Anja HAZEKAMP

Policy topics Anja HAZEKAMP is active on

What Anja HAZEKAMP has said (29)

• 2026-06-17 “Yes. Thank you chair. This legislation undermines the very foundations of our food system. This is not by accident. This is deliberate. This law is a direct result of the aggressive, aggressive lobbying by the big agro biotech companies. They hope to increase their already obscene profits as they can patent these new GMOs. This gives the multinationals even more power over our food system at the expense of farmers and citizens. And right now, we can still guarantee the genes of organic products haven't been tampered with. But if you vote for this law, we cannot guarantee that any more, because the labelling requirements and traceability of GMOs will be removed. Gmos will soon be on our plates without risk assessment and without being able to say no. Colleagues, don't let the industry intimidate you. Don't let the group leaders intimidate you. Vote with your heart. Vote with common sense. Vote against this law.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• 2026-03-24 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 6.5.2026 Written question The brown bear is a strictly protected species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive [1] . However, it is possible to derogate from the strict protection regime if the conditions set in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive are fulfilled. Member States may rely on derogations to pursue public interests such as preventing serious damage to crops or livestock or public health and safety if there is no satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to maintaining the species populations in a favourable conservation status. The correct implementation of the derogations is the primary responsibility of the national authorities, including judicial ones. Romania is home to an increasing bear population and, according to the latest data for the 2019-2024 period, the conservation status of the bear is favourable in both biogeographical regions (Alpine and Continental) where it occurs. A recent study carried out at national level [2] shows that Romania’s bear population increased from a mean population of approximately 6 300 individuals in 2007-2012 to above 11 600 in 2023. The same study, as well as official communication from the authorities, shows an increasing trend in bear habituation cases and bear attacks [3] and thus increasing risks for the health and safety of people in certain areas of the country. So far there is no evidence that the prevention and intervention quotas that Romania has been applying in recent years have had a negative impact on the favourable conservation status of the species. The Commission continues to monitor closely the use of derogations as well as the conservation status of Romania’s bear population. [1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. [2] https://mmediu.ro/storage/2025/12/Raportul-sintetic-al-studiului-privind-zonarea-managementului-speciei-urs-brun.pdf. [3] According to the Emergency Ordinance 60/2025 there were 300 bear attacks over the past 20 years in which 26 people were killed . 11 of these people were killed in the last five years.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2025-10-06 “E-003909/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014 1 supports the promotion of EU farm products and emphasises agricultural practices focusing on food safety, traceability, authenticity, and sustainability. Programme proposals must substantiate all claims made about the benefits of production methods for the environment with supporting evidence. During the campaigns, beneficiaries must ensure that communication or dissemination activities contain factually accurate information (covered by a provision in the grant agreement). The granting authority can intervene in case of concerns regarding certain messages. Promotion campaigns must be aligned with Member States’ Food Based Dietary Guidelines. Furthermore, since 2019, successive annual work programmes have contributed to Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, with enhanced support for healthy and balanced diets, prioritising the promotion of organic production methods and fresh fruit and vegetables – the only product category with a specific, ring-fenced budget. The promotion policy 2 invests in long-term competitiveness, resilience and sustainability of the agricultural and food sector, offering opportunities to all eligible products without discrimination. Policy framework is important for providing incentives for farmers to move towards higher animal welfare standards and more sustainable production methods. The Vision for Agriculture and Food 3 recalls that ‘sustainable livestock is crucial for the EU economy, viability of rural areas and preservation of the environment and of rural landscapes’. The ‘Buy European Food’ campaign will align with these policies, highlighting the EU’s dedication to its agricultural heritage and sustainability objectives. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/1144/oj. 2 Regulation (EU) No 1144/2014. 3 COM/2025/75 final, 19.2.2025, p.16.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.) · Nutrition
• 2025-09-26 “E-003757/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the reason for retaining the consignment to Moldova is not of veterinary nature and it should be reiterated that it is the transporter’s responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the relevant provisions on the protection of animals during transport 1 , the correct documentation for the consignment and the welfare conditions until reaching the place of destination. If the transporter fails to fulfil its obligations in this respect, the competent national authorities of the Member State concerned are responsible for enforcing EU law. 2. The incidents with export of animals by livestock vessels in the past led the Commission to carry out several audits in Romania and to issue targeted recommendations to the Romanian authorities to strengthen their official controls. Romania has since adopted stricter national rules on the sea transport of animals. In 2023, the Commission also adopted new EU rules on official controls of livestock vessels 2 . 