What can 280 characters reveal about EU agricultural policy?
Our Key Opinion Former (KOF) analysis tools allow us to aggregate and then dissect trends as they emerge. Our team in Brussels points this analysis at recent agri-food developments...
What can 280 characters reveal about EU agricultural policy? More than you might think. In the digital age, social media isn't just a platform for debate; it’s a window into political priorities, shifting narratives, and emerging trends. Over the past six months, the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee has been actively shaping discussions on food security, sustainability, and trade. But beyond the headlines and press releases, what do their own words tell us?
Penta Live is our Stakeholder Intelligence platform – telling you what’s being said about companies, brands, sectors, products and people – and whether it matters. Live is a single platform that consolidates media from across the globe, including premium sources such as the Financial Times and broadcast media from some regions. All this coverage is held here together in one place for tracking, monitoring and analysis. Because you have all of your content in one place, it gives you a holistic view of where and how entities are being discussed in the public sphere.
Using the Live platform, we analysed every post made on X (formerly known as Twitter) by members of the European Parliament’s AGRI Committee between June and December 2024. The results? A revealing picture of the topics that dominated their attention, and, perhaps more intriguingly, the ones that didn’t. Some findings confirmed expectations, but others surprised us. What do these patterns tell us about the future of EU agricultural policy? Let’s dive in.
The MEPs dominating the Agriculture Committee’s digital debate
During the latter part of 2024, 31 of the Committee’s 49 members were active on X, contributing to a total of 12,152 tweets. While MEPs hailing from every political group engaged in discussions, the conversation was heavily dominated by the European People's Party (EPP) and The Left, who together accounted for more than half of all tweets.
Most notably, a handful of key figures shaped much of the online debate, with Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (The Left, Ireland) emerging as the most active voice, along with his party colleague Arash Saeidi who also featured in the top five. On the right of the spectrum, Carmen Crespo and Pekka Toveri, both members of the EPP, were among the most prolific contributors, while Gilles Pennelle (PfE, France) also played a significant role in driving discussions. This distorted balance suggests that whilst many MEPs are hoping to shape public opinion in the Twittersphere, a select few are dominating the narrative online.
Free trade or foul play? MEPs pushed back on FTAs
Opposition to free trade agreements, particularly the EU-Mercosur agreement, which was concluded in December, proved to be one of the rare issues that united MEPs across political lines. While the Parliament has been marked by deep ideological splits on everything from the Green Deal to migration, AGRI Committee MEPs from across the spectrum found common ground in their criticism of trade agreements and their potential impact on European farmers.
MEPs from two nations dominate the convesration on the Mercosur agreement, making up four-fifths of all commentary across the EU27
The most vocal critics came from France and Ireland, both of which have large agricultural sectors. Gilles Pennelle (PfE, France), Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan (The Left, Ireland), and Barry Cowen (Renew, Ireland), warned that the agreements would promote unfair competition, weaken food standards, and endanger domestic agriculture. Many framed Brussels as too willing to sacrifice European farmers in the name of global trade, with Mercosur in particular seen as a deal that would flood EU markets with lower-standard imports. Their messaging was forceful, with some calling for outright rejection of trade agreements they believe undermine European producers. That said, not all voices in the debate were as disparaging. Elsi Katainen (Renew, Finland) took a more measured approach, acknowledging that agreements like Mercosur could bring economic benefits for countries like Finland, while also insisting on tighter environmental and food safety protections.
Despite some differences in approach, the overall sentiment in the AGRI Committee was decidedly condemnatory. Even among those open to trade, the emphasis was on safeguards rather than enthusiasm. With few MEPs willing to make the case for free trade, the narrative was largely dominated by concerns over imports, standards, and the survival of European agriculture in an increasingly globalised market.
Political backlash and personal tragedy on the glyphosate debate
Despite the EU's 10-year reauthorisation of glyphosate at the end of 2023, the glyphosate debate was one of the most charged discussions in the Committee’s online discourse, with Valérie Hayer, Chair of Renew Europe, at the centre of the controversy. While Hayer has generally supported a ban on glyphosate, she has argued that it should still be permitted in cases where no economically viable alternative exists; a stance that drew significant backlash, particularly in France, where the issue is highly politicised.
