Jessica POLFJÄRD

Policy topics Jessica POLFJÄRD is active on

What Jessica POLFJÄRD has said (21)

• 2026-06-17 “Thank you chair. Today we have the chance to give European farmers the tools they need to meet the challenge of the future. Climate change, plant diseases and global instability are already affecting food food production across Europe. Entities are part of the solution to these problems with the entities, we can develop more resilient crops, lower environmental impact, and strengthen European food security. And let me be clear, the amendments before us are not about improving this proposal. They are about blocking innovation and progress. They would kill the deal and leave our farmers behind. And I call on the European Parliament to reject all the amendments, because we cannot afford to meet the challenges of tomorrow with the tools of yesterday. But today we can choose science and innovation. We can stand with Europe's farmers and today we can make history. Thank you.”
  New Genomic Techniques
• 2026-03-04 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Commission has recently finalised a comprehensive evaluation of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU and the Tobacco Advertising Directive 2003/33/EC [1] . The Commission intends to propose, in 2026, a revision of the legislative framework on tobacco control and will now carry out an impact assessment and continue the wide-scale consultation process, in view of further policy actions. At this stage, the Commission is not in a position to provide information on future tobacco control measures. The Commission will continue to pursue an evidence-based approach and in particular, in matters of public health, adhere to the highest standard of protection when it comes to tobacco and nicotine products. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13481-Evaluation-of-the-legislative-framework-for-tobacco-control_en.”
  Regulation on New Oral Nicotine Products · Smoking regulation
• 2026-03-02 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 11.5.2026 Written question The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) [1] strongly supports deposit and return systems, as they have many positive qualities including ensuring high collection rates, and less litter. The 10% reuse target for beverage packaging in the PPWR applies as of 2030 and to larger ‘final distributors’ such as retailers and restaurants, with a sales area of more than 100 m 2 . All micro-enterprises are exempted from offering reuse, and Member States can implement further exemptions to consider specific local conditions, including final distributors in areas with low population density. A Member State can also introduce national exemptions for packaging of materials with high recycling rates, such as aluminium, provided that it fulfils the conditions set in Article 29(14). The Commission has recently published a guidance document [2] for the PPWR that clarifies how this exemption can be applied. The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts under the article 29(18) supplementing the harmonised reuse targets in the PPWR. Such delegated acts can exempt economic operators who face particular economic constraints, or specific packaging formats where achievement of the reuse targets is hindered due to hygiene and food safety or environmental issues. To ensure legal certainty for economic operators and the integrity of the internal market, the Commission will act only when the necessity to act is demonstrated via adequate evidence, also taking the applicable exemptions into considerations, and when it is confirmed by the Commission’s own impact assessment. [1] Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2024 on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Directive (EU) 2019/904, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC, OJ L, 2025/40, 22.1.2025. [2] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-document-packaging-and-packaging-waste-regulation-ppwr_en.”
  Re-use of packaging · Circular economy · Sustainable packaging
• 2024-09-26 “E-001840/2024 Answer given by Ms Simson on behalf of the European Commission The Commission collects data on ‘energy subsidies’ using internationally adopted approaches based on methods developed by the World Trade Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These refer to the fiscal cost from specific government interventions, or initiatives by national, regional, or local governments, that aim to keep energy prices for consumers below market levels (e.g. reduced tax rates on road transport fuels for certain users) or for energy producers above market levels (e.g. feed-in tariffs); or to reduce energy costs for consumers or producers by granting specific benefits. Fossil fuel subsidies are a subset of these energy subsidies and are designed to support the production or use of fossil energy sources. Eurostat defines 1 fossil energy sources as nonrenewable energy sources such as coal, natural gas and crude oil – that originate from plants and animals that existed in the geological past and published a glossary that provides an exhaustive list of fossil fuels. This definition is reflected by the Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action 2 , whose Art. 2 (62) specifies that ‘fossil fuel means nonrenewable carbon-based energy sources such as solid fuels, natural gas and oil.’ Since 2014 the Directorate-General for Energy, has commissioned an annual study on energy subsidies and other government interventions in the EU 3 . The majority of fossil fuel subsidies in the EU are usually tax-related measures, though in response to the energy crisis pricerelated transfers have temporarily seen large increases. 1 See: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Fossil_fuel 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1999/oj). 3 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL: 2023 Report on Energy Subsidies in the EU (COM/2023/651 final).”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you chair. And thank you, Minister, for being in the subcommittee today. During the Swedish presidency three years ago, a council recommendation was adopted that included target levels for antimicrobial use. This confirmed that we urgently need to lower the use of antimicrobials in the union and combat the growing threat of Amr. However, consumption still remains above the target levels in most member states. Given these wide disparities and urgency of the situation, how does the Cyprus presidency plan to address the situation of Amr moving forward? Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Thank you. President. For the first time in my life, I have to turn up the microphone. Thank you. President. Mr. Varhelyi. We have to work together at different times, and that goes for different sectors and it goes for health supply. If procurement is unstable, we must stand together in Europe so that citizens have the possibilities and the medicines that they need. We show the way in research and university research. They are lead the show the way in research, but it must be implemented. So companies must get the preconditions so that the medicines of the future of the future can be developed in Europe. We must extend our production. Last time when we spoke about this, that there were problems, uh, with supply for diabetes, diabetic children, and next time it'll be a different thing. We don't have hormonal medicines for menopausal women in Sweden at the moment, and thousands of people are not getting the medicines they need. That means we must extend production possibilities in Europe. We need clear rules and fast permitting the must use the single market fully, and we must work together so that we can have good medical possibilities in Europe. Thank you.”
  Pharma companies manufacturing and production obligations
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you, Commissioner Varhelyi today. Tobacco use varies widely between the Member States, and we all agree that we want to move away from tobacco use and protecting the young generation in the evaluation of the Tobacco Products Directive that was published a few weeks ago. The numbers are clear. Sweden has the lowest smoking rate in Europe, and it has had for years. Among younger Swedes, less than 3% are daily smokers at the moment. In the same evaluation, it's also made clear that Sweden has among the lowest usage rates of heated tobacco products and e-cigarettes, as well as Sweden's model for lowering smoking is based on a combination of strict measures against tobacco smoking and on the availability of alternative products, mainly snus and, more recently, nicotine pouches. While Sweden has an exemption from the EU rules for snus, no such exemption exists for nicotine pouches, even though the products have similar use cases. With this in mind, I want to ask the commissioner if he can elaborate on the Commission's plan for the upcoming revision of the TPD. And do you intend to include nicotine pouches in the scope of the revision, and if so, how will you learn from the Swedish experience? Thank you, thank you.”
  Regulation on New Oral Nicotine Products
• “Chair. And thank you, Madam Commissioner, for being here today and taking the time, and also for the possibility to listen to you presenting the new bioeconomy strategy. And I think we all very well aware, aware of the bioeconomy is important for the green transition and it helps us replace fossil based products, reduce emissions and make better use of renewable, renewable biological resources. And you also gave a wide range of examples yourself, from everything that we can do and produce within Europe. And we can also innovate a lot of more products in the future. But you mentioned containers and batteries, for example. I think that is good examples of how we can also use new materials in the transition. And strategies are of course important. But I, I would like to ask you how this will be translated into real change and into real practice. So my questions are two. And the first one is what concrete legislative changes do you foresee and how will you ensure that this becomes a real shift in the Commission's work on these issues that you presented the rather than just another policy paper? And my second question is how will you work to ensure that future EU legislation enables rather than restricts, access to sustainable raw materials such as forest materials for the bioeconomy and the success forward. Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr. Vizek, for his speedy work on this file. And this is an important file. Our oceans are our common good, and we must work to protect them, especially in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This agreement is an important tool to protect marine biological diversity and to support international cooperation in this field, Which is vital. I welcome the rapporteur's swift work on this file, and I want to work constructively with the rapporteur to make progress on this file, and to reach a consensus that ensures that we can validate the Bbncx agreement, ensure that it's implemented across our union while respecting the competences of our Member States. So I look forward to working with the rapporteur and with the other shadows to swiftly reach a conclusion for this file. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you very much for giving me the floor. And thank you to the commission for coming along to our committee meeting. Now, we know that the situation in the Baltic is critical, and the Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted seas in the world. We know that a number of small scale fishers are being driven out of work after generations doing their activity. Others that cannot actually continue in the profession because there is not enough by way of catch the herring stocks have been so poor that there has been a suggestion by the Commission that they should stop fishing. Now an increase is being proposed for the central Baltic area. And my question to the Commission, therefore, is whether the Commission itself thinks that this is a strategy that could guarantee that we would get a long term sustainable fishery with the sustainable levels for the Baltic. Thank you.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “57:43 – 09:59:02): Thank you, Chair. And I think with this proposal to change the MSR 2, the EU Commission has taken member states' concerns on board and agreed to soften the start of the ETS 2. Still, the ETS 2 was also postponed by a year, and the ETS 2 will be a key driver of the clean transition in sectors that have so far failed to decarbonize. It is also an essential tool for strengthening our independence from fossil fuel imports, and I think that the current geopolitical situation once again underlines how crucial that independence is. The problem with the current MSR proposal is that it will weaken the price signals. Going any further would risk undermining the entire ETS system and would damage the climate transition. Of course, there are social challenges that we must take into account. However, there are already many social safeguards in place, in addition to funds and the financial instruments that will help citizens in this transition. Any further changes to the MSR and the ETS 2 would seriously undermine its effectiveness, and therefore I think we must proceed with great care. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “Thank you, chair. And I'd like to begin to thank the rapporteur and her team for the draft report and for the constructive start of these negotiations. And like you rightly pointed, pointed out, the cardiovascular health is important and often under-discussed. So therefore, I think it's very good that we have this discussion. And we also have the possibility to to write this report as it is the leading cause of death in Europe. The fight against cardiovascular disease is an essential part of making the EU healthier and stronger, and I'm happy to see that many colleagues in this committee have been actively engaging with this file, and that there have been many amendments tabled, not least from the EPP. And as I mentioned at the at the previous time we discussed this topic, it is clear that there are a broad agreement on the need to strengthen prevention. Prevention of disease should always be a priority and prevention means encouraging physical activity. Activity promoting health awareness and healthier diets, not least the scientifically supported Nordic and Mediterranean diets. Prevention also means considering the interaction between other conditions and cardiovascular health, such as diabetes, obesity and respiratory illness. How we tackle these will be important.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you to mr. Jensen for being here in the committee. And especially looking forward to to the Danish Presidency during this six months. And also, thank you for highlighting the importance of the entity file. I think that it's important that we keep on keep up the good work that the Polish also handed over to make progress in the NGOs, because it's it's like you said that we need it for climate reasons and for agricultural reasons. But I think that my, my question would be about the bioeconomy, because it's also something that the Danish presidency have highlighted and prioritized. And we can see that the bio based solutions for sustainable agriculture and food production is important and key to reach our climate goals, succeed with the green transition and strengthening European Europe's competitiveness, I believe we need to focus on three things active forestry, investment in innovation and new technologies and a strong circular bioeconomy. At the same time, the global situation is changing and we don't know what our future relationship with other countries will look like. That's why it's even more important now that Europe becomes more self-sufficient and less dependent on imported raw materials and goods. I'm therefore glad that the Danish Presidency programme says that innovation in the bioeconomy needs flexibility, less bureaucracy and simpler rules. So my question would be to Mr. Jensen, how do you see the role of forests in the green transition, especially as a sustainable alternative to fossil materials and fuels? And how can you make sure we have access to forest biomass without introducing policies that risk doing the opposite? Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “57:43 – 09:59:02): Thank you, Chair. And I think with this proposal to change the MSR 2, the EU Commission has taken member states' concerns on board and agreed to soften the start of the ETS 2. Still, the ETS 2 was also postponed by a year, and the ETS 2 will be a key driver of the clean transition in sectors that have so far failed to decarbonize. It is also an essential tool for strengthening our independence from fossil fuel imports, and I think that the current geopolitical situation once again underlines how crucial that independence is. The problem with the current MSR proposal is that it will weaken the price signals. Going any further would risk undermining the entire ETS system and would damage the climate transition. Of course, there are social challenges that we must take into account. However, there are already many social safeguards in place, in addition to funds and the financial instruments that will help citizens in this transition. Any further changes to the MSR and the ETS 2 would seriously undermine its effectiveness, and therefore I think we must proceed with great care. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “(17:43:41 – 17:48:53): Thank you, Chair. And, I would like to speak on behalf of myself, during the directives and then I would speak on behalf of Ms. Schneider during the part concerning the regulation. So I will do that in 2 parts. And I will start with the directive and, we welcome the commission proposal to modernize agriculture by enabling the member states to authorize the use of drones for the application of pesticides. It is not reasonable to maintain the current framework where drones are treated the same way as aircraft such as planes or helicopters. This outdated approach limits our ability to modernize agriculture, hinders innovation and competitiveness in Europe and limits our ability to reduce the use of pesticides. As drones can enable more precise application of plant protection products, which is beneficial both for farmers and for the environment. Plant While individual exemptions are possible today, the procedures are complex and administratively burdensome. However, we do not believe that the proposal goes far enough to fully enable this development. We question the need for a so called positive list of authorized drone types as it risks becoming a bottleneck and barrier to innovation. This concern is reinforced by the proposed timeline for 4 years to establish such a list, which is clearly too long given the pace of technological development. We think that 1 year should be sufficient, especially as the technology is already available today. Moreover, a more proportionate approach would be the base that the framework on clear technical and risk based criteria, for example, to drift and application conditions rather than predefined drone types. In that context, it would make sense to allow drones used in agriculture and forestry to be exempted from the ban where the risks are comparable to land based applications. At the same time, it is important that the framework is not too rigid. There should be room for research, testing and development as well as flexibility for member states to act when needed. This is something we would like to examine further as the process moves forward. And regarding the removal of duplicative documentation requirements for farmers and the repel of outdated directives on food contact materials, we do not have any substantial comments at this stage. And now I will be Kristine Schneider, and I will go to the regulation. And, I will also comment on this on behalf of Mrs. Schneider. And we welcome Commission's proposal and its ambition to reduce administrative burden, simplify procedures and speed up approval processes as well as to improve harmonization across member states when it comes to plant protection products. We see clear value in moving towards a more harmonized and efficient system, including the 1 zone approach as it would improve access to effective products as well as provide more stable approval frameworks for active substances. Today, it takes far too long for new products to reach the market due to the current system, which is characterized by a heavy administrative burden and limited expertise, making the approval and renewal processes excessively slow. This has consequences both for the EU's capacity for innovation and for the ability of new, more environmentally friendly and effective products to reach the market. Not least, it affects the availability to products for our farmers who need support to strengthen food supply while also coping with climate change. Today, nearly 200 active substances are still awaiting reapproval. At the same time, it is essential that this simplification is accompanied by safeguards. If we move towards a system based on unlimited approvals, it must be ensured that new scientific evidence can be considered and that there are clear mechanisms for reassessment where necessary. We also believe that clear and predictable rules are key both for member states and for applicants to maintain trust in the system while supporting innovation and access for our farmers. Just to finalize, in short, a few vital points should be highlighted. And Christina would like to make 2 2 2 remarks. First, moving towards unlimited approval of active substances can also contribute to more stable approvals of plant protection products at national level. And second, we see a clear need to simplify mutual recognition and make it more effective in practice including by strengthening its legal certainty so that approvals are not unnecessarily delayed or fragmented across the union. I'm sorry for Christina. She's too long.”