3. In its proposal of 2023 3 , the Commission proposed stricter rules on export of animals which are currently under negotiation with the co-legislators. In parallel, the Commission continues to provide training activities to officials in Member States responsible for certifying consignments. It furthermore supports the activities of the Platform on Animal Welfare for Europe of the World Organization for Animal Health for years both technically and financially. 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, pp. 1–44. 2 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/842 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/372. 3 https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/aw_in-transit_reg-proposal_2023-770_0.pdf.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-09-26 “P-003765/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission proposal currently discussed with the co-legislators provides for several innovative tools to improve the current situation. However, the actions of the Member State authorities can reduce the rate of undesirable incidents described by the Honourable Member, since the implementation of EU legislation is a responsibility of the Member States. 1. The Commission is working closely with the Turkish and the Bulgarian authorities, as well as with all other Member States, with the objective of establishing a specific procedure for the export of live animals from the EU to Türkiye based on a pre-approval of the veterinary certificates via a new module in TRACES, to limit the reoccurrence of such incidents in the future. 2. The reasoning behind the revision of the current EU legislation on the protection of animals during transport is to propose 1 changes to the existing legislation 2 which will allow better protection of animals during their transport both within the EU, as well as of the imports from and exports to third countries. 3. The Commission is supportive of replacing transport of animals with meat, carcases and reproductive material wherever this is possible. However, a comprehensive impact assessment accompanying the Commission proposal in 2023 showed that such replacement is not feasible in all cases. Maintaining the transport of animals is necessary for continuation of trade, livestock and food production within the EU and in third countries. The Commission is promoting such replacements by incentivising shorter transports of animals as reflected in the Commission proposal. 1 COM(2023)770. 2 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 OJ L 3, 5.1.2005.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-07-10 “E-002814/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission The EU reiterates its firm expectation that all parties to an armed conflict, including the Israeli Defence Forces (IDFs), fully comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. The civilian population should not be a target, and dogs should not be used as weapons against Palestinian civilians. The EU has called for the immediate, unimpeded, and sustained resumption of humanitarian aid to Gaza, emphasising the need for compliance with international humanitarian law, as well as for accountability and adherence to international humanitarian standards. Dual-use items are defined in the Dual-Use Regulation 1 as items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, including items that could be used for nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or their means of delivery. Animals are not considered items in the sense of the regulation and thus cannot be included in the EU list of dual-use items. To note that the EU list emanates from the multilateral export control regimes 2 which do not list animals either. Finally, the Commission would like to remind that Member States are solely responsible for issuing export licences for dual-use items. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/821, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/821/oj/eng. 2 Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group https://nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/index.php/en/, Australia Group, and Missile Technology Control Regime.”
  Relations with Israel - Palestine · Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons
• 2025-07-09 “E-002799/2025 Answer given by Ms Zaharieva on behalf of the European Commission The Horizon Europe programme have funded several projects on diversifying dietary habits, sustainable and competitive land-based protein crop systems and value chains 1 , and consumer’s preferences. The Horizon Europe funded projects under the policy framework Food 2030 2 also launched the initiative Horizon4Proteins 3 to tackle key aspects such as consumer acceptance of alternative proteins, safety and regulatory challenges, food applications and sustainability. Horizon4Proteins has around 115 partners including universities, research institutions, corporations and Non-Governmental Organisations. While acknowledging the references to information on the suitability of food for vegans or vegetarians in the European Court of Auditors’ special report 4 , none of its recommendations concerns this topic and therefore the Commission is currently not planning to work on it. The European Court of Justice held 5 that Member States cannot prohibit the use of customary or descriptive names for plant-based products where a legal name for a particular food does not exist. The Court also held that, in the absence of a legal name, information relating to the replacement of an ingredient of a food is sufficient to protect the consumer from the risk of being misled. Considering the Court’s judgement, in the context of the proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy post 2027, the Commission has introduced a proposal to protect certain meat-related terms to help consumers making informed choices. 1 https://valpropath.eu/; https://legumesproject.eu/project; https://valereco.eu/about-valereco; https://www.legendaryproject.eu. 2 https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/new-report-food-2030research-and-innovation-pathways-action-20-2023-12-04_en. 3 https://smartproteinproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/H4P_Factsheet_digital.pdf. 4 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR-2024-23. 5 case C-438/23. Judgement of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2024, Protéines France and Others, C-438/23, EU:C:2024:826.”
