values within the Union’s legal order, in line with the increasing importance attributed to environmental protection, public health, and fundamental rights. With Article 13 TFEU recognising animals as “sentient beings”, the EU legally acknowledges that animals have the capacity to feel pain, suffering, and pleasure.^[9] It functions as a horizontal clause that mandates animal welfare be considered transversally across various areas of Union competence, namely in the definition and implementation of policies on agriculture, transport, the internal market, and research.^[10]

This transversality confers a significant legal and political character upon Article 13 TFEU, insofar as it obliges European legislators and decision-makers to consider animal welfare within the decision-making process. Article 13 TFEU has been commonly characterised as a horizontal clause or integration principle, comparable to other value-oriented provisions contained in Articles 8 to 12 TFEU. Rather than establishing autonomous regulatory obligations, such provisions operate as interpretative and coordination mechanisms designed to ensure that certain ethical and social values are systematically integrated into the formulation and implementation of Union policies. In this sense, Article 13 TFEU can be understood as a programmatic norm whose legal relevance materialises primarily through legislative development and judicial interpretations. Its normative force, therefore, depends on the balancing exercise carried out between animal welfare and other competing Union objectives, particularly those connected to economic integration and market functioning.^[11]

Article 13 TFEU must be interpreted in light of the overarching principles of EU law, particularly the principle of consistency and the principle of proportionality.^[12] As a provision of primary law, it functions as a mandatory parameter for the legality of Union acts. This implies that the protection of animals, as sentient beings, has been integrated into the Union’s “constitutional” core, requiring a systematic dialogue with other foundational objectives, such as the promotion of the Internal Market and the Common Agricultural Policy. Consequently, any legislative or administrative measure that affects animal welfare must undergo a rigorous balancing test. In this context, the principle of sincere cooperation also plays a role, as it obliges both the Union and Member States to ensure that the effectiveness of Article 13 TFEU is not undermined by conflicting secondary legislation or external trade commitments that ignore the ethical boundaries established by the treaties.^[13]

However, it is important to underline that Article 13 TFEU does not establish concrete material obligations, nor does it create directly enforceable subjective rights (rights with direct effect). Its primary function is advisory and guiding, conditioning the decision-making process without imposing specific results. In other words, this duty of care is not equivalent to an obligation of result, remaining largely dependent on political choices and proportionality assessments. Still, the “spotlight position” granted by the Treaty of Lisbon does not just change the status of the animal, it fundamentally recalibrates the hierarchy of European values, forcing a move away from anthropocentric dominance toward a more integrated, ethical legal order.^[14]

3. The structural limits of Article 13 TFEU and its position within the EU legal order

Although Article 13 TFEU has elevated animal welfare to the status of primary law, its effectiveness faces significant obstacles that limit its scope as a norm of absolute protection.

One of the main weaknesses of this Article lies in its lack of direct effect. The provision is not sufficiently clear, precise, or unconditional to be invoked autonomously by individuals before national or European courts. Consequently, its legal impact depends on the mediation of the Union legislator and the interpretation provided by the CJEU. Thus, Article 13 TFEU functions merely as an interpretative aid, a factor to be considered in a decision, rather than a legal basis capable of leading to a favourable ruling for animal welfare.

Furthermore, Article 13 TFEU includes a safeguard clause requiring respect for the “religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage” of Member States. This provision creates an implicit hierarchy where animal welfare, despite being recognised, yields to freedom of religion – Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“Charter”) –, or the cultural identity of the States. This significantly weakens the scope of the norm by introducing a broad exception that allows animal welfare to be relativised in the name of other values.^[15]

Take as an example, case C-336/19, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van Bergië and Others, which addressed the compatibility between national legislation requiring prior stunning of animals before slaughter and the protection of freedom of religion. In this judgment, the Court recognised that animal welfare constitutes a legitimate objective of general interest within the EU, supported by Article 13 TFEU. However, it also held that such protection must be balanced against the fundamental right to freedom of religion based in Article 10 of the Charter.

