Meat, power, corruption: the explosive blind spot of the Mercosur agreement

Meat is the economic heart of the Mercosur agreement, but also its main political risk. Between suspicions of corruption, institutional pressures, and health, environmental, and social crises, it encapsulates all the weaknesses of an already contested agreement. How can the JBS behemoth be avoided?

In the European debate on Mercosur, the issue of meat is omnipresent, but rarely addressed from its most sensitive angle: that of power. There is talk of quotas, standards, and competition, but much less about how this sector is structured, managed, and used as a lever of influence in its country of origin.

However, as the School of Economic Warfare points out, the agreement cannot be understood without taking this dimension into account. Mercosur is not limited to an exchange of trade flows; it operates within a logic of power dynamics, where certain actors possess a capacity for action far greater than that of simple private companies.

In this context, meat is not a product like any other. It constitutes a strategic sector, at the crossroads of economic, territorial and political issues, and therefore a potential vector of influence.

Close ties between economic interests and the political sphere

One of the most sensitive issues lies in the historical closeness between the major groups in the sector and Brazilian public institutions. Without even going into specific cases, which are well documented elsewhere, it is established that the development of certain major players has relied on significant financial and political support.

The “national champions” model, supported in particular by instruments like the BNDES, has allowed groups like JBS to become global players. But this model also creates a lasting ambiguity: are these companies simply economic operators, or extensions of a power strategy?

This question is all the more crucial given that these groups now possess an influence that extends far beyond their original sector. Their economic weight allows them to interact directly with political spheres, both national and international, and to indirectly influence strategic directions.

A power asymmetry ignored in the European debate

Faced with this reality, the European position appears paradoxical. On the one hand, the Union presents itself as a highly regulated space, committed to transparency, the separation of powers, and market regulation. On the other hand, it is negotiating an agreement with partners whose economic structures are based on significantly different principles.

The report from the School of Economic Warfare highlights this asymmetry: organized, assertive Brazilian actors, supported by a coherent system, facing a fragmented Europe where interests diverge among member states. This difference in approach creates a structural imbalance in the negotiations.

The often-used phrase “cars for cows” illustrates this reality. European industrial gains are achieved at the cost of increased exposure of agricultural sectors, without the underlying power dynamics being truly addressed.

An ability to influence that goes beyond the purely economic sphere

What makes the situation particularly sensitive is that the dominant players in the sector do not simply export products. They participate in the structuring of markets, influence standards and contribute to redefining economic balances on an international scale.

In a context of globalized supply chains, this capacity for influence becomes a strategic issue. Controlling a significant share of the production and distribution of animal protein means having a significant impact on a sector that is key to global food security.

Therefore, the opening of the European market is not just a commercial opportunity for these players. It also allows them to consolidate their position in a highly regulated space, by integrating themselves into high value-added economic circuits.

A political risk underestimated by the European Union

The real blind spot of Mercosur lies in this political dimension. By focusing on trade mechanisms, the European Union tends to underestimate the broader implications of the agreement. However, integrating into an economic system also means accepting, at least partially, the power dynamics that structure it.

This risk is all the more significant given that European regulatory mechanisms are designed to govern internal markets, not to absorb profoundly different external models. The Union's ability to impose its standards will therefore depend on its capacity to understand and anticipate these dynamics.