  Plant-based diet · Food labelling harmonisation at EU level · EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-07-02 “E-002611/25 E-002696/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded two times (2017 1 , 2022 2 ) that no classification for carcinogenicity is warranted for glyphosate based on the available information, including animal and human epidemiological data, using a weight of evidence approach. The recent study published in Environmental Health to which the Honourable Members refer does not per se call those conclusions into question. The Commission notes that the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides has carried out a preliminary assessment of the study (without access to the raw data) and concluded that it does not lead to the conclusion that glyphosate is carcinogenic 3 . The Commission has already mandated ECHA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to ask 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. The Commission will consider the need to initiate a review of the approval in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 5 in the light of the outcome of the agencies’ assessments. According to EU legislation, all relevant and reliable scientific evidence is evaluated. This includes studies the applicants are obliged to submit, which are carried out in accordance with international guidelines and in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice to fulfil data requirements for active substances 6 and plant protection products (PPPs) 7 , and also all available peer reviewed scientific literature 8 . The Commission refers the Honourable Members to reply 1 European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (2017). Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment proposing harmonised classification and labelling of glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (EC Number: 213-9974; CAS Number: 1071-83-6). 2 European Chemicals Agency (2022). Opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment proposing harmonised classification and labelling of glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (EC Number: 213-997-4; CAS Number:1071-83-6). (https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-clh-intentions-until-outcome//dislist/details/0b0236e185e41a77). 3 https://www.ctgb.nl/actueel/nieuws/2025/06/26/geen-nieuwe-inzichten-in-italiaans-kankeronderzoek-met-ratten. https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/04a04e2c-d974-4b0f-aa78-3b7714680f2c/file. 4 See the letter ‘ECHA-EFSA joint letter following EC mandate’ at https://open.efsa.europa.eu/questions/EFSA-Q2025-00410?search=glyphosate. 5 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. 6 Commission Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for active substances (OJ L 93, 3.4.2013, p. 1). 7 Commission Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for plant protection products. (OJ L 93, 3.4.2013, p. 85). 8 In accordance with Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009: ‘Scientific peer-reviewed open literature, as determined by the Authority, on the active substance and its relevant metabolites dealing with side-effects on health, the environment and non-target species and published within the last 10 years before the date of submission of the dossier shall be added by the applicant to the dossier’. EFSA developed a guidance document for that”
  Glyphosate · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-02-11 “E-000633/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Independence is paramount for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as required by its founding Regulation 1 . EFSA manages conflict of interest assessments in accordance with its 2017 Independence Policy 2 and 2018 implementing rules 3 . In 2023, a study commissioned at the request of Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety analysed EFSA’s independence and concluded that it was overall positive 4 . EFSA’s draft opinion was prepared following a mandate 5 from the Commission to provide a scientific opinion on new developments in biotechnology applied to animals. The mandate required a knowledge gathering report on known cases of animals (and their food and feed products) obtained by new developments in biotechnology, followed by an EFSA opinion assessing potential novel hazards/risks from new developments in biotechnology applied to animals and the adequacy of the current EFSA guidance. On the basis of the overview of animal applications identified in the knowledge gathering report, EFSA selected several case studies and collected relevant available information for its opinion. The expert mentioned by the Honourable Member was awarded the contract for the knowledge gathering report 6 . In line with its Independence Policy and implementing rules, EFSA assessed the interests of the selected expert in the specific context of the tasks assigned to her (i.e. the preparatory knowledge gathering report) and concluded that there was no conflict of interest in relation to that assignment. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/178/oj 2 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/policy_independence.pdf 3 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/competing_interest_management_17 .pdf. In June 2024, the EFSA Management Board updated the Independence Policy, with the revised rules scheduled to take effect in 2025: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate-pubs/efsas-independence-policy 4 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/740080/IPOL_STU(2023)740080_EN.pdf 5 https://open.efsa.europa.eu/question/EFSA-Q-2023-00050 6 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-8311”
  GMOs