  Digital and precision farming
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the Commission for being here in the committee today. And also, thank you for stressing that the fact that the majority of the European forests are privately owned. And I think that really matters because these are the core of SMEs within Europe, in this sector. And I have a question regarding the EU. The regulation continues to pose significant challenges for producers and traders of wood material, particularly in the agriculture and forestry sectors. As it limits forest owners ability to convert their land from forest to agricultural land. And we, of course, warmly welcome the fact that the Commission is working to reduce administrative burdens. But I think that this has to have some clarification in this regard. And I think also that further action is clearly needed. And I would ask the commission, what is your response and solution to this? Thank you.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur. I think I agree with everything that you have said, but I will also read out some priorities from the EPP group. And cardiovascular diseases are the number one cause of death in Europe. And they cause suffering for millions of patients and of course also their relatives and friends. And they also put an economic effect on our health care systems. And for that reason, I'm very pleased that we are now working on this report to provide clear position from the Parliament on how Europe should act to confront this issue. I'm also eagerly waiting for the Commission's presentation of the Cardiovascular Health Plan. My aim with this report is to achieve a comprehensive strategy that tackles the issue of cardiovascular disease from multiple angles, based on scientific evidence and not ideological preconceptions. The report will also need to show due respect for the subsidiarity principle, as healthcare is a matter of national competences. I think that one of the most important areas we need to target in this prevention. We know that the risk of cardiovascular disease can be significantly impacted by lifestyle Style factors such as diet, tobacco consumption, exercise, and other other effects. Prevention has large benefits both in terms of saving lives and easing the burden on our health care systems. This needs to be addressed in the report as well, and in a pragmatic and evidence based manner. And I also think that we need to consider how these factors can be taken into account effectively, while not unnecessarily encroaching on the freedom of individuals to make their own choices about their own lives.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you. President. Commissioner Hansen. Once again, our farmers are facing huge challenges. We know that there are conflicts in the Middle East that made things more difficult for them with the price hikes, be this for food or indeed for fertilizers. And that is going to have an impact on the future of the EU, its competitiveness and the competitiveness of our farmers. The situation is serious, and there is a risk that they may have, that this may have a long term impact if we do not take action now. We need to provide support to our farmers so that they can continue producing. They shouldn't be alone in facing the economic consequences of the current situation. So it's important to think long term, to have incentives to reduce fertiliser imports and to become more self-sufficient, to be able to produce more within the EU market. Now there are alternatives that are lacking across vast swathes of the farming industry, and that isn't sustainable long term. We need alternatives, and our farmers are wondering whether it's worth it to continue with their work. And we must ensure that there is hope for farmers in the EU and in Sweden, so that they continue to produce our food.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you, chair. And thank you, Commissioner, for being here today. And I will bring something up that you didn't mention. But I know it's important to you. And we know that in order to achieve the EU's climate goals, a growing and competitive European forest based economy is essential. I am therefore glad that the Commission soon will present the new bioeconomy strategy. However, for this to be effective, we need EU policies that enable active, sustainable forest management while reducing administrative burdens and regulatory obstacles. This will ensure access to the materials that are at the core of the bioeconomy. I'm aware that work is already in process within the commission, but could you provide further details and maybe elaborate a little bit on what the new strategy will encompass and in the upcoming legislation on the bioeconomy, how will the Commission work and ensure to work to avoid new regulations and costs? Thank you. Commissioner. As we always said. As said.”
  Management of EU forests
• “Thank you, Madam President. Commissioner. The ETS. Has been extremely effective to achieve and help us achieve our climate goals. Some people want to do away with it, but if we were to do this, we wouldn't get rid of our emissions. They would just move elsewhere to other sectors farming, transport. It would end up with higher food prices. Driving your car to work would be more expensive. And this is would be very ineffective from a climate point of view. It's just moving the problem elsewhere. Security of supply wouldn't be improved either. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has reminded us just how dependent we are on fossil fuels. It's not just a climate issue. It is one related to an energy security. In Europe. Every time we move away from clean energy, we are more and more exposed. Business across Europe has invested considerably in clean energy. Green energy. They have invested to reduce their emissions, and we have to continue to maintain our competitiveness here in Europe. If we put a stop to these investments, if we put a spanner in the works, now we'll be doing quite the opposite. Even the most courageous of business owners will not take the necessary steps because they won't dare to. We need to maintain our credibility, reduce our emissions, and focus on growth. In order to do this, we have to hold firm and support the ETS. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• “57:43 – 09:59:02): Thank you, Chair. And I think with this proposal to change the MSR 2, the EU Commission has taken member states' concerns on board and agreed to soften the start of the ETS 2. Still, the ETS 2 was also postponed by a year, and the ETS 2 will be a key driver of the clean transition in sectors that have so far failed to decarbonize. It is also an essential tool for strengthening our independence from fossil fuel imports, and I think that the current geopolitical situation once again underlines how crucial that independence is. The problem with the current MSR proposal is that it will weaken the price signals. Going any further would risk undermining the entire ETS system and would damage the climate transition. Of course, there are social challenges that we must take into account. However, there are already many social safeguards in place, in addition to funds and the financial instruments that will help citizens in this transition. Any further changes to the MSR and the ETS 2 would seriously undermine its effectiveness, and therefore I think we must proceed with great care. Thank you.”
  Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme