Three MEPs have asked the European Commission to justify why wool from healthy animals continues to be treated as a waste product under EU law, arguing that the current regulatory framework hinders the circular economy and burdens farmers with unnecessary costs.
In a written parliamentary question submitted on 29 June 2026, MEPs Daniel Buda (EPP, Romania), Maria Walsh (EPP, Ireland) and Herbert Dorfmann (EPP, Italy) challenged the Commission over the classification of wool as a Category 3 animal by-product under Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. The MEPs contend that this classification subjects wool to obligations and restrictions that make its use, marketing and valorisation unnecessarily difficult, forcing European farmers to pay for collection, storage or disposal of a natural, renewable and biodegradable material. They note the paradox that farmers are encouraged to reduce chemical fertilisers and adopt sustainable practices while being penalised for a valuable agricultural resource.
first, the Commission must explain why wool from healthy animals is treated more as waste than as a resource; second, the MEPs ask whether the Commission intends, during its current mandate, to propose a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 to establish a specific and proportionate regulatory framework for wool. The question does not set numerical targets or deadlines but calls for a policy shift.
the MEPs advocate for de-regulating wool by removing it from the animal by-product regime or creating a tailored category, which would reduce administrative burden and disposal costs for farmers while promoting circular economy goals. The expected follow-up is a written answer from the Commission within approximately six weeks, which will signal whether the executive is open to revising the regulation.
European sheep farmers would benefit from lower compliance costs and new revenue streams if wool is reclassified as a resource rather than waste. The wool processing and textile industry could gain access to a cheaper, locally sourced raw material. EU regulatory bodies would face a moderate workload to draft and adopt amended legislation. Environmental NGOs may welcome the change as supporting circular economy and reducing reliance on synthetic fertilisers, though some may caution against loosening sanitary controls.