Biljana BORZAN

Policy topics Biljana BORZAN is active on

What Biljana BORZAN has said (29)

• 2026-02-27 “Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission 30.4.2026 Written question Pursuant to the definition of food laid down in Article 2 of the General Food Law Regulation [1] , the primary intention of food is to be ‘intended to be or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans’. Energy powders for inhalation are neither intended to be ingested, nor chewed or swallowed via the mouth; instead, these powders are intended or reasonably expected to be inhaled through the nose and therefore cannot be considered food. Consequently, neither the Food Supplements Directive [2] nor the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation [3] are applicable. Such products accordingly fall under the scope of the General Product Safety Regulation [4] (GPSR), which provides the relevant legal framework as a safety net, for the safety of products. The Member States are responsible for monitoring the safety of products on their territories and to take enforcement measures or to ban specific products when they consider it necessary. So far Member States have notified measures four times to the Safety Gate [5] , concerning energy sniffing powders to inhale, posing serious risks. The Commission is monitoring these notifications and their follow-ups. The Commission can act only in certain very specific situations where the risk cannot be dealt with otherwise under EU law and, at the same time, the risk can be eliminated in an effective manner only by adopting measures applicable at EU level [6] . Should the conditions of this EU level action be met, the Commission might consider taking measures on this type of products. [1] Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, pp. 1-24. [2] Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements. OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, pp. 51-57. [3] Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, pp. 9-25. [4] Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 on general product safety, amending Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and the Council, and repealing Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 87/357/EEC, OJ L 135, 23.5.2023, pp. 1-51. [5] https://ec.europa.eu/safety-gate-alerts/. [6] Article 28 of the General Product Safety Regulation.”
  Pharmaceuticals regulation in EU · EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.) · EU policy on novel foods
• 2026-01-29 “E-000370/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Ribera on behalf of the European Commission 1. Food price inflation since 2022 resulted from a confluence of factors, including supply chain disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and energy price inflation, which also significantly increased fertiliser costs, severe weather events, and plant and animal diseases (e.g. avian influenza). These affected Member States differently, leading to transitory divergences in inflation rates. Competition authorities have actively investigated whether anticompetitive practices fuelled inflation. Since 2022, national competition authorities carried out inquiries for instance in Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia. They did not find systematic margin increases, but initiated a few follow-up investigations, e.g. in Bulgaria. The Commission vigorously enforces competition rules against practices that keep consumer prices high. For example, it sanctioned practices in the confectionery 1 and beer 2 markets that led to the partitioning of the internal market along national borders. It also sanctioned a food delivery services cartel 3 . Current investigations target an energy drinks supplier 4 that may have limited consumer choice and excluded lower-priced alternatives; possible collusion by salmon producers 5 on prices, volumes and other factors; and possible market partitioning and trade restrictions by drinks and personal care producers 6 . 2. The Commission’s single market strategy 7 aims to develop tools to address unjustified territorial supply constraints when they fall outside competition law. A 2020 study 8 found removing such practices could lead to significant consumer savings. An impact assessment and consultations are ongoing. A call for evidence 9 to gather stakeholders’ views was published on 5 March 2026. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2727. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_2488. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1356. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2671. 5 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_405. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/mt/ip_25_737. 7 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/strategy_en. 8 https://op.europa.eu/pl/publication-detail/-/publication/831c7de4-2a1e-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1. 9 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/15252-Single-market-tacklingunjustified-territorial-supply-constraints_en.”
  EU fiscal rules and oversight of national budgets · EU Single Market harmonisation
• 2026-01-28 “E-000358/2026 Answer given by Ms Lahbib on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has requested the European Standardisation organisations 1 to develop standards to support the implementation of accessibility legislation, in particular the European Accessibility Act 2 (EAA). It includes EN 17210 on accessibility and usability of the built environment and EN 301549 on accessibility requirements for information and communication technologies products and services. Establishments such as restaurants, bars and cafés are free to self-declare their compliance with these voluntary standards, should they choose to apply them. However, at this stage, the Commission does not plan to introduce an ‘accessibility sticker’ in these establishments. Regarding the online visibility of information on accessibility, it is useful to recall that a range of EU instruments address accessibility concerns. The Digital Services Act 3 (DSA) aims to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market for providers of intermediary services by setting out rules for a safe, predictable and trustworthy online environment in which fundamental rights, including the principle of consumer protection, are effectively protected. The DSA requires the Commission to facilitate and encourage the development of codes of conduct to facilitate accessibility and address the particular needs of persons with disabilities. In particular, the DSA refers back to the EAA regarding the definition of persons with disabilities (see Article 3(v) of DSA). 1 Standardisation request M/587, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/enorm/mandate/587_en. 2 Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, pp. 70–115. 3 Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 27.10.2022, pp. 1–102.”