• 2025-01-22 “P-000272/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is aware of the licensed hunting of wolves that took place in January and February 2025 in four Swedish counties. In the context of the infringement case concerning wolf hunting in Sweden 1 , the Commission is monitoring the situation in light of legal and factual changes, to be able to decide on its next steps in this case. 2. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission ensures that Member States’ legislation and practice comply with EU law. This includes checking compliance with the Habitats Directive 2 as regards the Member States' obligations for species. 1 INFR(2010)4200: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/memo_15_5162 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2024-11-04 “E-002402/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is concerned by the practices and handling of calves shown in the footage referred to by the Honourable Member. Animals must be handled in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 1 , which governs their protection during commercial transport. The enforcement of EU rules on the protection of animals during transport is primarily a responsibility of the Member States. The Commission is in contact with the Irish authorities regarding this case. They have confirmed that an ongoing investigation is examining potential animal welfare-related infringements that may have occurred at the assembly centre shown in the footage referred to by the Honourable Member and that they will take further follow-up action as necessary. As the investigation by the Irish authorities is ongoing, the Commission has no further information on specific authorisations. In December 2023, the Commission adopted a legislative proposal for a new Regulation on the protection of animals during transport 2 which provides for stricter rules aimed at ensuring higher protection of calves during transport and other vulnerable categories of animals, and to facilitate better enforcement of these rules through clearer provisions. The proposal reflects the latest scientific evidence and the progress made in the technologies dedicated to animal transport. 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97; OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1–44. 2 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005; COM/2023/770 final.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2024-10-16 “E-002112/2024 Answer given by Mr Varhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1 & 2. Member States are responsible to enforce EU rules on the protection of animals during transport, as set out in Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 1 . At the same time, the Commission closely follows the relevant cases, including the specific instance referred to by the Honourable Member whereby the Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare immediately reached out to Türkiye to offer his assistance to find a solution. The Commissioner is committed to be in close contact with the relevant authorities and to be part of the solution also in the future. 3. Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 does not foresee provisions for banning the export of animals at EU level. However, based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, Member States’ competent authorities shall refuse to approve journeys for export if the operator is unable to demonstrate that EU rules on protection of animals during transport can be complied with until the place of destination. On 7 December 2023, the Commission adopted a proposal for a new Regulation on the protection of animals during transport which includes stricter conditions and rules on export of animals to third countries. This proposal is now on the table of the co-legislators for further discussions and amendments. 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97; OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1–44.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2024-10-10 “E-002010/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The fitness check 1 of the EU legislation on trade in seal products is ongoing. The public consultation and call for evidence are only two elements of the fitness check to collect evidence, and they do not determine the final results. Additional evidence is collected through targeted consultations of stakeholders, a literature review and desk research. The questions in the public consultation were drafted to obtain a precise and holistic overview of the perception of the EU seal regime nowadays without prejudging the outcome of the consultation. The stakeholders identified for consultation throughout the fitness check include the Member States’ competent authorities, the recognised bodies in Canada and Greenland, public authorities in Norway, individual companies or trade federations, associations and unions, individual fishermen and seal hunters, environmental, conservation and animal welfare nongovernmental organisations, academia/research institutions, and concerned members of the public from the EU and outside. For the analysis of the results of the call for evidence, a dedicated software detected responses that contained full sentences with identical wording. The 11 842 replies which were identified as campaigns or coordinated replies were not rejected but analysed separately from the 2 162 unique contributions. The fitness check findings will inform the Commission as to whether a modification to the current legal framework would be needed. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/14031-Trade-in-seal-products-fitnesscheck-of-EU-rules_en”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2024-09-02 “E-001586/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission 1. The recent Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare legislation 1 concluded that there is a lack of uniform enforcement regarding the ban on the routine tail docking of pigs. 2. The Commission has no power to impose fines or other economic sanctions on a Member State to enforce the implementation of the Directive. Financial sanctions may be ordered by the Court following a request by the Commission in the context of an infringement procedure concerning a failure by a Member State to comply with a judgment of the Court. 