Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 184 posts

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#101

Post by Saline9515 »

toyg wrote: post #38
iagooar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Farming is already incredibly subsidized in the EU As it should be if we don't want to wake up one fine day in the middle of a global war with no food supply because of a naval blockade and have our children starve to death.

Most of Europe has long reached a population density that makes it effectively impossible to achieve self-sufficiency, so this argument is pointless. This is going to be a good agreement if it is policed well enough that Mercosur countries are effectively forced to raise their food-production standards (because accepting imports doesn't automatically mean they can ignore regulations on suitability). Europe gets cheap…

The eu is a net exporter of agricultural products, what you are saying is plainly false.

The problem is rather the inputs, mainly from mineral sources, used for the production and imported from countries such as Morocco or Russia (before the war). Mercosur doesn't solve any of those problems, and will decrease the EU food autonomy as farms will disappear due to the LATAM dumping.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#102

Post by exceptione »

mikaeluman wrote: post #51

The main issue as I see it is that we need food security in the EU. Especially high quality nutrious dense food like beef. And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs. The thing is, these may very well be good for environmental reasons, but it doesn't work if we just start importing from countries that do the opposite.

Food security is the last concern for Europe. How do you get that idea?

  > And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs.
Almost the whole EU budget is for agriculture subsidies. Countries outside EU have to comply with the same standards. The US could for instance export in bulk to the EU, if they would manage to bring food up to basic standards. It doesn't happen, but is not because the market isn't open.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#103

Post by expedition32 »

trollbridge wrote: post #48
3ple_alpha wrote: post #45

Removing tariffs on beef specifically is a serious mistake, there's no need to incentivise any more production of that. Other agricultural imports, like soy and coffee beans, are a huge boon to the EU on the other hand. If this results in cheaper coffee, everyone in my country, for one, will be ecstatic.

What’s wrong with pasture raised beef like they raise in Argentina?

Absolutely nothing it is just European farmers crying. As if the EU doesn't already spend billions on farming subsidies.

Even if WW3 breaks out we can turn all of Europe into a vegetable garden in less than a year- the UK did this in 1940. Nobody is going to starve FFS.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#104

Post by NoboruWataya »

dataviz1000 wrote: post #91
mikaeluman wrote: post #51

The main issue as I see it is that we need food security in the EU. Especially high quality nutrious dense food like beef. And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs. The thing is, these may very well be good for environmental reasons, but it doesn't work if we just start importing from countries that do the opposite.

I'm currently in Brazil. Buenos Aries has NYC, Miami food prices. One of the things that strikes me the most is price of food here and Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. By shipping the food to Europe and United States, it makes it extremely expensive here. After decades of authoritarian control, the food production here has been concentrated into a few extraordinary families. The EU farmers are not the only people ge…

Do you mean the prices are as high as NYC relative to local income? Because if farmers can get NYC prices in their own country I don't see why they would ship their produce all the way to the EU, where they won't even be able to get that (NYC is more expensive than the large majority of Europe).

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#105

Post by Saline9515 »

dtech wrote: post #16
iagooar wrote: post #12

This is a bad deal for many European countries that still have a strong farming industry, and for Europeans in general too. Once again, Germany has pushed through its interests at the expense of other European nations like Poland. This time even France was against it. What is Germany going to get? A new market for their decaying automobile industry. What is the rest of Europe going to get? Cheap, low quality food shi…

This is an incredibly mid take. This is a boon for any European manufacturing and tech company. Not "just" German car manufacturers but especially machining and pharmaceutical companies. Farming is already incredibly subsidized in the EU, and has an outsized political capital for their importance based on historical momentum. This is also primarily bad for the beef industry, which is produced in the EU using very int…

Most beef in the EU is a byproduct of the dairy industry. Beef meat comes from culled dairy cows, and a lot of production is done on land that isn't suitable for other uses (mountains, for instance). The EU has also the highest norms in the world regarding food production, and they are tightly enforced, unlike LATAM where a lot of cattle is grazed on deforested land with no regulation regarding chemicals.