The court ultimately concluded that Member States may impose mandatory stunning requirements provided that such measures respect the principle of proportionality and do not unduly restrict religious practices. This decision illustrates the structural position of animal welfare within the Union legal order: although recognised as a constitutional value, it operates within a balancing framework and does not automatically prevail over other fundamental rights.^[16]

These limitations are reflected in the position occupied by animal welfare within the EU’s hierarchy of values. Although recognised as a value, animal welfare often appears subordinated to economic objectives, the functioning of the internal market, and competitiveness. This subordination becomes particularly evident in situations of conflict between Union policies, where Article 13 TFEU functions more as a balancing principle than as a true normative limit.

4. Article 13 TFEU in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The case law of the CJEU has been consolidating an interpretation of Article 13 TFEU which, despite its seemingly restrictive nature as a framework provision, reveals an increasing hermeneutic force. The Court recognises animal welfare as a legitimate and cross-cutting interest of the Union, yet its practical application oscillates between contextual integration and the assignment of a decisive role in resolving complex disputes.

Taken together, the case law of the CJEU reveals a consistent interpretative pattern in which animal welfare is recognised as a legitimate Union value, but rarely operates as an overriding principle, instead being integrated through proportionality-based balancing exercises involving competing economic interests, policy objectives, and fundamental rights.

The ambivalent nature of this approach becomes particularly evident when comparing the Court’s reasoning across different areas of Union action. In case C-336/19, Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, as mentioned above, the Court was called upon to assess whether national legislation requiring prior stunning of animals before slaughter was compatible with the protection of freedom of religion. In this judgment, the Court expressly acknowledged that the protection of animal welfare constitutes an objective of general interest within the Union’s legal order and reflects evolving ethical standards in European societies, as recognised by Article 13 TFEU.^[17] However, the Court simultaneously emphasised that such protection must be compatible with the fundamental right to freedom of religion, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter. By accepting that Member States may impose stunning requirements subject to proportionality review, the Court confirmed that animal welfare, despite its constitutional recognition, remains structurally positioned within a framework of normative balancing rather than functioning as an absolute legal constraint.^[18]

The Zuchtvieh-Export judgment (C-424/13) constitutes the paradigmatic example of this ambivalent approach in the field of economic activity and external trade. Called upon to rule on the application of Regulation No. 1/2005 concerning the transport of live animals during long-distance journeys to third countries, the Court adopted an interpretation strongly influenced by the normative orientation of Article 13 TFEU.^[19] Departing from a merely programmatic understanding of the provision, the Court established that Article 13 TFEU imposes a rigorous procedural obligation on national authorities responsible for authorising animal transport.

By ruling that animal welfare must be guaranteed from the place of departure to the final destination – including locations outside the EU territory –, the CJEU effectively extended the territorial reach of Union animal welfare standards. In doing so, the Court transformed the obligation to pay “full regard” to animal welfare into a prerequisite for the legality of administrative authorisation decisions.^[20] The practical consequence of this interpretation is that the export of live animals becomes conditional upon compliance with Union welfare standards even in third countries, thereby reinforcing the ethical dimension of internal market regulation.

Nevertheless, the decision did not elevate Article 13 TFEU to an autonomous legal basis capable of independently determining the outcome of the dispute. Instead, the Court preserved the structural priority of market integration and commercial viability while simultaneously requiring that economic operators demonstrate, through realistic and detailed journey planning (or journey log), that animal sentience will be adequately protected. Even while admitting limitations to animal protection for the sake of commercial viability, the Court shifts the burden of proof: it is up to the economic operator to demonstrate that animal sentience will be respected.^[21]

When read together, these judgments demonstrate that Article 13 TFEU functions as a principle of normative integration and judicial filtering. It does not prevent the subordination of animal welfare to other policy objectives, particularly those related to the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Commercial Policy. However, it requires that any limitation on animal protection must be objectively justified, proportionate, and compatible with the ethical commitments formally recognised within the Union’s constitutional framework.

5. Animal welfare and EU trade policy: the EMTA as a case study

Article 13 TFEU represents a significant development in the constitutional evolution of EU law, as it expressly recognises animals as sentient beings and imposes on the EU institutions and the Member States the obligation to pay full regard to animal welfare requirements when formulating and implementing certain policies. This recognition has often been presented as a decisive step in the process of the “constitutionalisation” of animal protection within the Union. However, an analysis of legislative practice and, in particular, of the EU’s external action demonstrates that the effectiveness of this provision remains limited, revealing a persistent tension between the protection of animal welfare and other objectives regarded as priorities, such as the functioning of the internal market and the Common Commercial Policy.^[22] The EMTA constitutes a paradigmatic example of this tension and provides a useful lens through which to assess whether Article 13 TFEU operates as a genuinely effective norm or rather as a largely symbolic one.