3. In line with the Commission enforcement strategy, infringement proceedings are launched as a means of last resort, whereas the Commission continuously seeks to achieve faster and efficient compliance from the Member States by exploring all appropriate tools to achieve legal compliance. For this reason, the Commission continues efforts to work closely with the Member States through a variety of instruments and fora to ensure the proper implementation of EU animal welfare legislation. In that context, the Commission recently has set up an animal welfare expert and an animal welfare working group 2 to pursue discussions with all Member States. One of the main topics of discussion is the enforcement of the ban on routine tail docking of pigs. 1 Commission Staff Working Document Fitness Check of the EU Animal Welfare legislation: https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b9cc1000-c978-4895-8e9bc2e1296adbfe_en?filename=aw_eval_revision_swd_2022-328_en.pdf 2 Animal Welfare Expert Group https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-expertgroup_en#:~:text=In%202024,%20the%20European%20Commission%20established%20the%20Animal”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2024-07-22 “P-001393/2024 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Fitness Check 1 of the EU Regulation on Trade in Seal Products 2 and of the EU Seal Pups Directive 3 has been launched to assess their functioning, effectiveness and impact against their objectives, and whether they remain fit for purpose, notably in response to repeated concerns raised by several Member States around the Baltic Sea and by the Inuit peoples in Canada on the socio-economic impacts of the current regime. The EU Seal Regime was indeed put in place to address primarily public moral concerns regarding the killing of seals, in particular seal pups. The Commission is not aware of any conflict with other national or EU rules regulating seal hunting, but one of the evaluation criteria of the Fitness Check is the coherence with other legislation and policies. The outcome of the Fitness Check will depend on the results of the public consultations and the targeted consultations with key stakeholders. Without prejudice to these outcomes, the Commission does not intend to re-open large-scale commercial seal hunting, but rather to continue ensuring a good conservation status of the various seal species through the EU Seal Regime and other EU legislation such as the Habitats Directive 4 . The measures to promote co-existence with seals are, in the first place, the responsibility of those countries with significant seal populations. The Fitness Check Report may provide information on good practices. 1 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4142e9c5-12cb-11ef-a251-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 2 Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, p. 36–39. 3 Council Directive 89/370/EEC of 8 June 1989 amending Directive 83/129/EEC concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom, OJ L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 37–37. 4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50.”
  Commercial whaling
• “Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, chair. Thank you much indeed. To the European Court of Auditors. Thanks for the presentation. You check whether European money is being used properly and obviously this is important for our society. Obviously this is also important for European taxpayers money. Make sure it's not being used for polluting types of agriculture. We do need to help farmers in Europe when it comes to transferring to a more sustainable system. To make that, to make sure we are moving towards more plant based farming. I think we can make a lot of progress when it comes to nature, climate, environment, animals. But unfortunately not much is said about this. You've said that you want support for the protein sector because we are dependent on imports. Every year, 350 million tons of fodder goes to waste. With the import of. I think we are co-responsible for specific problems like slavery, child labor and other violent groups carrying out these measures in other countries. So we need to have a ban on soy imports. Um, fodder is, uh, produced here, but it needs to be sustainable. We do need to make sure. Well, in Europe, two thirds of cultivated land is for fodder feed. I think we need to use more for actual human food for consumption. And when it comes to protein plants, chickpeas, lupins, quinoa, we need to make sure they get the right support as well. So I'm very much looking forward to your answer. Thank you.”
  Plant-based diet
• “Thank you. President. This is my first plenary debate. After a long period during which I had to fight breast cancer. And I thought that during that time, all of the promised cancer prevention measures would have been adopted. But that is not the case. The commission is doing the exact opposite. Rules about agricultural toxins are made more flexible. Carcinogenic products are allowed in cosmetics, and PFAS are everywhere. Meat production is not discouraged but is stimulated. And yet there's a ban on veggie burgers. And as if all that's not enough, you're now opening the doors to the lobbyists from the tobacco industry. Uh, we see that, uh, people and environmental health is not being protected. And I blame the commissioners and MEPs who allow this, uh, for myself and for all other people who are having to deal with cancer. You are now ensuring that cancer becomes a political illness. Stop with your empty promises and stop destroying everything that's vulnerable.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you so much Veronika who is good to be back here. The story of strong concerns regarding the methodology used and I want to end. This is that this is the competence, public health and the community life they would be discussion as well as you use consulting company. Ca Specialiști în agricultură și specialiști în public health. Your study conclude that there is an aliment because programs for food and tables, our number those for that meet and process meet. This conclusion is to simplicity, conclusions in public health and to the promotion policy with its scientific data and for their abundent available. Given the current theory of the consumption of health and processes meat, which I think to counter impossible promoting increased demand can support. Public health, it's just impossible for the more. Public health is just not about healthy diet of cancer alone and is about the diseases, as well is about Well, welfare is about. Nothing diseases is also about the environment and do not for the need to save the present of agriculture emissions come from the agriculture sector if we count this companies. To promote animal products that the number those for health and vegetables is not, this is. The way around you conclude the methodology used while accounting for environmental impacts, instead of just reducing for animal products and the last lately. Who's who the absence of an assessment of pain contents, for example of pain described emissions from pig production is absolutely fake on stages that. They are. The environmental impact of beef is fake news that this is impossible so look at the content as well. Stop promoting on healthy products. There is no excuse the stop. Ok.”
  Plant-based diet
• “Thank you very much, chair. I'd like to welcome you, Mr. Kritz, as the director executive director of the European Food Safety Authority. You have a very important task in making sure that we have transparent research independent of any political persuasion. And I hope that you can achieve that. You can maintain your independence and, in fact, improving it. I'm not going to talk about foods, pesticides and chemicals on this occasion, but you have a great deal of experience. Years, in fact, of experience as a vet and an expert on animal health. And you headed the Efsa Animal Welfare, Health and Welfare Directive Directorate. So I have some questions here. Some of the Legislation is superannuated. It's gone beyond what science says. Science is clear. There are measures that have to be taken to improve animal welfare, and Efsa has carried out all sorts of scientific research on pigs health. And we know that docking of tails is one of the results that is unacceptable and should not happen. And for 30 years now we have seen docking happening despite legislation saying this shouldn't be done. You must find this frustrating as well. That legislation is simply being ignored to help the animal and farming industries. Recently, we heard from the commission about. Whether the fur farms were going to be closed. Now, we heard some very clear visions on this. Maybe you can repeat to the commission why In the current system, animals are suffering and why animal welfare demands is not working, because there's no system where the welfare of these animals could be guaranteed in any way, shape or form. So the only solution is to have an outright ban on fur farms. Finally, what happened to the fish research that has been removed or stopped? The research on the fact that fish are sentient beings, it's absolutely essential. Thank you for being here and I'm looking forward to your answers.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Commissioner. Every year, Europe imports millions of kilos of horse meat from Uruguay and Argentina. These horses have been seriously mistreated and they've been treated with hormones and medicine. But then this meat is processed in Europe and turned into bitter balls and other snacks. But instead of stopping this kind of import, you're making this kind of trade of horse meat even easier. And that is one of the many disastrous consequences of this Mercosur deal. There will be more deforestation. Deforestation in order to produce, feed and biofuel. How are we going to achieve our climate and biodiversity goals, given that South American farmers use pesticides that we have outlawed in Europe, but because of Mercosur, these dangerous pesticides will end up on our plate. Can I get a commitment from you? Can I get a commitment from you, Commissioner, that you will not import any live animals from Mercosur to our continent. This is my request.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. Will the disastrous consequences of climate change are more and more visible and are costing many lives? Many plant species are dying. The pollution of soil, air and water is undermining our very existence. But we only have one generation time in order to make our planet livable, to keep it livable. The European Commission comes with greenwashing and clean washing that is on the agenda of the Commission. Nice words, but it's not going to solve the climate issue. So a blank check to polluting industry is not going to stop. The loss of biodiversity, and to postpone these measures is not an answer to the pollution of our planet. You're talking about simplification, but our future is going to be sacrificed to companies that are simply driving for profits. But that is so short sighted. If you think that money is the real thing, how are you going to do this on a planet that is unlivable? Thank you.”
  Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• “(18:07:49 – 18:12:22): Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Indeed, I will speak, as both agri agri and envy, left shadow. Today, we are discussing 14 pieces of legislation. 14 pieces of legislation that form the basis for the protection of people, animals, nature, and the environment. Legislation that is intended to protect everything that is vulnerable from the blind pursuit of profit by the intensive agro industry. At a time when the disastrous consequences of pesticides, genetic modification, and intensive animal agriculture are becoming increasingly visible and obvious. 1 would think that the commission would introduce rules to improve our protection. Regulations that ensure the phasing out of agricultural pesticides, that the most dangerous substances are banned immediately, and that the cumulative, effects of toxic cocktail we ingest daily are finally taken into account. That bees and other pollinators no longer perish. That people living near orchards and fields of flower bulbs will finally no longer have to worry about their own, but also their children's health, and that we will help prevent the worrying clusters of patients with Parkinson's disease in rural areas. But nothing could be further from the truth. The 14 laws that we are discussing today are being completely undermined. Essential protection is not being improved but watered down, and the commission is doing this without having carried out any proper impact assessment of these proposals. A study that has been carried out for the Dutch parliament on this legislative proposal has is has really shocking, conclusions. The conclusions are crystal clear and very, very worrying. The study concludes that the proposals as presented will not lead to the achievement of the stated objectives. They will not simplify the regulations and will not lead to a reduction in administrative burdens. The plans will not lead to a level playing field and will not lead to accelerated innovation and authorizations. They will not lead to better protection of people and of the environment. On the contrary, the proposals will do what the proposals will do is lead to a shift in pollution and the burden of proof. And I therefore have a few questions to the commission. There were already a few questions of an about animal welfare already, so I'm really looking forward to your answers on those. You defend the permanent authorization of active substances for pesticides by saying that action always can be taken when new scientific information on the harmful if, harmfulness becomes available. Can you tell me how often since the regulation came into force, article 21 of the regulation 11 o 7 2009 has been invoked on the basis of information that did not arise from the mandatory reevaluation. And will you admit admit that the fact that opposed to the current situation, where manufacturers must demonstrate that they are safe? From now on, it will have to be proven that substances and products are no longer safe, which is not in line with the precautionary principle. Colleagues, we cannot accept these irresponsible proposals. I sincerely hope that you will join me in following the science and not blindly swallow the lobby of the chemical agro industry. These plans must be rejected. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Yes. Well I think it's quite unfortunate that in your response. That the the. That you didn't go into getting rid of the subsidies overall, but perhaps you could go into that with greater detail, because that is part of the reality. We have to be aware of these. For example, when we have meat protein, this huge consumption of meat protein is extremely detrimental for the environment. And there's also. You said. You you're in charge of environment and climate as well. So obviously you have to deal with this particular issue as well. We have to speak about the subsidies that exist for fossil fuels, subsidies for meat, protein. It's as simple as this. They are issues which these cause. These are detrimental to the environment, essentially. Uh, but I think it's quite clear that we are to not promote this type of consumption. And as climate commissioner, perhaps you could take a position on this, uh, with a simple yes or no.”
  Fossil fuels
• “Thank you very much. I'm delighted to see you here at our committee meeting. Sometime after the conference that was supposed to put an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. We need sustainability. And the roadmap. Roadmap is good news. I'm looking forward to the action now. However. The. We need a reduction in pressure on the environment. I think we should just eat more plants because 80% of food. Climate impact comes from the production of meat products. Now there's a significant impact because of animal protein. So don't you think that we should focus on excluding direct payments? For fossil fuels when it comes to the production of animal food products. This could be an opportunity. And. Would you be willing to fight for the prevention of subsidies for the production of meat products and to focus on plant production? I think that the roadmap is a great idea.”