What you are saying is very misleading if not plain false.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#106

Post by dlisboa »

eigenspace wrote: post #92
dlisboa wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soybeans have probably a worse impact on the environment than beef. Most of the deforestation in SA in the past couple of decades was for soybean farms.

Well, that's a very misleading statement. Most of those soybeans aren't being produced to be eaten by humans. Most soybeans are used for animal feed. It's the meat industry that is primarily driving deforestation, both directly for pasture, and indirectly for animal feed.

Not in South America. Cattle here eats grass. Soybean is exported mainly to China which uses it for other reasons, not feeding cattle.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#107

Post by dataviz1000 »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #104
dataviz1000 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm currently in Brazil. Buenos Aries has NYC, Miami food prices. One of the things that strikes me the most is price of food here and Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. By shipping the food to Europe and United States, it makes it extremely expensive here. After decades of authoritarian control, the food production here has been concentrated into a few extraordinary families. The EU farmers are not the only people ge…

Do you mean the prices are as high as NYC relative to local income? Because if farmers can get NYC prices in their own country I don't see why they would ship their produce all the way to the EU, where they won't even be able to get that (NYC is more expensive than the large majority of Europe).

I mean a cheese burger costs $18 USD and I couldn't find cheaper without having to walk 3 miles in Buenos Aries.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#108

Post by wiether »

redox99 wrote: post #80
3ple_alpha wrote: post #45

Removing tariffs on beef specifically is a serious mistake, there's no need to incentivise any more production of that. Other agricultural imports, like soy and coffee beans, are a huge boon to the EU on the other hand. If this results in cheaper coffee, everyone in my country, for one, will be ecstatic.

Beef from Argentina is basically as good as it gets in terms of animal welfare. Most are raised under extensive systems (not confined feedlots). They live on large grasslands (hundreds of acres) where they roam freely and graze pastures. That's completely unlike things like Chicken which live their whole life in over crowded poultry houses, never seeing the outdoors, or even daylight.

Animal welfare is not the issue here.

Pollution, land and wildlife destruction is the issue.

Beef is probably the worst use of land to produce food given how much input it requires and negative outputs it produces.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#109

Post by NoboruWataya »

exceptione wrote: post #102
mikaeluman wrote: post #51

The main issue as I see it is that we need food security in the EU. Especially high quality nutrious dense food like beef. And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs. The thing is, these may very well be good for environmental reasons, but it doesn't work if we just start importing from countries that do the opposite.

Food security is the last concern for Europe. How do you get that idea? > And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs. Almost the whole EU budget is for agriculture subsidies. Countries outside EU have to comply with the same standards. The US could for instance export in bulk to the EU, if they would manage to bring food up to basic standards. It doesn't happen, but is not because the…

> Food security is the last concern for Europe. How do you get that idea?

Food security is the first concern for every society, because without food we will all die. The reason almost the whole EU budget (hyperbole, but indeed it is a lot of the EU budget) is spent on agricultural subsidies is precisely to protect our food security.

Re: EU and Mercosur countries sign landmark free trade deal

#110

Post by geocar »

mikaeluman wrote: post #51

The main issue as I see it is that we need food security in the EU. Especially high quality nutrious dense food like beef. And EU farmers are subject to a ridiculous number of regulations and costs. The thing is, these may very well be good for environmental reasons, but it doesn't work if we just start importing from countries that do the opposite.

> The thing is, these may very well be good for environmental reasons, but it doesn't work if we just start importing from countries that do the opposite.

Everything I have read suggests the EU has controls to "temporarily suspend tariff preferences on agricultural imports from Mercosur if these imports harm EU producers"

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-mercosur-agre...

and they intend to "uphold EU animal welfare rules" specifically so consumers aren't harmed either.

https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2025/09/04/eu-mercosur...

> The main issue as I see it...

Who are you? If you're an expert, can you share a couple links with some analysis of which part of this agreement will harm the environment, so I know exactly what you're talking about? And not in a vague hand-wavey way with all these weasel-words about "may very well", but an actual thing, because I live here and can vote, but I think this is a good deal, and am genuinely confused why anyone would think it isn't, so if I can get educated here, I don't want to pass up the chance!

Post reply on HN