European Union rule on antimicrobials raises concerns about Brazilian meat.

Brazil's removal from the list of countries authorized to export animal products to the European Union, announced on May 12, has opened a new front of tension between Brazilian agribusiness and the European bloc. The measure does not yet have an immediate effect, but it has raised an alert throughout the meat industry, especially in the beef chain, as it involves one of the most demanding and profitable markets for Brazilian products.

The decision relates to Regulation (EU) 2023/905, which will be fully applied from 3 September 2026. The regulation prohibits the importation of live animals and animal products from production systems that use certain antimicrobials — particularly those associated with growth promotion or reserved for human treatment. The rule covers beef, pork and poultry, as well as fish, milk, honey, eggs and egg products.

To continue selling to the bloc, third countries will need to demonstrate, through health certificates, traceability, and official documentation, that the animals meet European requirements throughout their entire productive life. The European Union's argument is based on health concerns: reducing risks associated with antimicrobial resistance, a topic treated by the bloc as a public health priority.

From the Brazilian perspective, however, the interpretation is that the issue was presented in a distorted way in the public debate. According to Aniella Banat, Director of Technical and Regulatory Affairs at the Brazilian Association of Meat Exporting Industries (Abiec), there is no accusation of contamination of Brazilian meat. The central point is the documentary and regulatory proof required by the European market. "We don't have a sanitary problem," states Aniella. According to her, animal products in Brazil follow sanitary standards recognized as among the most rigorous in the world. "We didn't become the world's leading beef producer by chance." The same position is shared by the Brazilian Association of Animal Protein (ABPA), which, in an official statement published on May 12th, emphasizes that Brazil fully complies with all European Union requirements, including those related to antimicrobial regulations, and that Brazil will demonstrate this to European health authorities.

According to Aniella, Brazil had already been working, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock and sectoral entities, on developing protocols to comply with the new rule, with mechanisms for traceability, animal segregation, and audits on rural properties. What surprised the sector was the way the country was removed from the list. “This list has existed since 2024 and could be updated at any time,” says Aniella. “Only Brazil was removed from this list. We know that there are other countries that remain on it and would be in the same situation.”

Technical impasse and political interpretation

The main point of contention involves proving that certain substances were not used in animals destined for the European Union. In the case of beef, the discussion revolves around monensin, used as an anticoccidial and modulator of animal fermentation. It helps prevent intestinal diseases and improves feed efficiency, but it can also be associated with performance gains—a category restricted by the bloc.

According to Aniella, many of the listed products were no longer being used in Brazilian cattle farming or were not registered in the country for that purpose. Even so, the government began publishing regulations to make the regulatory status of these molecules in Brazil clearer to the European authority.

According to her, the required complement to the Brazilian traceability system involves a private protocol with endorsement, control, and auditing by the Ministry of Agriculture. The objective is to identify farms and plots of land suitable for supplying raw materials to exporting plants authorized for the European market.

Although she acknowledges the need to meet the European requirement, Aniella believes the decision was made in a sensitive political environment. She cites the progress of negotiations on the Mercosur-European Union agreement and pressure from European producers, especially in countries with strong beef production, such as France and Ireland.

For Abiec, a technical issue has gained political and media attention. Transforming it into a supposed sanitary problem, says Aniella, damages the country's image. At the same time, she acknowledges that it is up to Brazil to demonstrate compliance if it wants to maintain that market. According to Aniella, the European rule should be treated as a market requirement: if Brazil cannot meet the criteria defined by the bloc from September 3, 2026, it will not be able to export under those conditions. If the protocols are accepted and applied, the trade flow can continue normally.

Timeframe, cost, and premium market

The September deadline is one of the most sensitive points for the beef cattle industry. Because the beef cattle cycle is long, a steer slaughtered at 30 months would need to have met the conditions since birth—a period during which the protocols were still under negotiation. "What really impacts us is not whether the protocol is accepted, but how many animals will be eligible for shipment starting September 3rd," says Aniella.

The sector argues that protocols had already been sent to the European Union and had been awaiting a response since 2025. In this scenario, the immediate implementation of the requirements could cause a significant reduction in trade flow, even if Brazil manages to approve the regulatory model. "For the beef industry, there could be this impact. Once the protocol is in place and the rules established, the private sector will need to comply, and trade flow is likely to be drastically reduced."

The European Union is not the main destination for Brazilian beef in terms of volume—China and the United States occupy more significant positions. Even so, the bloc has strategic weight because it buys higher value-added cuts. In 2025, it was the fourth largest destination for beef, with 128 tons and US$1,05 billion in purchases. “Why does the European Union end up being so important? It’s because it pays better,” summarizes Aniella. Although it represents about 3% of exports in volume, its share in value is greater than 5% – data from 2025. In the case of chicken, this same ratio is 6,2% (volume) and 10,3% (value). In pork, the share does not reach 1%.

Market size: Brazilian meat export data to the EU-27

Source: Prepared by Insper Agro Global based on data from Agrostat (MAPA, 2026)

Replacing this destination wouldn't be automatic. Redirecting products planned for the European Union could mean selling at lower prices or competing for space in already supplied markets. There's also the cost of producing within European requirements: production without certain performance enhancers can increase costs, and selling to the bloc will need to continue making economic sense for producers, meatpackers, and importers. "The growth promoters currently banned by the European Union will impact these costs," says Aniella.

The solution advocated by Abiec involves accepting Brazilian protocols and continuing technical negotiations. The protocol should combine traceability, segregation, and specific compliance with the European market, identifying which farms and animals meet the requirements and ensuring that the raw material is correctly directed to the exporting industry.

Until September, the challenge will be to demonstrate to the European Union that these mechanisms offer sufficient guarantees and, at the same time, organize the supply chain to ensure a supply of suitable animals.

The case also reignites a broader discussion about unilateral regulatory measures in international food trade. While multilateral forums such as the Codex Alimentarius work on technical harmonization, the European Union has been advancing its own requirements, designed for external suppliers.

For Aniella, the negotiation needs to remain on the technical level. "Politically, we have to be careful to avoid strictly political issues impacting a strictly technical matter."