  EU policy on disability inclusion & accessibility
• 2026-01-28 “E-000359/2026 Answer given by Mr McGrath on behalf of the European Commission The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) 1 prohibits misleading advertising that gives false information or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives the average consumer causing them to take a transactional decision that the average consumer would not have taken otherwise. In particular, the Directive prohibits misleading claims as regards the existence of a specific price advantage 2 . It has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the circumstances, whether online advertising of price promotions is unfair when only the smallest or largest size of the respective product is available at the advertised price. Member States’ competent bodies are responsible for the enforcement of the UCPD. The compliance of price marketing with consumer law is regularly addressed by the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network, 3 e.g. in its ongoing coordinated actions regarding Temu 4 and Shein 5 . It has also been addressed in the CPC Network’s periodic website screenings (‘sweeps’), i.e. a set of checks carried out on websites simultaneously to identify breaches of EU consumer law in a particular sector 6 . 1 Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, pp. 22–39. 2 Article 6(1)(d) of the Directive. 3 In order to protect consumers when shopping across national borders, Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 established a network of competent public enforcers to tackle these issues in a coordinated manner: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004R2006. 4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_5707. 5 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1331. 6 https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumerprotection/sweeps_en, including, for example, a specific focus on online discounts in 2022.”
  Geo-blocking
• 2026-01-27 “P-00308/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. On 10 December 2025, the Commission was alerted about cereulide contamination in products from a Nestlé company in the Netherlands, which recalled the same day 25 batches across 16 European countries, and treated the incident with utmost seriousness. The first the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) notification was issued on 12 December 2025. On 20 January 2026, the Commission was informed that France was investigating two infant deaths potentially linked to the recalled formula, though no causal connection has since been established. 2. As soon as the Commission was made aware of the voluntary recall linked to the increased levels of cereulide found in infant formulae, the different existing tools were activated to ensure cross-border coordination between the competent food safety authorities of the Member States. The Commission has found no evidence that existing EU rules are inadequate but remains committed to continuously review procedures to enhance food safety governance. 3. In response to this incident, the Commission enhanced coordination with Member States by sharing RASFF alerts and activating its network of crisis coordinators. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was urgently tasked with establishing an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) for cereulide to guide harmonised risk management. Additionally, the Commission urged Chinese authorities to investigate contaminated arachidonic acid oil batches identified as the source of the contamination of the supply chain. While the Commission is not currently planning a comprehensive review of EU infant nutrition rules, it remains committed to maintaining the highest safety standards through continuous monitoring and improvement of existing measures.”
  Nutrition
• 2025-07-14 “E-002863/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Food additives are thoroughly assessed for their safety by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and are permitted only if they do not, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, pose a safety concern to the health of consumers at the level of use authorised in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 1 . Permitted additives are kept under continuous observation and their safety is re-evaluated whenever necessary in light of changing conditions of use and new scientific information. In addition, the Commission set up a programme for the re-evaluation of the safety of food additives authorised for use in the EU prior to 20 January 2009 2 , for which EFSA takes into account any relevant new scientific and technical information 3 . To date, EFSA published 134 scientific opinions on the re-evaluation of the safety of food additives, covering 241 individual food additives. EFSA aims to complete the re-evaluation of the remaining 74 food additives (23%) 4 within the next few years. EFSA, as the EU risk assessment body 5 , is responsible for the re-evaluation of the safety of permitted food additives. For the re-evaluation, EFSA examines data submitted by business operators and/or other interested parties through open calls for data and data available through updated literature searches. For example, as part of the re-evaluation of the salt of aspartameacesulfame (E 962), any new and relevant evidence that has become available since the 2013 opinion on the safety of aspartame will be assessed. Based on the outcome of EFSA’s re-evaluations, the Commission considers risk management measures when necessary. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 16). 2 Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 of 25 March 2010 setting up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved food additives in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives (OJ L 80, 26.3.2010, p. 19–27). 3 Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010. 4 The Commission provides information to the public on the status of the re-evaluation via a dedicated webpage http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_improvement_agents/additives/re-evaluation_en. 5 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1–24).”
  GMOs
• 2025-07-14 “E-002862/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission As the Commission explained in its reply to written questions E-002611/25 and E-2696/2025, the need to initiate a review of the approval of glyphosate in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 will be considered in light of the outcome of the assessment by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of the study 2 published on 10 June 2025. Following a mandate 3 from the Commission, ECHA and EFSA asked the authors of the study to provide all raw data without delay 4 and to subsequently conduct a robust and thorough scientific evaluation as to whether the new information, considered alongside all other available data, changes the agencies’ previous conclusions on glyphosate. Until the outcome of the assessments by the agencies is completed it is not possible to provide any views on the regulatory actions or other measures to be taken by the Commission. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50. 2 Panzacchi, S., Tibaldi, E., De Angelis, L. et al. Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats. Environ Health 24, 36 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2. 3 The mandate letter sent to the agencies can be found here: https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions/EFSA-Q-202500410?search=glyphosate. 4 See the letter ‘ECHA-EFSA joint letter following EC mandate’ at https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions/EFSAQ-2025-00410?search=glyphosate.”
  GMOs
• 2025-06-30 “E-002644/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2021/1199 1 on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) is a national competence. Member States are responsible for verifying compliance with the PAH limits for infill materials used on sports pitches. In case of evidence pointing to a failure to properly enforce EU law, the Commission can launch infringement proceedings against Member States. To further support stakeholders and Member State authorities in the implementation of the restriction of microplastics intentionally added to products under the Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 2 , the Commission recently published an Explanatory Guide 3 . The Guide will allow the correct application of the ban of synthetic infill material for synthetic sports surfaces as of 17 October 2031, and a safe transition to microplastic-free sports pitches. While REACH does not provide for funds to subsidise the socio-economic impacts of restriction measures, there are other financial mechanisms funded by the EU that may help with that. Replacing hazardous infills for sport surfaces with more environmentally friendly materials could be supported by EU cohesion policy Funds 4 . In addition, privately-owned sports facilities may be eligible for support from the EU cohesion policy Funds that support micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1199/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20250422. 3 https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/chemicals/reach/restrictions/commission-regulation-eu20232055-restriction-microplastics-intentionally-added-products_en. 4 See conditions for accessing the funds: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/accessing-funds_en.”
  Chemicals regulation · Microplastics
• 2025-04-04 “E-001389/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Ambient Air Quality Directive 1 entered into force on 10 December 2024. It does not include specific references to microplastics. However, provisions regulating particulate matter concentrations have become more stringent, thus requiring the Member States to take the appropriate measures to reduce overall particulate matter concentrations. Also, the Commission should regularly review the scientific evidence related to pollutants, their effects on human health and the environment with first review carried out by 31 December 2030. Under EU legislation on occupational safety and health, employers are required to assess all occupational risks to the health and safety of their workers, and to take the measures necessary for the prevention of these risks and the protection of their workers 2 . This includes risks arising from exposure to microplastics at the workplace. The Industrial Emissions Directive 3 provides a legal basis for Member States to include emission limit values for airborne microplastics in industrial permits, particularly when emissions are scientifically recognised as harmful and likely to occur. The Commission is supporting the development of harmonised methodologies for monitoring microplastics and the establishment of threshold exposure levels for different sources. For tyres, EURO 7 Regulation 4 provides for abrasion limits to be set for passenger car (type C1), light truck (C2), and heavy truck (C3) tyres based on methods developed at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe level. Microplastics from textiles and pellets are covered in the 2025 annual Union work programme for European standardisation 5 . 1 Directive (EU) 2024/2881 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (recast), OJ L, 2024/2881, 20.11.2024. 2 Among others, Article 5(1) and Article 6 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, OJ L 183 29.6.1989, p. 1. 3 Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17–119. 4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, with respect to their emissions and battery durability (Euro 7), amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations (EC) No 715/2007 and (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Regulation (EU) No 582/2011, Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151, Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2400 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1362, OJ L, 2024/1257, 8.5.2024. 5 Commission Notice – The 2025 annual Union work programme for European standardisation, C/2025/1654, OJ C, C/2025/1818, 27.3.2025.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED) · Microplastics · Air quality policy
• 2025-04-04 “E-001390/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission With the existing labelling rules, the Commission is committed to guaranteeing the safety of consumers, providing transparent information, and respecting the right of citizens to make informed choices. The Commission’s extensive work on food labelling, has included scientific studies, public consultations, and targeted surveys. This process has confirmed the complexity of this issue and highlighted the challenges of reaching common solutions. Nonetheless, the Commission remains committed to working with Member States and stakeholders and to engage in a comprehensive dialogue on the lifelong prevention of non-communicable diseases. This dialogue would also address food reformulation, the impacts of ultra-processed products, and the effects of certain food marketing practices on the most vulnerable consumers.”
  Nutrition · Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• 2024-12-13 “E-002929/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Following the opinion in 2012 of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the health risks related to mercury in food 1 which concluded that the dietary exposure of EU consumers to mercury raises health concerns, the Commission established maximum levels (MLs) for mercury in fish. In accordance with Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) 315/93 2 , the MLs for contaminants in food are established on the basis of occurrence data, taking into account the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ principle. In 2022, the MLs for mercury in various fish species were lowered on the basis of the most recent occurrence data, which showed that there was no margin to further reduce the ML for tuna, and it was, therefore, maintained at 1.0 mg/kg 3 . At this stage no new data are available that would allow a further lowering of the ML for mercury in tuna. The Commission is also not aware of any scientific information which would require an update of the conclusions of EFSA on the current health risks related to the exposure to mercury from food. EFSA opinion includes the health benefits of seafood consumption in relation to health risks associated with the exposure to mercury. 4 The Commission, while acknowledging that fish consumption has also beneficial health effects, has published on its website general consumption advice 5 related to fish contaminated with mercury and several Member States have issued further detailed consumption advice tailor made to the species which are consumed by their citizens. Further measures on the restriction of tuna consumption for vulnerable consumers lie within the competence of the Member States. 1 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2985 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/1993/315/oj 3 Regulation (EU) 2023/915 has codified all existing maximum levels including the one for mercury in fresh tuna. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/915/oj 4 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3761 5 https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/chemical-safety/contaminants/catalogue/mercury_en”
  Mercury
• 2024-11-04 “E-002396/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In its report on the need for re-evaluation of the safety of hexane used as an extraction solvent in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients issued on 13 September 2024 1 , the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) did not identify any immediate health concern linked to the oral exposure to hexane. However, EFSA concluded that there is a need for a re-evaluation of the safety of the use of hexane in light of recent publications, which report new information on the effects of nhexane and its metabolites, and as the information assessed in the past 2 is no longer considered sufficient to adequately conclude on the risk of hexane. In line with this conclusion, the Commission intends to request EFSA to conduct a new full safety re-evaluation of hexane. The Commission will take, when necessary, appropriate risk management measures based on the full safety re-evaluation of hexane once it is available, keeping health and safety as its main guiding principles. 1 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9001 2 SCF (Scientific Committee for Food), 1996. Reports of the Scientific Committee for Food. 35th series. Hexane used as an extraction solvent. Opinion expressed on 17 June 1994. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ff57e43e-a6ef-49dc-a79f-d4b74da7f0d9_en?filename=scicom_scf_reports_35.pdf”
  GMOs
• 2024-10-16 “E-002114/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 1 requires the vast majority of pre-packed foods, including plant-based products, to bear a nutrition declaration which must provide the energy value and the amounts of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and salt of the food. The mandatory declaration must be presented in a legible tabular or linear format, often provided on the back of the packaging, and must refer to 100 g/ml to facilitate the comparison of products. The indication of nutrition information on the front-of-pack is not mandatory but could be provided on a voluntary basis. Different formats are possible in the EU 2 under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and/or Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 3 . Several Member States are recommending voluntary national front-of-pack nutrition labelling schemes. The Commission will continue to work with Member States and stakeholders to provide solutions to facilitate healthier food choices. While communication campaigns at national level can better target consumers, the Commission will support Member States’ efforts to improve consumer awareness on food information. Palm oil is a vegetable oil commonly used in various products, including a wide range of foods, where its presence must be indicated in the list of ingredients. Europe accounts for 45% of total global certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO) use and it is the largest consumer of CSPO 4 . 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02011R1169-20180101 2 COM(2020) 207 final available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52020DC0207 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1924/2014-12-13 4 EPOA, IDH, RSPO (2022), Sustainable Palm Oil: Europe’s Business https://palmoilalliance.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/10/Palm_Oil_Report_161022_amm_final.pdf”
  GMOs
• 2024-10-02 “P-001923/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission has adopted a legislative proposal 1 setting food waste reduction targets to be achieved by Member States by 2030. The Commission will continue to support Member States in reducing food waste and reaching the targets when adopted, through the sharing of best practices in the EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste 2 , offering financial support via Single Market Programme action grants for Member States to monitor their food waste and to implement food waste prevention programmes, as well as developing tools and guidance to reduce consumer food waste 3 . 2. The Commission welcomes all effective solutions and innovative technologies that contribute to the global Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3 ‘Halving food waste and raising climate ambition’ 4 and help curb food waste in all sectors of the food supply chain, as long as they do not compromise food safety and animal health. Best practices, including those from the dairy and agricultural sector, are shared in the abovementioned Platform or its dedicated subgroups. Through Horizon Europe, the Commission supports, for example, the development of sustainable and smart packaging solutions to extend shelf-life of packaged products, and circular solutions to empower and engage all actors in food systems. 1 Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (COM(2023) 420 final). 2 EU Platform on Food Losses and Food Waste: https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/food-waste/eu-actionsagainst-food-waste/eu-platform-food-losses-and-food-waste_en 3 Toolkit to reduce consumer food waste: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/reduce-foodwaste_en 4 https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/halving-food-waste-and-raising-climate-ambition-sdg-123-andparis-agreement”
  GMOs
• “Thank you very. Much. And first of all, I would like to congratulate you on the great results on your elections in Italy. Uh, dear colleagues, um, I'm here as a politician, as a mother and as a medical doctor. And this is the issue that I'm dealing with for a quite long period of time. And I have to say that, uh, whenever I communicate this issue, uh, I get feedback on the street from the people, from parents who are extremely concerned about this high consumption of energy drinks. There are many of them are aware that they would never give to their children a huge cup of strong coffee with 3 or 4 spoons of sugar, but in energy drink. Kids take it sometimes, unfortunately, on or very often on an empty stomach. So, uh, let me say that I am grateful to all the scientists and clinicians, clinicians who, uh, shared already on their knowledge today and to also to those who will share in a second panel. Uh, so the question before us is very simple are energy drinks safe for children and adolescents? And the evidence we have accumulated over the years, uh, is equally Symptom. Simple. No, they are not. Across Europe, we are witnessing an alarm. Alarming trend. Consumption of energy drinks among minors has risen sharply, and we now see children as young as 10 or 11 routinely buying products containing high levels of caffeine and other stimulants. Many combine them with sugar, some with alcohol. But even taken alone, their psychological impact on is still developing. Body is impactful. There is absolutely no reason why an 11 year old child should need more energy from a can of stimulants.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you. President, the European single market is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. But it must work equally for all our citizens in both Western and Eastern Europe. But unfortunately, we see a paradox today that citizens feel all too keenly in their wallets. In many Eastern European countries, the prices of a basic food basket are often the same as, or even higher than, in wealthier Western European states. Food price rises are 2 to 3 times greater than in western European countries, but wages are not the same. Citizens in these countries often earn up to four times less, and almost a third of their wages goes on. Food in Croatia. Almost 40% of citizens say that because of inflation, they're buying less food. Eastern European citizens must not be second class consumers. I call on the commission to use its powers in the area of competition law and to punish those who put their greed before fellow citizens. It's time for the EU to show that we're also full fledged Europeans, not just statistics on the market.”
