By calling for the introduction of mirror measures, Slow Food highlights the need for foods imported into the European Union, such as maize and wheat, to meet the same standards as those produced in the EU.
Food imported into the European Union must comply with the standards set for food produced within the EU: this is the firm demand made by Slow Food, which is calling for mirror measures and an end to double standards in food imports, because "farmers and consumers have a right to fairness and transparency".
Currently, European citizens have no certainty about how foods imported into the EU from third countries are produced. For instance, Europeans end up consuming genetically modified soya, meat from animals raised with antibiotics as growth promoters, and fruit and vegetables treated with hazardous substances and pesticides not approved by the European Union. Moreover, there is no way of knowing how animals have been raised, slaughtered and transported, as producing countries often lack traceability systems or animal welfare standards comparable to those of the EU.
Slow Food Italia has conducted two studies to highlight the contradictions inherent in double standards: one, in 2024, on the beef, soya and rice supply chains, which we previously covered, and one, in 2025, on wheat and maize. The case studies of these foods reveal the negative effects on the health of people, animals and ecosystems in the countries where they are produced – particularly in the Global South – as well as the unfair competition that damages European farmers. For Slow Food, it is therefore no longer possible to ignore the contradictions that have existed for decades in international agri-food trade regulations.
With regard to maize, Slow Food has analysed the case of Brazil, one of the European Union's main maize suppliers, but also the world's largest consumer of pesticides. Between 2010 and 2020, the quantity of pesticides sold in Brazil increased by 78.3 per cent, almost three times the growth in cultivated land area in the country (27.6 per cent). In the period from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2022, of all registered chemical products, 50.8 per cent contained at least one active substance that is banned or not registered in the EU.
Another paradox to consider is that, in 2019, among the products exported by the European Union to Brazil were at least 14 highly hazardous active substances no longer authorised in the EU, such as fipronil, chlorpyrifos and cyanamide. Pesticide contamination primarily affects traditional, indigenous and quilombola communities (descendants of Afro-Brazilian enslaved people) and rural populations who often live surrounded by vast plantations engaged in intensive agriculture. In many cases, pesticides are used as a chemical weapon to drive these communities off their own land.
There is also the issue of GMO maize. In South America, 75 million hectares are occupied by GMO crops, mainly soya and maize: these are monocultures that entail the impoverishment of biodiversity and the massive use of synthetic chemicals, primarily the herbicide glyphosate, to which GMO maize is resistant. Although some EU countries have banned GMO cultivation on their own territories, import authorisation operates at Community level, and the maize the EU imports is destined for both animal and human consumption. Ukraine, an important cereal supplier for the EU, has also not been a GMO-free country for over ten years.
In analysing wheat, Slow Food examines the trade relationship between Italy and Canada. Italy is Europe's largest producer of durum wheat, but also its top importing country: it sources more than a third of its requirements from abroad, amounting to around 850,000 tonnes for 2022–23, of which approximately 700,000 tonnes came from Canada. At the heart of concerns about durum wheat from Canada is glyphosate, specifically the possibility of using it in the pre-harvest phase in Canada. In Europe this practice has been banned since 2016, and it is technically also banned in Canada, since 2020. In practice, however, glyphosate in Canada is only prohibited as a desiccant on wheat, while it is permitted in the pre-harvest phase as an herbicide. In any case, Canadian wheat complies with the maximum residue limit for glyphosate applicable to wheat imported into the European Union, so the real issue lies elsewhere.
According to Slow Food, a broader reflection on certain questions of consistency is in fact needed. The first concerns the excellent reputation of Italian pasta, which – uniquely in the world – can only and exclusively be made from durum wheat, making its export market highly lucrative: would it not make sense, therefore – in addition to improving the quality of Italian durum wheat by shifting as much production as possible to organic – to meet national demand by importing exclusively organic durum wheat? This would incentivise organic production in supplier countries, with environmental benefits for the areas of production and health benefits for both farmers and consumers.
The second point is that a committed and increasingly substantial development of organic production would make it possible not only to achieve the specific Farm to Fork targets relating to organic percentages, but also to maintain consistency with the broader objective: building sustainable European food systems without harming third countries, including – as in the case of Canada – those of the Global North.
In light of the studies carried out, Slow Food is calling on European policymakers to put an end to double standards and to adopt mirror measures for non-EU foods that cover all aspects of the food chain, but above all animal welfare, social standards, pesticides and the sustainable use of land.
Slow Food calls for a focus on agroecology — that is, on farming in balance with nature — that preserves fertility, biodiversity and all ecosystem services: from pollination to carbon capture by soils, woodlands and permanent grasslands. Soil degradation, in fact, leads to the loss of essential services, represents a cost for farmers and affects the capacity to produce healthy, nutritious food. In this regard, farmers should be incentivised to prioritise environmental and intrinsic product quality through income support, and participatory research and supply-chain cooperatives should be promoted and funded, because producing food that is "good, clean and fair" requires strong expertise, research and collaboration between producers and researchers — and because sustainable supply chains cannot be modelled on the linear systems of industry.
In the case of maize, for example, it would be necessary to rethink the quantity the EU needs, currently tied directly to a livestock system shaped around the needs of industry, which is disrespectful of animals and is the consequence of an imbalance in Europeans' diets, in which animal proteins are excessive and of poor quality. The focus could shift to traditional maize varieties that have the capacity to adapt to climate, soil and the nutritional needs of those who consume them, while also being at the heart of the traditions of European territories that keep alive local cultures, landscapes, places and economies.
For Slow Food, the role of the European Union remains fundamental, as it is currently the only institution that — despite numerous tensions and opposing forces — appears to have the ability, the capacity and the intention to think globally about such central and interconnected issues as food, the environment and health. For these reasons, the appeal to Members of the European Parliament to evaluate the agri-food sector as a key element of any consideration about the future of the planet becomes all the more urgent.
Sponsored article