Criticism intensified after Hayer was pressed on comments made by the then French Agriculture Minister Marc Fesneau, who stated in an interview that glyphosate posed no risk. She responded by saying that some scientists state that there is no risk to human health and reiterated the position of her party, that it should only be used where there is no economically viable alternative. This was met with frustration from opponents, who accused her of sidestepping the real issue and failing to take a firm stance against reauthorisation. A post which was retweeted a multitude of times encapsulated the anger: "I am revolted by the vacuity and cowardice of @ValerieHayer's language on glyphosate!" Critics also pointed out that President Macron’s government had failed to propose an alternative to glyphosate in the past decade.
Adding to the emotional weight of the discussion was the case of Théo Grataloup, a young Frenchman who suffered severe health complications due to glyphosate exposure. His story became a rallying point for campaigners against the herbicide, and when confronted with his case, Hayer’s response was seen by some as insufficiently empathetic and politically evasive. A widely shared post framed the moment starkly: "Valérie Hayer (Renaissance) responds to Théo Grataloup, victim of glyphosate, on the re-authorisation of the herbicide in [the EU]"
Meanwhile, Martin Häusling (Greens, Germany) renewed his call for a complete ban, particularly as some federal states pushed to allow glyphosate use in protected areas and nature reserves. Outside of direct policymaking, French political discourse around glyphosate became more polarised, with opponents of the ban accusing environmentalists of anti-science rhetoric, particularly in relation to controversial studies on GMOs and pesticides.
The intensity of the debate reflected just how politically sensitive glyphosate remains, not just as a policy issue but as a focal point in the broader discussion on science-based regulation and agricultural sustainability.
Lost in the woods: what happened to the EUDR?
Deforestation, and the EUDR specifically, has been one of the most contentious issues so far this new mandate. However, there was surprisingly little discussion on the issue among AGRI Committee MEPs with it only being mentioned a handful of times. Even with the one-year delay in implementation, which might have been expected to spark debate, most attention remained focused on other issues like CAP, competition and climate change. One possible explanation is that EP AGRI was not the lead committee responsible for the delay, albeit that it was invited to give an opinion. As a result, while some members weighed in, the issue may not have been seen as a core political battle for the Committee.
Among those who did comment, opinions were split. Elsi Katainen (Renew, Finland) supported the delay, arguing that businesses needed more time to comply, but blamed the EPP for unnecessary political wrangling that slowed the process. Others, including Martin Häusling (Greens, Germany), defended the EUDR as a vital tool in reducing deforestation in global supply chains. A few MEPs linked the issue directly to the Mercosur trade deal, with Thomas Waitz (Greens, Austria) warning that the agreement would "fuel deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado, worsening conditions for indigenous communities." Arash Saeidi (The Left, France) echoed this sentiment, criticising the EU for imposing strict environmental standards on European farmers while allowing imports from deforestation-heavy regions.
Whilst some MEPs accused the EPP of protecting European forestry interests at the expense of stronger environmental laws, the overall lack of sustained criticism or outrage suggests that many saw the delay as a practical compromise rather than an erosion of climate policy.
Animal welfare: A quiet issue in a noisy debate
Despite its significance, animal welfare, particularly livestock transport, received relatively little attention in EP AGRI’s online discussions. The few MEPs who did engage on the issue focused primarily on enforcement, trade policy, and NGO engagement instead of promoting the adoption of the delayed legislation. Jessika van Leeuwen (EPP, The Netherlands) argued that rather than introducing stricter animal welfare laws, the EU should focus on better enforcement of existing rules, stating that compliance failures, not regulatory gaps, were the real issue.
Meanwhile, Valérie Deloge (PfE, France) took a more confrontational stance, accusing the EU of hypocrisy for imposing strict animal welfare standards on European farmers while allowing imports from countries with lower protections. She framed free trade agreements as a direct threat to European animal welfare standards, stating: "The EU lectures on animal welfare but signs free trade agreements with countries that mistreat animals. Total hypocrisy!" Deloge also highlighted her engagement with the animal protection NGO @30millionsdamis, signaling that some MEPs were working alongside advocacy groups to push the issue forward.
What was notably absent from the discussion was any major debate on livestock transport conditions or proposals to ban live exports: issues that have been highly contentious in past policy debates. While trade concerns and enforcement failures were acknowledged, the overall lack of sustained focus suggests that animal welfare was not a top priority in the Committee’s online discourse.
CAP in the crossfire
Debate over the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remained fragmented, which was surprising given its significance, with discussions focusing on funding concerns, fairness in subsidy distribution, and excessive bureaucracy. Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan (The Left, Ireland) led calls for a major budget increase to €130 billion per year, arguing that CAP should include a third pillar focused on environmental sustainability. Others, particularly from Renew Europe and the EPP, supported a bigger CAP budget but emphasised the need to reduce red tape and make subsidies more accessible to farmers.
Criticism of CAP’s distribution model was also a recurring theme, with some MEPs arguing that large agribusinesses benefit disproportionately while small and medium-sized farmers are left behind. One widely shared post declared that “CAP is failing the majority of our farmers”, demanding an end to hectare-based payments in favor of more targeted income support. Meanwhile, right-wing and nationalist voices framed CAP reforms as a threat to traditional agriculture, warning that proposals to shift subsidies towards plant-based proteins and environmental measures would harm European farmers.
The Left discussed CAP more than any other faction
Beyond funding, CAP’s role in trade and climate policy was occasionally raised, particularly regarding whether EU farmers are forced to meet stricter environmental standards than their global competitors. One MEP linked CAP reform to the EU’s broader sustainability agenda, arguing that the policy must better align with climate targets rather than remain a rigid subsidy system. Looking ahead, negotiations on the future of CAP will intensify in 2025, with the AGRI Committee announcing a delegation to Ireland to engage directly with farmers as talks progress.
While CAP remains a cornerstone of EU agricultural policy, its online discussion was overshadowed by other topics. However, as the next reform approaches, debates over funding, fairness, and regulatory burdens will likely take centre stage in the coming months.
Commissioner hearings - Scrutiny or political theatre?
The Commissioner hearings sparked debate among AGRI Committee MEPs, but the focus was largely partisan, with key talking points focusing on trade, agriculture, and Ursula von der Leyen’s leadership. Extremes on both sides of the political spectrum criticised the new Commission heavily, accusing it of failing farmers, supporting free trade at their expense, and eroding national sovereignty. Arash Saeidi (The Left, France) pointed out that his group was the only one to vote against von der Leyen's Commission en bloc, while MEPs from Patriots for Europe framed the hearings as a rubber-stamp process for a pro-globalisation agenda.
One of the most heated issues was, again, Mercosur, with Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen coming under fire for his support of the deal. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan (The Left, Ireland) accused MEPs of ignoring Hansen’s pro-Mercosur stance during the hearings, only to complain about it later. Meanwhile, Jessika van Leeuwen (EPP, The Netherlands) noted Hansen's admission that the Green Deal had disproportionately impacted farmers. Beyond trade, Maria Walsh (EPP, Ireland) pressed Hansen on what he would do to support farmers' mental health, while Commissioner-designate Olivér Várhelyi faced criticism for failing to commit to stronger animal welfare policies.
Despite some substantive questioning, the discussions were limited, with the debate often falling into partisan divides. Valérie Hayer (Renew, France) defended the process, stating, “We have grilled all the candidates for Commissioner. Now the new European Commission can get to work.” However, MEPs falling outside of the traditional centrist coalition argued that the hearings lacked real scrutiny, particularly on agricultural priorities. In the end, the hearings served more as a political battleground than a forum for deep policy debate, with trade, climate rules, and food security remaining the key sticking points.
This is one of the Penta tools that enables us to dive deep into political discourse, uncovering key influencers, shifting narratives, and emerging trends across policy areas, such as in EU agriculture policy. Its versatility allows us to analyse nearly any topic with virtually any stakeholder, helping our clients to anticipate challenges, seize opportunities, and engage more effectively in an evolving policy landscape.