  EU Competition policy
• “Thank you, Vice President. Although deregulation has become a watchword, we must not forget that it is within the EU that we have the highest standards in terms of safety and quality of products and services, and the best protection of consumers. We're proud of these achievements, and they have to be the foundation for our future successes. Problems caused by high prices of food will not disappear on their own, nor will they be taken care of by the invisible hand of the market. This is why this resolution calls for a better implementation and an upgrading of competition rules. Our citizens are cheated out due to shrinkflation and inflation and it is our duty to protect them. Let me just mention safe internet, the protection of minors, Minus. Transparency of advertising. Responsibility to users. Addiction to video games. Online gambling. We are all aware that there is a lot of work to do still ahead of us for us. We should not forget our own citizens due to engaging in a race with others.”
  EU Competition policy
• “Thank you very much. So Efsa is a very important institution. So we have to discuss a lot about that. So Mr. Creutz, welcome to the Parliament again. I hope you like to you like to be with us since you are here. Well, not too often, but you are coming back, so it's a good sign. First of all, let me thank on your cooperation until now, because I think that cooperation with you and the parliament is really great, and we can always count on your expertise. Many MEPs start with their discussions here with this historical opinion on the report on this or that. I'm not so sure that every time it's so historical. But when we talk about food safety omnibus, I think it's really historical document. One of the most significant pieces of legislation in the last few decades. So as you already mentioned, you are not here to have any political decision on this. But I always look at Efsa as a backbone of our science based system. We know that Efsa has been operating under increasing pressure with limited resources and growing responsibilities. In that context, I would like to ask if this omnibus is adopted, what would be a realistic time frame for Efsa to adopt to the new adapt to the new system. And what would be the practical expectations in terms of workload? Scientific output and responsiveness. Responsiveness. More fundamentally. Does this moment not call for strengthening our institutional capacities and funding the scientific and regulatory system that safeguards food safety, instead of undermining and demolishing all of those things that make the EU a place with the best, most reliable and safest food.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “I'm not a rapporteur, but I'm extremely interested for the issue. Thank you very much. And I would like to continue in Croatian. This proposal is really welcomed because this is a topic that I've been talking about for years in my country, Croatia. Last year, a record number of vehicle was imported, 90,000 of them. And the research says that for half of these vehicles that are sold over the border, uh, they manipulate the kilometers, uh, the harm can be more than €10,000 for consumers. This is a large problem with East European countries, where these frauds are reported more often. We have to say that some countries don't have legislation to punish such fraud, and therefore we need a European law in this long process. It is incredible that the solution for this problem is really very close. Uh, Belgium, Luxembourg, uh, have and the Netherlands have a very good example with the car press system so that they don't have fraud, almost don't have fraud with cars. So I support this proposal and I really would encourage a short deadline because this these fraud cost about €9 billion. And we hope that they will be finally that we will finally end with them. Thank you.”
  EU competences on consumer protection and product standards
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. How many times has this Parliament has to say no before the Commission listens? Nearly 50 times. We have opposed GMO authorisations backed by science, by citizens, by the precautionary principle. And yet the commission continues ahead, bypassing both political will and democratic legitimacy. This is not just a policy dispute. It is a democratic crisis. The Commission justifies decisions made without majority support, often relying on outdated or insufficient data, all while ignoring Parliament and fuelling public distrust in EU institutions. And for what? To serve the interests of powerful agribusiness lobbies overseas while undermining the Green Deal. The farm to fork strategy and the right of Europeans to safe, sustainable food. If Parliament's voice is elected by over 400 million people can be ignored this easily. Then what does democracy in the EU actually mean? Thank you.”