The EMTA aims to establish one of the largest free trade areas in the world by progressively reducing tariffs and facilitating trade flows between the two blocs. From the perspective of the EU, the agreement is presented as an instrument designed to strengthen geopolitical partnerships, expand export opportunities for European industries, and enhance economic competitiveness in a globalised market. Among its most significant commercial effects is the expansion of access to the EU market for agricultural products originating in Mercosur countries, particularly beef, poultry, and other products of animal origin. While these developments may generate economic benefit and increase consumer choice within the Union, they simultaneously raise complex regulatory and ethical concerns in relation to animal welfare.^[23]

The EU has progressively developed a comprehensive regulatory framework governing animal welfare standards applicable to its internal production systems, including rules relating to farming conditions,^[24] transport,^[25] and slaughter practices.^[26] These regulatory developments partly reflect the normative orientation established by Article 13 TFEU and demonstrate the increasing integration of ethical considerations into Union agricultural and food production policies.^[27] However, the EMTA introduces a potential regulatory asymmetry insofar as it allows increased importation of animal-derived products originating from production systems that may not operate under standards fully equivalent to those imposed to Union producers.

It should be considered that the conclusion of the EMTA does not automatically result in a lowering of internal Union standards. Products entering the European market remain subject to compliance with existing EU sanitary and regulatory requirements. These mechanisms operate as safeguards intended to prevent the entry of products that fail to meet minimum regulatory thresholds.^[28] However, the effectiveness of these safeguards depends significantly on monitoring procedures, certification systems, and enforcement capacity. Potential regulatory inconsistencies or failures in compliance control may ultimately give rise to disputes requiring judicial review before the CJEU, thereby illustrating the indirect and reactive nature of existing enforcement mechanisms.

Furthermore, although the EMTA contains chapters dedicated to sustainable development and establishes institutional mechanisms promoting regulatory cooperation, exchange of technical expertise, and policy dialogue between the parties, these provisions remain largely framed within soft-law structures. The agreement does not introduce binding conditionality mechanisms specifically designed to ensure compliance with high animal welfare standards by third-country producers. As a result, the normative influence of Article 13 TFEU within the context of the Union’s external trade policy remains structurally limited.^[29]

Recent exploratory studies and policy analyses have sought to evaluate the potential impact of the EMTA on animal welfare outcomes. These studies suggest that increased demand for animal-derived products may incentivise the expansion of intensive livestock production systems within Mercosur countries, potentially resulting in increased animal suffering and associated environmental impacts, including deforestation and biodiversity loss. Although the empirical projections surrounding these impacts remain subject to ongoing academic policy debates, they reinforce concerns regarding the capacity of current trade instruments to effectively integrate animal welfare considerations into global supply chains.^[30]

The EMTA, therefore, illustrates the broader structural challenges faced by Article 13 TFEU when animal welfare considerations intersect with the Union’s Common Commercial Policy, governed primarily by Article 207 TFEU. While animal welfare is formally recognised as a constitutional value within the Union legal order, the architecture of international trade policy continues to be driven essentially by economic and market-related goals. Within this framework, animal welfare considerations tend to operate as a secondary normative factor rather than decisive regulatory constraints. Consequently, the EMTA highlights the dual character of Article 13 TFEU within the Union’s external action. The provision contributes to shaping political discourse and regulatory expectations surrounding animal protection but lacks the binding enforcement mechanisms necessary to ensure full compliance with international trade relations. Although the sustainable provision is a very important step, there is no way to enforce EU standards in third countries.

Criticism voiced by organisations such as Eurogroup for Animals emphasises that the agreement may have devastating impacts on millions of animals by encouraging the expansion of intensive livestock farming in Mercosur countries, often associated with practices that would be unlawful under EU law.^[31] Beyond the direct suffering inflicted on animals, there are significant indirect effects, including increased deforestation and environmental degradation, which further exacerbate the inconsistency between the values proclaimed by the European Union and its external action. In this way, the EU maintains high animal welfare standards within its own territory while simultaneously ending up accepting, through trade, products derived from production systems that undermine those very values, effectively externalising animal suffering beyond its borders.

Despite the constitutional recognition of animal sentience, the EU has been unable to ensure that this recognition produces tangible legal consequences when confronted with other policies regarded as strategic, such as the Internal Market and the Common Commercial Policy. Animal welfare thus emerges as a subordinated value, frequently invoked in legal and political discourse but readily sacrificed when it conflicts with economic interests.^[32] In this sense, the EMTA reinforces the view that Article 13 TFEU oscillates between symbolism and limited effectiveness, functioning more as a guiding principle than as a genuine substantive constraint on the European Union’s conduct in international trade.^[33]

However, it is important to note that the Union’s current legislative agenda appears to be testing a response to these asymmetries. The “Omnibus Package”, part of the Farm to Fork strategy, aims to revise EU animal welfare legislation to align production standards with the latest scientific evidence and citizens’ ethical demands. In the context of external relations, this legislative package is particularly relevant as it reopens the debate on the application of reciprocity clauses (or mirror clauses). It seeks to ensure that products imported from third countries, such as the Mercosur bloc, do not undermine the sustainability and animal protection standards imposed on European producers. It remains to be seen whether these legislative intentions will possess sufficient legal strength to overcome the primacy of World Trade Organization free trade rules, which have historically constrained the external effectiveness of Article 13 TFEU.^[34]

6. Conclusion

The analysis developed throughout this study allows for the conclusion that Article 13 TFEU constitutes a fundamental axiological and symbolic milestone, elevating animal welfare to the status of a transversal value of the European Union and providing legal recognition of animal sentience. However, the transition of this “principle-norm” toward full legal effectiveness remains faltering, particularly when confronted with Union policies endowed with consolidated normative and economic weight, such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Commercial Policy.^[35]

Article 13 TFEU should not be viewed as a provision devoid of relevance; yet its current function is predominantly guiding and subordinate. As demonstrated by the case law of the CJEU and, most flagrantly, by the negotiations of the EMTA, animal welfare tends to be sacrificed at the altar of international competitiveness and trade liberalisation. The agreement exposes a legal incoherence: while the Union imposes high ethical standards on its internal producers, it tolerates the importation of products from third countries that do not observe equivalent requirements, resulting in an undesirable “outsourcing of cruelty”.^[36]

This reality raises critical questions regarding the coherence of the European project and the actual standing of animal welfare within the Union’s hierarchy of values. For Article 13 TFEU to cease being an exercise in constitutional rhetoric and become a true normative limit on the EU’s actions, the adoption of equivalent standard requirements and strict conditionality mechanisms in external relations is imperative. Without a robust integration that binds trading partners to European ethical standards, Article 13 TFEU will remain, to a large extent, a symbolic affirmation of sentience, lacking the imperative force necessary to shape the action of the EU as a global actor committed to animal ethics.

---

[1] European Commission, “EU and Mercosur sign historic agreement creating one of the largest free trade zones in the world”, January 20, 2026, accessed February 16, 2026, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ac_26_163.

[2] Peggy Corlin and Vincenzo Genovese, “Von der Leyen to implement contentious Mercosur trade deal despite MEPs’ legal challenge”, Euronews, 27 February 2026, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/02/27/commission-to-implement-contentious-mercosur-trade-deal-despite-eu-parliament-opposition.

[3] Justine Coudron, “The impact of Article 13 TFEU on the free movement of animals and animal products” (Master’s diss., Ghent University, 2023), 40–43.

[4] Émilie Delcher, “Introductory observations on animal welfare: a concept applicable to wild animals in European Union legislation?”, trans. Heron Gordilho and Lyliam Botteau, Brazilian Journal of Animal Law, v. 17, no. 1 (2022): 1–19.

[5] Judgment CJEU Zuchtvieh-Export, 23 April 2015, Case C-424/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:259, recital 2.

[6] Judgment CJEU Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België, 17 December 2020, Case C-336/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1031, recitals 1-2.

[7] José Martinez and Cara von Nolting, “Review: ‘animal welfare’ – a European concept”, Animal, v. 17 (2023): 3, doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100839.

