Luxembourgish milk finds itself at the centre of a power struggle that extends far beyond the farms directly affected. By announcing on Thursday 28 May that it would not be renewing its milk collection operations in Luxembourg, Lactalis has triggered an agricultural, industrial and political crisis. The French group collects around 50 million litres of milk from 68 Luxembourgish producers. The milk is pre-treated and condensed at the Eschweiler site, before being sent to production sites for dairy ingredients destined for international markets.
Lactalis describes this decision as “difficult but inevitable”. The group explains that international markets for dairy ingredients have been experiencing high volatility and increased competition for several years, against a backdrop in which Europe has reportedly become less competitive. According to the group, this model exposes its Luxembourg operations to markets with “very low added value”, where prices are lower than the terms on which milk is purchased in Luxembourg.
For producers, the announcement has come as a shock. The Farmers’ Union says it is “deeply shocked” by the decision of Ekabe, a brand owned by Lactalis, to stop accepting milk from Luxembourg farmers in future and not to renew its contracts with 70 farms. The farmers’ organisation has criticised the decision as “unilateral”, taken without prior consultation with the sector, and points out that the farms concerned have invested heavily in dairy production in recent years.
No long-term solutions
The problem is as much about symbolism as it is about volume. Over 50 million litres a year cannot be redirected overnight. The Centrale paysanne believes that no long-term solution currently appears to be available to enable these farms to sell their milk to other dairies. In its view, abandoning Luxembourgish milk at a dairy located in Luxembourg in favour of importing cheaper milk from further afield sends a ‘devastating’ signal for local food production.
It is in this context that 
However, Luxlait is not promising to automatically take on the volumes left by Lactalis. Gilles Gérard stresses that the quantities involved are “very substantial” and that no one can claim to absorb them without a thorough industrial, logistical and economic analysis. The cooperative nevertheless says it intends to fulfil its responsibilities. It will explore possible options with producers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Minister Martine Hansen and the Chamber of Agriculture.
Ekabe and the issue of transparency
Lactalis, for its part, says it wants to support producers in finding solutions. The group mentions ongoing discussions with the producers’ association and local authorities, as well as possible measures such as extending notice periods or providing specific support to identify new markets. It also states that this decision does not affect its presence at the Eschweiler site and confirms its intention to continue developing the Ekabe brand in Luxembourg.
This clarification, however, fuels another controversy: that surrounding Ekabe’s image in Luxembourg. Gilles Gérard believes that confusion persists among many consumers. Ekabe remains a well-known brand, historically associated with Luxembourg, but its products have reportedly not been manufactured in Luxembourg for a long time. For Luxlait, this situation raises a question of transparency: behind a familiar brand may lie an industrial reality far removed from producers, short supply chains and national food sovereignty.
Lactalis reports net profit of €528m
The crisis is all the more significant given that Lactalis boasts considerable financial clout on a global scale. The group generated turnover of €31.2bn in 2025, up 2.9%, with a net profit of €528m. It claims to have over 90,000 employees, a presence in 50 countries and 260 dairies and cheese factories. In early April 2026, it also finalised the acquisition of the consumer business of the New Zealand cooperative Fonterra, representing €2.85bn in turnover.
Set against this global scale, Luxembourg’s producers appear to be a minor player within a global industrial system. Yet, for the national sector, these volumes represent farms, investments, indirect jobs and a measure of food sovereignty. It is precisely this imbalance that makes Lactalis’s decision so politically sensitive.
This turn of events may now force Luxembourg to clarify what it wishes to protect: a historic brand, an industrial site, local producers, or a food model. Lactalis says it wants to manage the transition. Luxlait says it wants to examine possible solutions. Producers, for their part, need above all a market. In this crisis, Luxembourg milk is ceasing to be merely an agricultural issue. It is becoming a test of consistency for the national food model.