  Plant-based diet
• “Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, chair. Thank you much indeed. To the European Court of Auditors. Thanks for the presentation. You check whether European money is being used properly and obviously this is important for our society. Obviously this is also important for European taxpayers money. Make sure it's not being used for polluting types of agriculture. We do need to help farmers in Europe when it comes to transferring to a more sustainable system. To make that, to make sure we are moving towards more plant based farming. I think we can make a lot of progress when it comes to nature, climate, environment, animals. But unfortunately not much is said about this. You've said that you want support for the protein sector because we are dependent on imports. Every year, 350 million tons of fodder goes to waste. With the import of. I think we are co-responsible for specific problems like slavery, child labor and other violent groups carrying out these measures in other countries. So we need to have a ban on soy imports. Um, fodder is, uh, produced here, but it needs to be sustainable. We do need to make sure. Well, in Europe, two thirds of cultivated land is for fodder feed. I think we need to use more for actual human food for consumption. And when it comes to protein plants, chickpeas, lupins, quinoa, we need to make sure they get the right support as well. So I'm very much looking forward to your answer. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “The strategy I share concerns. Farm to fork was clear. More organic farming, less use of pesticides. Better animal welfare. More consumption of fruit and vegetables instead of dairy and meat. But Mercosur is the very opposite. Mercosur will lead us to importing, uh, more dangerous goods, lowering our standards. We already see that happening. There will be more meat and dairy coming in. There will be more deforestation, more imports of feed, our farmers and our, Uh, environment are not going to be served by this Mercosur agreement.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, chair. Thank you much indeed. To the European Court of Auditors. Thanks for the presentation. You check whether European money is being used properly and obviously this is important for our society. Obviously this is also important for European taxpayers money. Make sure it's not being used for polluting types of agriculture. We do need to help farmers in Europe when it comes to transferring to a more sustainable system. To make that, to make sure we are moving towards more plant based farming. I think we can make a lot of progress when it comes to nature, climate, environment, animals. But unfortunately not much is said about this. You've said that you want support for the protein sector because we are dependent on imports. Every year, 350 million tons of fodder goes to waste. With the import of. I think we are co-responsible for specific problems like slavery, child labor and other violent groups carrying out these measures in other countries. So we need to have a ban on soy imports. Um, fodder is, uh, produced here, but it needs to be sustainable. We do need to make sure. Well, in Europe, two thirds of cultivated land is for fodder feed. I think we need to use more for actual human food for consumption. And when it comes to protein plants, chickpeas, lupins, quinoa, we need to make sure they get the right support as well. So I'm very much looking forward to your answer. Thank you.”
  Plant-based diet
• “(11:15:40 – 11:18:22): Thank you, Veronica. I want to thank the rapporteur's inclusion of the wording on the importance of accurate information for consumers. However, the wording here need to be much clearer to truly protect consumers from misleading marketing claims. And then the rapporteur is proposing that the priorities of the annual work program are based on market demand. I strongly oppose to this. The purpose of the annual work program must not be to blindly follow the market demand, but to shape it. We are the ones that need to set a strategic direction for the sustainable future of our food system, and this should not be negotiable. The rapporteur, furthermore, suggests that the promotion policy should not be subordinate to other EU policies. This proposal directly contradicts the principles of EU law. The pursuit of short term economic gains cannot contradict the fundamental articles we have on health and environmental protection. And lastly, we know that the European citizens are not making enough use of legumes in their diets, and this is a missed opportunity also for European farmers. With the upcoming European protein strategy, it is vital that this report calls for more marketing opportunities for the legume sector and extends its scope to include healthy plant based transformed products as well, such as fermented ones. One final remark. The European Commission upgraded platform where citizens can analyze the marketing campaigns funded with European money, but a huge gap remains. It is still impossible to monitor the programs approved for each type of legume. And maybe this data isn't even collected. The data is critical, and it would really help citizens to see how their money is spent. So I would really like to see this call for more transparency reflected in this report. Thank you.”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing · Plant-based diet
• “(09:35:27 – 09:38:13): Thank you very much, madam chair. The decisions that we make here are vital. Even though there are so many different rules in agriculture which are contradictory. Nonetheless, I hope that we can find common rules, for example, on protein plants. With big imports of soy, for example, there are great concerns, especially using soya for feed. And we're partly responsible. Deforestation, slavery, land grabbing, etcetera. So we should have import bans on protein plants, in particular for soya for feed. But also, soya in Europe must be sustainable. It shouldn't be at the expense of the ground, the soil. 2 third of the land area is used for feed. In agriculture, it should be used more for food production for people. Protein plants, peas, lupines, chickpeas, etcetera, are produced by farmers, and they should also be supported. And we shouldn't forget if we talk about agricultural reserves. Food production is an important topic, and there shouldn't be more tax money spent on meat production, etcetera. Protein plants are more efficient, more sustainable and a possibility to use agricultural reserves. And a few words now on the school scheme. The school scheme must be sustainable, efficient, and also healthy, and it should only be used should only be for regionally produced food in the EU, and that's possible. And we must ensure that, for example, plants alternatives plant alternatives for are used in the school scheme. And legumes too. It's not just about industry that we should be taking care of. We should take care of children. And a sustainable, healthy future should be created for them. We should work on that together.”
  Plant-based diet