[8] Diane Ryland, “Taking stock of Art. 13 TFEU in EU agriculture: reading Art. 13 as a whole,” European Papers, v. 8, no. 1 (2023): 192-196, doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/646.

[9] Heather Browning and Jonathan Birch, “Animal sentience”, Philosophy Compass, v. 17, no. 5 (2022): 1-2, doi: 10.1111/phc3.12822.

[10] Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, “The horizontal clauses of Arts 8-13 TFEU through the lens of the Court of Justice”, European Papers, v. 7, no. 3 (2022): 1358-1363, doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/618.

[11] Evangelia Psychogiopoulou, “Unravelling the complexities of the horizontal clauses of Arts 8-13 TFEU: an explanation of the special section”, European Papers, v. 8, no. 1 (2023): 221-226, doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/647.

[12] Tor-Inge Harbo, “The function of the proportionality principle in EU Law”, European Law Journal, v. 16, no. 2 (2010): 164-165.

[13] Jurian Langer and Wolf Sauter, “The consistency requirement in EU Law”, Columbia Journal of European Law, v. 24, no. 1 (2017): 43-45.

[14] Delcher, “Animal welfare”, 6–8.

[15] Ilja Richard Pavone, “Towards an EU animal welfare law: the case of animal testing and the limits of new welfarism”, Animal & Natural Resources Law Review, v. 16 (2020): 208–212.

[16] Judgment CJEU Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België, recitals 81 and 90.

[17] Judgment CJEU Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België, recitals 25-32.

[18] Judgment CJEU Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België, recitals 47-56.

[19] Judgment CJEU Zuchtvieh-Export, 23 April 2015, Case C-424/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:259, recitals 1-2.

[20] Judgment CJEU Zuchtvieh-Export, recitals 20-22.

[21] Judgment CJEU Zuchtvieh-Export, recitals 25-30.

[22] As previously seen with the analysis of EU judgments C-336/19 and C-424/13.

[23] Council of the European Union, “Council decision on the signing and provisional application of the interim agreement on trade between the European Union, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part,” 12417/1/25 REV 1, 8 January 2026.

[24] Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

[25] Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations.

[26] Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing.

[27] European Union, Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, Official Journal of the European Union L 303 (18 November 2009);
European Union, Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, Official Journal of the European Union L 3 (5 January 2005).

[28] Leonardo Fabio Pastorino and Washington Carlos de Almeida, “Review: impact of bilateral trade on the promotion of animal welfare rules. The case of trade relations between the European Union and Mercosur”, Animal, v. 17 (2023): 1-4, doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2023.100837.

[29] As discussed by the EU Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, specifically by Daniel Pérez Vega – project officer and animal welfare at Eurogroup for Animals: “Another problem in the agreement is that all the sustainability provisions in the agreement, including all the texts that were published in December, cannot offset the negative consequences of the agreement. Because all the sustainability provisions, they are very nice, there’s very nice wording in them, there’s no way to enforce them. And we know this because we have the same problem. I sit in most of the other and monitor the implementation of agreements, and none of them have had a cooperation action activated, because most of the time you need the political willingness of partners to cooperate, and there’s no obligation to do so”. See EU Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, “EU-Mercosur: why the trade deal still fails animals”, June 19, 2025, accessed February 16, 2026, https://www.animalwelfareintergroup.eu/calendar/eu-mercosur-why-trade-deal-still-fails-animals.

[30] Policy analysis promoted by animal welfare organizations suggest that increased EU’s demand for animal-derived products may encourage the expansion of intensive farming systems in Mercosur countries. These reports emphasise that export-oriented production is typically dominated by large industrial producers rather than small-scale farmers, potentially increasing animal suffering and creating a mismatch between EU consumer expectations and production realities abroad. See Eurogroup for Animals, “The EU-Mercosur.”

[31] Eurogroup for Animals, “EU-Mercosur.”

[32] Council of the European Union, “Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and on the provisional application of the partnership agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Southern Common Market, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part.”

[33] Eurogroup for Animals, “EU-Mercosur.”

[34] European Commission, “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: a farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system”, COM(2020) 381 final, Brussels, May 20, 2020, 4–10.

[35] Ryland, “Taking stock”, 219.

[36] Eurogroup for Animals, “EU-Mercosur”.

---

Picture credit: by Matthias Zomer on pexels.com.