A trade agreement can lower tariffs without guaranteeing that goods will cross the border. This distinction explains the apparent contradiction between the European suspension of Brazilian products (external link), which took effect on September 3, and the provisional application of the Mercosur–European Union agreement (external link) since May 2026.
Brussels considers Brazilian guarantees regarding the use of antimicrobials in animal production insufficient. Brasília asserts that it has complied with the requirements. The impasse involves public health, oversight, and commercial interests. The reduction of Tariffs (external link) does not eliminate sanitary conditions for imported food (external link). However, the existence of these conditions does not make any import ban inherently legitimate: its justification and implementation must be examined.
The restriction, announced in May (external link), stems from regulations predating the agreement. Regulation 2019/6 (external link) established requirements subsequently detailed by Regulation 2023/905 (external link). Meanwhile, the June 2026 decision (external link) revoked Brazilian authorizations for cattle, equines, poultry, aquaculture, honey, and casings. It is not an indiscriminate ban on Brazilian food.
Rules against antimicrobial resistance
European rules (external link) prohibit antimicrobial medicinal products used to promote growth or increase yield, as well as certain substances reserved for human treatment. This does not mean halting all veterinary treatment: the World Organisation for Animal Health (external link) recommends responsible use to preserve both animal and human health.
Antimicrobials are medicines directed against microorganisms; antibiotics, used against bacteria, belong to this group. Resistance occurs when these microorganisms no longer respond to treatment. Therefore, the debate extends beyond the presence of residues in food: it involves preserving medicines essential for treating infections.
The concern is tangible. According to the World Health Organization (external link), inappropriate or excessive use fosters drug-resistant microorganisms. A scientific review (external link) linked restrictions on antibiotic use in livestock to reductions in bacterial resistance in animals. An analysis by European agencies (external link) also identified improvements associated with decreased consumption.
While this evidence underpins controls, it does not demonstrate contamination across all Brazilian meat. The issue under discussion is the verification of production practices. A residue test examines a sample; on its own, it cannot reconstruct the treatments an animal received. For this reason, import controls (external link) include recordkeeping, traceability, and certification.
Studies on consumption surveillance (external link) and global usage estimates (external link) reveal information gaps. Aggregated data help identify trends, but they do not prove compliance by specific suppliers.
Prohibitions and requirements
In practice, traceability means being able to link the product to the rearing stages and relevant records. When an animal moves between holdings, its historical record must not be lost. A final declaration does not automatically resolve prior gaps.
According to the official Brazilian position (external link), the necessary measures were implemented and documented. A ban on feed additives containing certain antimicrobials took effect in April (external link). However, amending legislation and demonstrating compliance are distinct steps.
Brazil also questions audits that, according to its ambassador to the European Union (external link), were not required of other partners. The Commission denies any discrimination. Resolving this divergence requires comparing the documentation submitted and the justifications for disparate treatment.
The opposition of European farmers to the agreement (external link) explains suspicions of protectionism, but it does not constitute sufficient proof. A measure can protect health and benefit local producers at the same time.
Under World Trade Organization rules (external link), sanitary restrictions must not discriminate unjustifiably. The question is whether there is adequate basis and less trade-restrictive alternatives that achieve the required level of protection. Agricultural safeguards (external link), designed to address trade injury, are a separate mechanism.
Evaluating proportionality requires knowing the specific deficiencies identified, the Brazilian responses, and the reasons for rejecting alternative solutions. The existence of a sanitary rationale does not conclude this assessment. The resumption of trade may vary across sectors.
For bovine animals, the Commission demands guarantees covering the entire life cycle (external link). For poultry and honey, a targeted audit (external link) opened a path toward evaluation, without guaranteeing automatic clearance. Research on aquaculture (external link) also points to differences across species and production practices. Brazil can correct shortcomings, present evidence, and challenge inconsistent requirements concurrently. The WTO SPS Agreement (external link) recognizes equivalent systems when they demonstrate achieving the required level of protection: they do not need to operate identically.
Consequences
In the meantime, other markets do not automatically replace the European market (external link). Impacts on income and employment will depend on the duration of the ban. Nor is there any guarantee of cheaper meat in Brazil: prices also respond to demand, costs, and production decisions.
Adaptation carries costs. Research on the economics of growth promoters (external link) and the consequences of restrictions (external link) recommends considering varied outcomes. Veterinary assistance and prevention, as proposed by the FAO (external link), can reduce the need for medicinal products. Distributing compliance costs is also critical. Without assistance and access to reliable records, smaller-scale producers may face greater hurdles in remaining within export supply chains.
The impasse highlights a condition already made explicit in May (external link): tariff benefits depend on authorized access. Defending Brazilian trade requires demanding consistent criteria from Europe and offering verifiable controls, which are also useful to Brazilian producers and consumers.
This article, “Por que a União Europeia suspendeu importação de carnes brasileiras mesmo após o acordo com o Mercosul?”, byArmando Alvares Garcia Júnior, was originally published in The Conversation and is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-ND 4.0).