  GMOs
• “I think this is one of the issues that we should not, uh, have differences between our political groups because we are talking about health of our children. If my kids do not consume those beverages, I hope that they they don't. It doesn't mean that other parents are even aware how dangerous these drinks are. There are parents, and there are teachers who are aware that those beverages are not healthy for children, but they are losing their battle to aggressive advertising, to social media, to peer pressure and that kind of stuff. So I agree with Peter that if you ban something, it it becomes more interesting to talk to kids. But if you ban, uh, alcohol or cigarettes or energy drinks, it sends a strong signal to parents and teachers that this is something that they should think about if they want to offer this to their children. I also agree with all of you who say that we need an encompassing approach education, talking to children, but obviously numbers are showing that this is not enough. So we have to do something. Fortunately, there are some member states in the European Union who already protected their kids. But European Union should not. Look, when we talk about energy drink drinks like a leopard skin. Some member states protect kids and some not. So this is why European Union exists to make a common approach and to protect all children in the European Union. Thank you.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Much, Madam Chair. I feel that we as a society are in a stage of great urgency on this issue. So I want to thank Crystal as a rapporteur for for the hard work she, she's been doing here. So we already have one generation of people who were raised in an Regulated digital environment and the data are alarming. Some authors call it the switch from play based childhood to phone based childhood, resulting in, among others, delayed in enrolment in elementary schools. So in my country, Croatia, every year we have new record numbers. Children that are not enrolled because of inadequate emotional control. Physical abilities, social skills. The protection of minors is, of course a consumer perspective issue, but also has an important health and gender perspective. So studies show that the rise of mental disorders since introducing smartphone and with portable social media has had such a sharp increase for girls, it would be almost ridiculous if it weren't so dangerous to listen to platforms claiming that they do not know the real age of their users. If a teenage girl deletes a selfie, they target her with ads on beauty products. They target mothers not only with age appropriate products from them, but also for them, but also with age appropriate for the products for their child. Targeted advertising for minors should be banned in every case. Regarding the debate on age verification and parental controls. I have conducted a study in Croatia. Only 21% of parents use parental controls, so we should consider the possibility to mark devices as device for minors and therefore with one limit, the apps and content can be on these devices. Thank you.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “A child who is still growing, learning and developing does not need a chemical boost. They need sleep, nutrition, stability and safe environment. When marketing convince convinces children that tiredness should be treated with stimulants, we are no longer talking about consumer choice. We are talking about shaping behavior in ways that create health risks that are entirely preventable. And marketing is indeed in the heart of the problem. It is documented in detail how major brands intentionally target minors through music, sports influences, extreme sports celebrities, and colorful packaging that competes directly with soft drinks. This is a strategy, not a coincidence. It is not enough to say children should choose responsibly when entire campaigns are designed precisely to erode that responsibility. From a public health perspective, the evidence is consistent. We have seen links to sleep disruption, elevated blood pressure, behavioral changes, anxiety, increased risk taking and most importantly, there is no safe threshold for excessive or chronic consumption in minors because their bodies are not psychologically equipped to process these doses of stimulants. As legislators, we must reflect on whether current EU rules are adequate and whether we can continue allowing a product with known risks to be marketed and sold to children with virtually no safeguards. Today's hearing is not the end of this debate, but a crucial step forward. Our responsibility is to draw conclusions that are science based, proportionate and centred on the wellbeing of children, not on the commercial interests of an industry that has built its success on aggressive branding. Thank you.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree. It is a difficult question, and I hope that Mr. Critz likes difficult things in life. So, dear Mr. Critz and dear colleagues, I am very pleased and honored to open this exchange of views. Uh, so let me begin with nutrition. Uh, the continuous delayed, uh, delay in introducing a harmonized front of back labeling system is deeply disappointing. Scientific evidence shows that this improve consumer choices and drive industry reformulation. If we allow this process to stall, we are undermining the EU's own goals on cancer prevention and health equity. Uh, how do you see his role in advancing this issue, particularly when political momentum is stalling, despite the science being clear? We must also strengthen his role in tackling emerging emerging environmental threats, such as microplastics, from our food and water to our organs and soil. The scale of exposure is now clear. Yet policy action is hindered by data gaps. We need efforts to invest in forward looking risk assessment and speak clearly about uncertainties so that precautionary action is possible. How do you plan to strengthen assess capacity to assess emerging risks like this, where evidence is evolving faster than regulation? Thank you. Sorry for being a little bit.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level · Microplastics
• “(17:49:15 – 17:52:23): Thank you, madam chair. We Europeans like to believe, our food standards are second to none. Today, we are being asked to quietly lower them. This is not simplification. This is deregulation. And it goes against the core principles of EU food policy, the precautionary principle, high protection of human health, and decisions based on independent and latest science. We support reducing unnecessary administrative burden, but what is proposed here is not technical steam streamlining. It is weakening of safeguards across the food chain. First, on pesticides and biocides. Regular assessments exist to ensure substances remain safe as science evolves and not at as administrative burden. Removing or effectively weakening them would shift the system from prevention to reaction. We would only act once harm is already occurred. Let us deal with the real issue here, and, that is the current backlog in EFSAS evaluations. The solution cannot be to lower safety standards or grant unlimited approvals. The solution is to address the root cause, insufficient resources, and capacity to carry out scientific assessments in timely manner. That also means outdated approvals could remain in place for decades ignoring new scientific evidence. This is not efficiency, but regulatory blind spot. Adapting to new rules under this omnibus could strain EFSA's capacity, divert resources from its core work and risk further delays in scientific assessment. At the same time, safety standards such as maximum residue levels must not be weakened and transparency on safety data must be strengthened, not reduced. Second, on information for consumers, digital labeling can complement but never replace physical labels. Essential information on health, safety, environment, and animal welfare must always be on pack early visible to, to everyone clearly visible. Otherwise, we risk including vulnerable consumers and reducing transparency, especially for products such as GMOs and GMO divide products. In addition, simplification must not, create gaps in border checks or traceability. On animal welfare, weed, feed, and surveillance, report and monitoring are not bureaucracy. They are safeguards. So we have seen in past, how gaps in systems like surveillance can be serious consequences. Our position is clear. Simplification is welcome only if it does not lower standards. Safety checks should remain. Decisions should follow the latest signs. Transparency should be strengthened, and consumers should not pay the price of reduced safeguards.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “But in Croatian terms, I think I talk a little bit slow, okay. Because I come from the country, which speaks slowly than. So this is the platform that has been associated with exploitation of workers, with unethical production and with huge amounts of waste. But they went one step further. Their message is clear profit is more important than human dignity. The European Union is trying to protect its consumers from manipulations, fake reviews and dangerous goods, while their behavior shows clearly exactly that those platforms are prepared to step over basic human values. This platform has a long history of problems. They do not respect European standards, and they have a very aggressive business model that destroys small producers and stimulates hyper consumption. That is why it is very important to go on with further enforcement of our laws. We may not allow something like that to happen again. We react far too slowly and we have to ask, what is the European Commission doing in order to ensure? That such examples of behaviour do not happen ever again. Thank you.”
  Liability for online marketplaces
• “Thank you. Chair. I will switch to Croatian. Dear colleagues. We have to very clearly say today this thing that happened on the Sheen platform is not only shameful, it is also deeply disturbing. This is a platform that has been associated with the workers exploitations with unethical.”
  Platform workers
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. How do the young live today? Research shows there is a huge increase of youth who describe themselves as unhappy. Statistics show that self infliction of pain is very often as is suicide. This is a social crisis. As many as half of our youth are constantly online, and only spending half an hour less daily shows improvement in mental capacities, but the users have to stay online as long as possible because of profit. There are no scruples. Therefore, we like want to have the age restriction set at 13 years of age and addictive design should be prohibited. We have heard a lot of things about parents having to control their children. But dear colleagues, let us ask ourselves who is controlling our children while we are working here? Throughout the day, the world has changed and we need to help parents to protect their children. Thank you.”
  Safety features & content control for child protection online
• “Before shifting the system and potentially reducing regular pesticide reviews and relying more on existing, outdated assessments, should we not first ensure that Efsa and national food safety authorities are equipped with sufficient human resources and budget to fully integrate the latest scientific evidence in a timely manner. Finally, we should also recognize that the real effects of this omnibus, especially pesticides, will not be immediate. They will become visible over ten, 15, 15 or 20 years. This is precisely why there is no justification for rushing such a fundamental reform. And without a comprehensive impact assessment, this is not about asking Efsa again to take a political position on whether deregulation is the right path. It is about understanding from the scientific and operational standpoint what is needed to maintain a high level of food safety in Europe. Because I certainly don't think that deregulation is a way to do that. Last month, I conducted a big survey and I assure you that consumers feel the same at the end. How could unlimited approval periods for active substances? Substances affect Efsa's ability to keep risk assessment up to date with the latest scientific evidence? And how will Efsa Scientific Work programme address the lack of long term impact assessment? Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides