BRUSSELS — The European Commission published its long-term “vision” for the European Union’s agriculture and food policy on Wednesday, setting out ambitions for a sector that has been at the center of political protests, trade tensions and regulatory headaches.
Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen’s paper lays out a roadmap through 2040, promising better conditions for farmers, fairer supply chains, and a rethinking of sustainability policies.
“Food and farming are vital for Europe’s people, economy and society. We need the agri-food sector to flourish and compete in a fair global marketplace, with enough resilience to cope with crises and shocks,” Hansen said as he unveiled the plan.
“The roadmap we are presenting today sets out the path for tackling the many pressures that EU farmers face.”
But while the EU executive wants to ease some regulatory burdens, it’s also laying the ground for bigger fights over trade rules, food pricing and supply chain fairness.
Here are the five key takeaways from the EU’s master plan for agriculture:
1. Make farming attractive again (or at least survivable)
European farmers are getting old: Just 12 percent are under 40, and many are struggling with low incomes, bureaucracy and volatile markets. Hansen’s vision acknowledges that, unless something changes, Europe won’t have enough farmers left by 2040 — or the ones who remain will just be fewer and bigger.
His plan? Better pay, fewer administrative burdens and new income streams like carbon farming and bioeconomy projects to keep young people in the business. The Commission is also set to deliver a generational renewal strategy this year, focusing on easier access to land and financing for young farmers.
A revamp of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2027 will be key to delivering on these promises. But there’s already an emerging fight over whether the CAP should remain a standalone fund in the EU budget or get folded into a larger money pot. The Commission is signaling a shift toward more targeted CAP support, prioritizing active farmers, young entrants and those producing essential food. There’s also talk of simplifying direct payments and adjusting subsidy distribution.
The big question: Will this actually attract new farmers — or just stop existing ones from quitting?
2. The fight over food chain profits isn’t over
Hansen’s vision takes aim at power imbalances in the food supply chain, signaling that the Commission isn’t done cracking down on unfair trading practices. Farmers have long argued that retailers and food manufacturers squeeze them on prices, forcing them to sell below production costs — a practice the Commission wants to curb further by revising the UTP directive.
However, while farmer groups see this as essential, the Commission’s free-market hawks remain uneasy about an outright ban on below-cost sales that could distort competition. So, the vision emphasizes rules against “systematically” compelling below-cost sales, rather than writing a strict, blanket ban into law.
The plan also includes a greater role for the new Agri-Food Chain Observatory to track who makes what margin in the food supply chain — a move that could add transparency, but also more friction, between farmers and bigger actors.
And it’s not just farmers feeling squeezed. The Commission is also acknowledging concerns about rural workers, women in agriculture, and foreign laborers, saying the industry needs to be more attractive and fair. A Women in Farming platform will be launched, though it’s unclear how much impact it will have. There is also a call to improve conditions for low-wage workers in agriculture and food processing, but no new enforcement tools to back it up.
Expect pushback from other players, like retailers and food manufacturers, who argue that higher farm-gate prices will drive up costs for consumers, but also concerns that the EU isn’t doing enough to protect farm and food-sector workers from low pay and poor conditions.
3. Sustainable carrots, not unsustainable sticks
The Commission wants farming to decarbonize and pollute less, but farmers should be seen as part of the solution, not the problem, the vision argues. That means fewer penalties and more incentives, while food companies and retailers should bear as much of the climate and environmental burden — though how they’ll be held accountable remains unclear.
The slew of environmental derogation requests from farmers shows that “one-size-fits-all approaches” don’t work, the Commission says. That’s why the midyear CAP simplification will give EU countries more flexibility, shifting the CAP “away from conditions to incentives,” including for “streamlined” ecosystem services.
The plan includes stronger support for carbon farming, bioenergy production, organic and agroecological practices, and the bioeconomy and circularity. Brussels also wants biopesticides and new genomic techniques to reach the market faster — with a proposal on biopesticides promised this year — while biotechnologies need scaling up.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) should get a larger budget to speed up safety assessments and clear regulatory bottlenecks. That said, not all innovations are welcome. The paper warns that “certain food innovation is sometimes seen as a threat” — a not-so-subtle nod to cultivated meat. It “calls for an enhanced dialogue,” which effectively means a freeze.
Meanwhile, livestock “is and will remain an essential part of” the EU’s food system, with its own dedicated “work stream” to boost competitiveness. Feed additives “will be essential” to making the sector more sustainable.
4. More homegrown food and feed, and a crackdown on imports
The final text slightly tones down some of the trade protectionist language from an earlier draft, but the Commission is still sounding the alarm over Europe’s dependency on imported agricultural inputs, from fertilizers to animal feed. Right now, the EU heavily relies on key fertilizer imports from Russia, Belarus and North Africa, while soy for animal feed comes mostly from South and North America.
To fix this, Hansen’s vision includes a new protein strategy to boost EU-grown plant proteins, increased production of low-carbon and recycled fertilizers, and more investment in domestic agritech innovation. The Commission is also exploring the idea of food stockpiles — a move that signals greater concern for supply chain resilience.
One of the most politically sensitive parts of the vision? A trade reciprocity plan is expected in 2025, outlining how the EU will enforce equal standards for imports on pesticides, animal welfare and sustainability.
To back this up with enforcement, the Commission wants to set up a dedicated import control task force, working with member countries to strengthen border checks and prevent banned substances from entering the EU market.
The challenge? Replacing imports without driving up costs — or setting off trade conflicts with key partners.
But in a key change from the earlier leaked draft, there’s now no explicit ban on EU companies exporting toxic pesticides that are prohibited at home. Instead, the Commission will begin with an impact assessment, leaving open what future restrictions might look like.
5. Crumbs for the consumer
Neither food, nor consumers get much in the way of new rules. The Commission will propose strengthening the role of public procurement, though a desire stated in last week’s version to ditch the “cheaper is better” mentality has been deleted, emphasizing merely that procurers should seek the “best value.”
The document calls for shorter supply chains. Eating healthy also means eating local, it argues, since unfortunately “food is more processed, eating habits are changing and supply chains have gotten longer.” For that reason, there will be a Food Dialogue with stakeholders every year to discuss product reformulation, food affordability and collecting data on dietary intake. The Berlaymont will launch a study on the health impact of ultra-processed foods and it intends to extend country-of-origin labeling.
Another change from last week is a paragraph on how consumers should receive “trustworthy information” and that the EU will crack down on “misleading environmental claims and unreliable sustainability labels.” Consumers should also be “supporting farmers in the transition” toward more environmental production, since “markets fail to reward the progress already made.”
There is no mention of front-of-pack labeling (like the forgotten Nutri-Score), nutrient profiles for marketing sugary, salty and fatty products, or plant-based diets.
Can this vision survive the politics?
Brussels’ new vision is full of big promises — simpler rules for farmers, a more balanced food supply chain, a crackdown on unfair trade and a pivot to carrots over sticks on green rules.
But in scrapping an explicit export ban on toxic pesticides and watering down rules on public procurement, the Commission shows it’s wary of imposing new hurdles that could spark backlash.
That leaves a big question mark over whether this plan can actually change Europe’s farming model — and if it will do enough to ease the concerns of farmers, consumer groups and environmental campaigners.
With the upcoming CAP reform, looming budget fights and intense trade negotiations ahead, it won’t be an easy harvest for Hansen.
This story has been updated.