Brussels: With its first-ever Livestock Strategy and an accompanying protein plan, adopted on 7 July 2026, the European Commission has finally put two long-avoided questions on the same table. How should Europe keep its farmers competitive, and how can it stop leaning so heavily on imported feed to do so? Agriculture ministers took their first pass at the answers on 13 July, and their cautious response revealed how contested the road ahead will be.
The dependency figure explains the urgency. In 2025 the EU produced only about a quarter of the oilseeds and protein crops it fed to its animals, importing the rest, much of it soy, from the Americas. The Livestock Strategy and the protein plan together aim to lift home-grown protein to 35% of feed use by 2035, a target that sounds modest until one considers how little the ratio has shifted in two decades.
A strategy that names the problem
The Commission frames the two documents as a single roadmap for resilience. It wants to reward farmers who grow protein crops such as peas, beans, and rapeseed, tighten the links between food, feed, energy, and industrial supply chains, and improve the monitoring that would let Brussels see a protein shortfall coming before it bites. The strategy also promises livestock farmers a longer-term horizon on environmental rules, a nod to a sector that feels whipsawed by shifting climate demands.
Yet naming a problem is not the same as fixing it, and that gap defined the ministers’ meeting. Several delegations welcomed the direction while stressing, in the words of the Council, the need for adequate financial support to make either initiative real. Without dedicated money in the next farm budget, ministers warned, the targets risk becoming aspirations that farmers cannot afford to meet.
The competitiveness trap
The deeper tension sits between sustainability and competitiveness. Imported soy is cheap partly because it externalises environmental costs that European producers increasingly cannot. If Brussels pushes farmers toward domestic protein without cushioning the price gap, it risks squeezing margins in a sector already battered by input costs and thin returns. Push too little, and the dependency simply endures.
Critics from the environmental camp argue the plan diagnoses the illness but withholds the cure. They note that reducing feed imports does little for the climate if overall herd sizes and their methane output stay flat, and they wanted firmer signals on shifting diets toward plant proteins. Farm groups, meanwhile, fear exactly that framing, worried the strategy is a first step toward managed contraction of livestock numbers dressed up as resilience.
That the Commission produced a strategy at all marks a shift. For years the livestock file was treated as politically radioactive, too entangled with national identities, rural economies, and trade to touch. By pairing it with a protein plan focused on self-sufficiency rather than shrinkage, Brussels has found a frame that most capitals can at least discuss. The 2035 target now gives the ambition a number, and the coming budget talks will decide whether that number carries any weight. On present evidence, the diagnosis commands broad agreement; the financing does not.




