Asger CHRISTENSEN

Policy topics Asger CHRISTENSEN is active on

What Asger CHRISTENSEN has said (45)

• 2026-03-18 “P-001116/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has been working on marketing standards for cider for many years. In 2023, a Report 1 presented a situation in which all kinds of products identified as ciders co-exist on the EU market leading to confusion for consumers and unfair competition among producers, and an impact assessment 2 proposed options. Since 2024, the Commission has had several exchanges both in expert groups and on a bilateral basis on different proposals. From those exchanges emerged a clear will from the majority of Member States and of representatives of the sector to lay down a marketing standard for cider. On 5 February 2026, the Commission presented to the expert group a non-paper outlining an approach consisting in the definition of three categories (high, medium and low juice content) covering all ciders on the market in respect of the EU diversity, along with a few optional reserved terms aimed to valorise the high quality ciders. A large majority of Member States and representatives of the sector supported that approach. On that basis, the Commission will pursue discussions with all Member States to further explore options that can benefit the EU cider sector as a whole. While the proposal in the non-paper is not yet final and remains open to further discussion, the proposed standard would not apply to EU exports and would not require any reformulation of products, although some of them will have to be labelled in such a way as to inform consumers more accurately about the type of product they purchase. 1 https://eurlex.europa.eu/search.html?scope=EURLEX&text=COM%282023%29200&lang=en&type=quick&qid=1774271 284377. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52023SC0097.”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• 2026-02-23 “Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission 8.5.2026 Written question Biofuels and biogas derived from intermediate crops offer significant potential to support the Union’s decarbonisation, economic growth, job creation, and resilience, provided they adhere to the environmental safeguards enshrined in the Renewable Energy Directive [1] . The Commission is committed to minimising the administrative burden of the certification framework and will publish a draft Implementing Regulation including the certification rules for public feedback, in accordance with Better Regulation principles. Additionally, the Committee on the Sustainability of Biofuels, Bioliquids, and Biomass Fuels will be formally consulted. Depending also on the length of the discussions process with the Member States, it could be expected that the act would be adopted by the end of 2026. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2413/oj/eng.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• 2026-02-23 “E-000750/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The size and minimum duration of restricted zones established in accordance with Union law 1 for outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) are based on scientific evidence published by the European Food Safety Authority 2 . The international standards of the Terrestrial Code 3 of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) require cleaning and disinfection as condition for the recovery of free status when stamping out policy as defined in Chapter 4.2. of that Code is implemented. The procedures of cleaning and disinfection to be implemented for the eradication of outbreaks of category A disease, including HPAI, are described in EU rules and are composed of preliminary and final cleaning and disinfection. Completion of final cleaning and disinfection is, among other conditions, required by Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 4 (Animal Health Law) before lifting the disease control measures in restricted zones. Therefore, Union law is aligned with the international standards ensuring guarantees for third countries accepting the regionalisation by the Union and the continuation of the trade from non-affected areas of the EU. In accordance with applicable Union law, the lifting of a restricted zone established for outbreaks of category A disease is not automatic. Such a zone can only be lifted after a minimum period (30 days in case of HPAI) only if all required measures, including enhanced surveillance in establishments located in the protection and surveillance zones, have been completed within that period. This approach remains unchanged by the revised Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 5 . 1 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, pp. 64, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/687/oj). 2 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6372. 3 https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/. 4 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, pp. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj. 5 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2020/687/oj.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2026-02-11 “Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1.6.2026 Written question The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) [1] presents an opportunity to enhance trade in deforestation-free products and boost opportunities for sustainable producers worldwide. The EUDR fosters engagement with operators and producing countries to support compliance and minimise adverse trade impacts. This dialogue occurs regularly, enabling the Commission to address stakeholder concerns and provide clarifications as needed. Following the revision of the EUDR [2] , companies now have an additional year to prepare for its entry into application, alongside streamlined requirements. The updated text, together with the recently published guidance documents [3] , ensures greater predictability and legal certainty. The Commission will monitor trade patterns of relevant commodities and products, maintaining ongoing engagement with stakeholders. Regarding certification schemes, efforts to strengthen traceability and sustainability are encouraged. The more robust and EUDR-aligned these systems become, the easier compliance will be for operators. The EUDR clarifies that public and private certification systems may serve as risk mitigation tools, provided they supply the required information under the EUDR. However, companies remain responsible for conducting due diligence and will be held accountable for any potential breaches of EUDR. The Commission stands ready to support the development of public traceability systems — both existing and new — to raise standards and ensure effective implementation and monitoring. The Commission will continue close collaboration with all stakeholders, including the soy sector, to facilitate a smooth transition when the EUDR takes effect at the end of 2026 and to support its implementation. [1] Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 206-247. [2] Adopted on 19 December 2025, Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards certain obligations of operators and traders, OJ L, 2025/2650, 23.12.2025. [3] https://green-forum.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-document-regulation-eu-20231115-deforestation-free-products_en.”
  Trade impact on forests · Overall simplification of regulation in the EU
• 2026-02-11 “E-000589/2026 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission To strengthen the effectiveness of the Union fisheries control system, the co-legislators introduced via Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 1 dedicated rules on the mandatory use of remote electronic monitoring (REM) systems on board certain catching vessels of 18 metres length or more posing a high risk of non-compliance with the landing obligation. To safeguard the right to privacy, recording will be limited to actively operated gear and parts of the vessels where fishery products are visible. These rules are distinct from a fully documented fisheries approach 2 as the scope is limited to monitoring compliance with the landing obligation. REM has been proven in several trials and studies by Member States to be an effective tool to ensure control and enforcement of the main risks associated with the landing obligation 3 . The REM provisions will start applying in January 2028, as provided in Article 7(7) of Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 and the Commission is actively preparing for it, including through the gradual development of secondary legislation. Going forward, the Commission considers important to take account of technological development for the monitoring and control of fisheries in the EU. While Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 does not task the Commission with conducting pilot projects on fully documented fisheries based on REM systems, the European Fisheries Control Agency maintains a working group on REM that ensures monitoring, coordination and technical guidance for voluntary REM pilot projects carried out by Member States to inform potential future deployment. 1 OJ L, 2023/2842, 20.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2842/oj. 2 Fully documented fishery is not a concept defined in the EU fisheries control framework. 3 The Danish Electronic monitoring in the Danish Kattegat (3AS) Nephrops fishery report stated: ‘Overall, the experience after three years of camera documented fisheries in Kattegat and the Baltic Sea is that camera documentation is an effective form of control, especially for documenting catches and thus compliance with the landing obligation. The assessment is also that there are no alternative control methods that can effectively control the landing obligation. From the perspective of the authorities, EM with cameras is therefore a very effective control tool’. Source: https://lfst.dk/Media/638597361463094390/Evaluation__Electronic_Monitoring_in_Kattegat__2021-2023_.pdf.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2026-01-29 “E-000372/2026 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In response to requests for a coordinated approach in managing cormorant-fisheries conflicts, the Commission discussed with Member States in October 2025 1 to give mandate to the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) secretariat to develop an international single-species management plan for the Great Cormorant, promoting cooperation across its flyway. Due to lack of consensus among Member States delegates at the ninth meeting of the Parties 2 , the EU could not put forward the proposal. On 31 March 2026, the Commission adopted guidance on the protection of birds 3 , including ways to address conflicts with the Great Cormorant. In 2026, the Commission will stress test the Birds 4 and Habitats 5 Directives to evaluate whether they remain fit to achieve their objectives in a cost-efficient way. Additionally, it will continue the structured dialogue with Member States and encourage the coordination of measures consistent with EU legislation on the management of the impact of the Great Cormorant. While the Commission acknowledges that the work undertaken by the European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Commission 6 provides information that is valuable for the coordination of action among Member States, it considers that the negotiation and agreement of a management plan should take place within AEWA. Work has started on a document providing recommendations and good practices on prevention and mitigation of the impact of main predators on aquaculture, including species that are proliferating due to climate change. The scope of this document in terms of species of predators covered is still under discussion and will depend on available information for the management of the respective species. 1 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/meetings/consult?lang=en&meetingId=66824. 2 AEWA MOP9, 10-14/11/2025, Bonn, Germany. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_760. 4 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25. 5 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. 6 The project was supported with a grant under the European Maritime Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-investment/emfaf_en.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries · Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2026-01-20 “P-000203/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission Under EU law 1 , the harmonised maximum width of vehicles is 2.55 metres 2 . Where the vehicles are fitted with aerodynamic devices and equipment, the maximum width may not be exceeded by more than 25 millimetres on each side of the vehicle (i.e. total vehicle width of 2.60 metres), so that the capability of the vehicles to be used for intermodal transport is not impaired. It is further specified in the EU legislation that, in case of aerodynamic devices and equipment, the vehicle width (including that of conditioned body with insulated walls) shall not exceed 2.60 metres, including the measured projections, with the devices and equipment fixed in both the retracted or folded and in the in-use position 3 . Therefore, the same principle was confirmed in both replies of the Commission without contradiction 4 . Moreover, as stated in the previous replies, Regulation (EU) 2021/535 contains technical requirements only as regards aerodynamic devices fitted at the front or the rear of the vehicles. Regulation (EU) 2022/1362 5 allows for the certification and use of aerodynamic devices during the approval process of new trailers. However, as set out in in Regulation (EU) 2021/535, the maximum permissible width of 2.60 metres must be respected. This approach is in line with the Commission’s objectives by ensuring harmonisation in the transport sector, supporting CO 2 emission reductions and compliance with the proportionality principle. 1 Regulation (EU) 2021/535: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02021R0535-20250101. 2 See Annex XIII, Part 2, Section E, point 1.1.2. of the above Regulation. 3 See Entry 11 (Aerodynamic devices and equipment) in Table 2 in Annex XIII, Part 2, Section F of the Regulation. 4 P-000829/2023 and P-004393/2025. 5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02022R1362-20220825.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-11-27 “E-004712/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission Since 2011 1 , EU rules have required that fishery and aquaculture products be traced and be accompanied by a minimum set of information. They also required operators to maintain systems and procedures to identify any operator from whom they have been supplied and to whom these products have been supplied. The Commission does not have the power, through delegated legislation, to postpone the 2026 implementation deadline established by the co-legislators in Regulation (EU) 2023/2842 2 . The co-legislators did not envisage any mandatory use of the empowerment under Article 58(12) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 3 . Compliance with Article 58(6) operates independently of the adoption of any supplementing legislation. The obligation to make information available ‘in a digital way’ is formulated broadly, allowing compliance through a range of means that enable digital data transmission. The Commission will continue working with stakeholders and Member States to develop supplementary rules that can support them and further harmonise and simplify the traceability framework, while fostering the policy objectives of Regulation (EU) 2023/2842. 1 Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 (pre-revision), Article 58(1) to (5). Article 124(a) of the Control Regulation, which deferred the application of Article 58 until 1 January 2011. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1224/oj. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2842/oj/eng. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1224/oj/eng.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• 2025-11-11 “E-004458/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods 1 establishes a harmonised framework for the authorisation of novel foods. In accordance with Article 3 of the Regulation, UV-treated foods not used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Union before 15 May 1997 fall within the scope of the Regulation when the treatment results in significant changes in the composition or structure of a food, affecting its nutritional value, metabolism or level of undesirable substances. Several UV-treated novel foods have been authorised at Union level and included in the Union list of novel foods. Those novel foods may be placed on the Union market under the conditions of their authorisation. In contrast, UV-treated novel foods not included in the Union list in line with the provisions of the Regulation cannot be marketed in the Union. Within this framework, the adoption of divergent national measures is not permitted. Non-novel UV-treated foods are subject to the general requirements for food in the EU 2 and to the national provisions of the Member State in which it is marketed. To be legally acceptable, the national measures cannot be discriminatory, and they have to be justified on grounds such as the protection of human health or consumers, adapted to attain specifically the intended purpose and be proportionate, so the least possible restrictive measures must be chosen. Against this background, Germany may restrict or prohibit the placing on the market of nonnovel UV-treated foods marketed in other Member States on condition that all the legal requirements explained above are respected. If economic operators consider that this is not the case, they may seek amendments in accordance with national procedures or file a complaint with the Commission. 1 Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001. 2 In particular, 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.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• 2025-11-11 “E-004451/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with Article 84(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 1 , operators of establishments keeping terrestrial animals must inform the competent authority of any establishment under their responsibility and provide certain information, in order for their establishments to be registered. Establishments keeping pigeons as terrestrial animals are subject to registration. However, in accordance with Article 85 of Regulation (EU) 2016/429, Member States may exempt certain categories of establishment from the obligation to register. The types of establishments keeping terrestrial animals that may be exempted by Member States from the obligation to register are laid down in Article 3 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1345 2 . Member States may exempt certain establishments from registration within that legal framework, provided that they pose an insignificant risk. 1 Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj). 2 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1345 of 1 August 2022 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to registration and approval of establishments keeping terrestrial animals and collecting, producing, processing or storing germinal products OJ L 202, 2.8.2022, p. 27, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/1345/oj).”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• 2025-11-06 “P-004393/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission As the EU law currently stands, there are no harmonised technical rules for the approval of V-spoilers. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/535 1 lays down rules for the approval of aerodynamic devices fitted at the front or the rear of the vehicle. In case such devices are fitted to the side of the vehicle, the harmonised maximum vehicle width of 2,60 m must still be respected under all conditions, as confirmed in the reply to Parliamentary Question P-829/2023 2 . The Commission is not aware of any textual inaccuracy in Annex XIII to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/535 nor plans any corrections in this respect. The Commission would like also to note that devices such as the V-spoilers are usually to be sold in the aftermarket and for this purpose they would not need an approval under the EU type-approval legislation. 1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/535 of 31 March 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform procedures and technical specifications for the type-approval of vehicles, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles, as regards their general construction characteristics and safety (OJ L117, 6.4.2021, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2021/535/oj). 2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2023-000829-ASW_EN.html.”
  Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-10-28 “P-004228/2025 Answer given by Mr Kadis on behalf of the European Commission The Commission bases its proposals on the scientific advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). The Commission asked ICES about the data from the May 2025 survey in mid-October 2025. ICES informed that the data was being processed by the experts and that no compiled results were available. The quality-assured ICES survey will be available after the ICES internal review process, which is expected to take place in spring 2026. On 28 October 2025, the Council reached a political agreement on the fishing opportunities for the Baltic Sea for 2026. The Council agreed to set the total allowable catches for sprat at the fishing mortality consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield (F MSY ) point value indicated in the ICES advice of 28 May 2025.”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• 2025-09-18 “E-003624/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the importance of the Chinese market for EU exporters of pork products and of the severe impact the recently imposed duties have on producers. To defend their interests, the Commission has actively intervened as interested party since the start of the investigation by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. After provisional measures were announced, the Commission immediately submitted comments to the Ministry of Commerce, detailing the flaws of the investigation leading to these unwarranted measures, inter alia questioning the method for applying the excessive duty of 62.4% to most exporters and requesting to terminate the investigation. In view of China’s World Trade Organisation obligations, the Commission is now carefully assessing all information available and looking into all options to defend EU farmers and exporters. The Commission is monitoring the economic impact of Chinese duties on the EU pork sector. If needed, steps may be taken to respond to market disturbances through EU measures financed under the agricultural reserve. Regarding the broader trade relations with China, the Commission will continue to engage constructively with China - for example through the technical talks on market access - while at the same time addressing imbalances and defending EU industry when necessary. Reciprocity and predictability are essential: for trade to remain mutually beneficial, it must become more balanced; if engagement does not deliver, autonomous instruments may have to be used to protect EU interests.”
  Trade relations with China · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2025-09-03 “E-003395/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission One of the objectives of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation 1 (PPWR) is to ensure a level playing field among all economic operators. The harmonisation of sustainability and labelling requirements and more harmonised rules on the extended producer responsibility will reduce market barriers and the related administrative burden for businesses. The sustainability requirements are laid down in the PPWR at the level of products placed on the EU single market. Therefore, non-EU businesses will face the same obligations as EU businesses. According to the PPWR, online marketplaces are not packaging manufacturers or producers. However, they have certain extended producer responsibility-related obligations to help ensure compliance of the producers, including those from third countries that offer packaging or packaged products via online platforms to EU consumers. Also here, there is no difference between EU or non-EU producers. The Commission endeavours to ensure the timely adoption of the implementing legislation to support a smooth transition to the new rules. 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.”
  EU policy on custom fee on non-EU imports · "Buy European" provisions
• 2025-09-03 “P-003397/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission In 2018, the European Parliament and the Council changed the rules setting the maximum size of organic fattening poultry farms 1 . Currently, point 1.9.4.4.(m) of Annex II Part II of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 2 requires that the total usable surface area for fattening poultry in poultry houses of any production unit must not exceed 1 600 square meters. These rules apply equally across the Union. The maximum size of organic fattening poultry farms set in the organic rules by the colegislators not only has the purpose of contributing to the welfare of poultry but also to encouraging short distribution channels and local production in the various areas of the Union. The maximum size also reflects the principle that organic production should be based on the practice of site-adapted and land-related livestock production. Changing the maximum size of organic fattening poultry farms would require an amendment to pertaining basic regulation. 1 Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 on specific conditions and husbandry practices for poultry ‘(f) the total usable area of poultry houses for meat production on any single unit, shall not exceed 1 600 m2’; Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control, OJ L 250 18.09.2008, p.1) ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/889/2022-01-01. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, OJ L 150 14.6.2018, p.1.ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2024-12-01.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-09-03 “E-003396/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission According to Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 1 , Member States may review authorisations of plant protection products (PPP) at any time and, as a result of such review, must withdraw or amend them where the requirements in Article 29 of that Regulation are no longer fulfilled. Member States must immediately inform the holder of the authorisation, the other Member States, the Commission and the European Food Safety Authority. In the particular case referred to by the Honourable Member, Denmark has indeed informed the Commission about the recent withdrawal of authorisations of PPPs containing certain Perand polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) active substances 2 . Denmark based its decisions on its assessment that the use of the products would lead to contamination of groundwater with trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). The Danish competent authority consulted the relevant authorisation holders and considered additional information provided by them before reaching the decisions. Under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the powers to issue, amend or withdraw the authorisations of PPPs is entirely under the responsibility of the Member States, who must act in compliance with Union law, including with the principle of proportionality 3 . However, neither Article 44 nor any other provision in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 require Member States to carry out a socio-economic impact assessment. The Commission is not aware of any comparative assessment or of any socio-economic consideration undertaken by Denmark. The Honourable Member may wish to contact the Danish national competent authorities for further information. 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, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj). 2 Diflufenican, flonicamid, fluazinam, fluopyram, mefentrifluconazole and tau-fluvalinate. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/principle-of-proportionality.html.”
  Water pollution · EU policy on pesticides
• 2025-07-11 “E-002843/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Carcases of spent hens are classified as Category 3 material, inter alia, if they comply with Article 10(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 1 , i.e., they have been slaughtered in a slaughterhouse and have been considered fit for slaughter for human consumption following an ante-mortem inspection. That classification applies regardless of whether the slaughter was performed in a mobile or in a permanent slaughtering establishment or plant. Certain poultry by-products are considered Category 2 material despite being slaughtered as mentioned above, for example digestive track content referred to in Article 9(a) of the Regulation. Category 2 material poses a higher risk to public and animal health than Category 3 material. In addition, it is already possible under the current rules to transform Category 2 material (including those of poultry origin) into biogas, in accordance with Article 13(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009. Furthermore, any interested party can initiate the procedure for the authorisation of a new alternative method of use or disposal of animal by-products, to be used in addition to the standard processing methods, in accordance with Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009. The Commission considers the current rules proportionate, as they duly mitigate risks to animal and public health and allow for the valorisation of the material via various uses, not posing risks. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1069/oj.”
  GMOs
• 2025-05-13 “E-001896/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is actively addressing food waste with initiatives and regulations due to its significant environmental, economic, and social impact. These efforts aim to reduce food waste without compromising food safety and human health. 1. According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion of 10 July 2014 on the public health risks of table eggs due to deterioration and development of pathogens 1 , any augmentation of the date of minimum durability over 28 days after laying for eggs produced by hens of the species Gallus gallus would result in an increase of the relative risk of illness for humans in absence of minimal temperature conditions that would mitigate the growth of pathogens during storage and transportation of eggs. 2. While there is no use-by-date set for eggs in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 2 , there’s a date of minimum durability of 28 days after laying, limited to eggs produced by hens of the species Gallus gallus. Based on EFSA’s opinion, the Commission will not change this timeframe. The Commission does not envisage either to extend the maximum time limit, currently set up at 28 days in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, between laying and the delivery of eggs from all species to the final consumer. 3. Rules on marketing standards for eggs have been recently reviewed to ensure the smooth functioning of the eggs market and a high level of traceability to guarantee food safety and proper consumers’ information. Only packing centres have the premises and technical equipment suitable for repacking eggs; consequently, the Commission does not intend to modify existing legislation. 1 EFSA Journal 2014;12(7):3782. 2 OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55–205.”
  Food waste
• 2025-05-13 “P-001895/2025 Answer given by Mr Hoekstra on behalf of the European Commission All sectors, including maritime transport, must contribute to the EU climate neutrality goal by 2050 and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is key to achieve this objective. For reasons of administrative practicability, ships below 5 000 gross tonnage (GT) were not included within the scope of the ETS Directive 1 from the start of its extension to maritime transport, but their inclusion in the future could improve the effectiveness of the EU ETS and potentially reduce evasive behaviour with the use of ships below the size threshold 2 . Therefore, the ETS Directive requires the Commission to examine, no later than end of 2026, the feasibility and economic, environmental and social impacts of such a possible inclusion. Other, national measures could be taken, such as opt-ins within the ETS2 for buildings, road transport and additional sectors. The Commission recently adopted a report 3 assessing the potential inclusion of smaller ships under the scope of the EU Regulation for the monitoring, reporting and verification of maritime greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It notes that such an extension could have a positive impact on the level playing field since vessels just above or below the size threshold might be competing for similar market segments. In addition, it shows that it could help unlock the implementation of energy efficiency and low carbon solutions. However, the analysis also finds that the balance between administrative costs and additional monitored GHG emissions is less favourable for smaller ships. The Commission has committed to use 20 million EU allowances 4 until 2030 to support the decarbonisation of the maritime sector via the Innovation Fund, which can, as well as other instruments 5 , support retrofitting of ships. 1 Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32). 2 The report from the Commission on the monitoring of the implementation of the ETS Directive in relation to maritime transport from 18 March 2025 shows that there is no evidence of an increased use of vessels between 4 000 GT and 5 000 GT in 2024 compared to the previous year- COM(2025) 110 final - https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0110. 3 COM(2025) 109 final - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025DC0109. 4 Worth about EUR 1.5 billion with a price of EUR 75 per EU allowance. 5 An inventory of financing products supporting investments in the shipping sector is available in the Ship Financing Portal - https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/maritime/ship-financing-portal_en.”
  Decarbonisation of maritime transport · Extension of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme
• 2025-04-22 “P-001590/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Lysine is an amino acid which can be included as an active substance in feed additives. 26 lysine-based feed additives are currently authorised to be placed on the EU market, all of them in the category of ‘nutritional additives’, and the functional group of ‘amino acids, their salts and analogues’. The purpose of these additives is to satisfy the nutritional needs of animals, thereby contributing to keeping animals in good health. The Commission is aware of the concerns regarding a reliable supply of lysine to the EU market and its importance as an essential amino acid to complement the diets of farmed animals. Security of supply for such agricultural inputs is part of a wider reflection whereby, as clearly highlighted by the Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food 1 , the EU develops an assertive policy response in favour of our strategic autonomy and food sovereignty. Ensuring the survival of the sole remaining Union producer of lysine serves those objectives. In the EU interest analysis of the anti-dumping investigation you refer to, the Commission has provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures is unlikely to seriously affect the quantitative supply of lysine to EU users. The Commission has reasonable grounds to ascertain itself that no shortage of supply will occur in the future. The Commission has also provisionally concluded that it would result in an increase in the production cost of animal feed well below 1% and prices of animal livestock products will therefore hardly be affected by measures. Finally, the imposition of anti-dumping duties is likely to lower the production cost of lysine in the EU, as it is expected to result in increased sales and, thus, production volumes and less fixed costs per unit. 1 COM(2025) 75 final.”
  Agricultural funding
• 2025-03-25 “P-001236/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission plans the adoption of an update of Annex VI including the methodology for greenhouse gas emissions accounting along the production pathway of biogas and biomethane by end of 2025. A public consultation will give an opportunity for stakeholders to provide evidence about the use of average calculations for apportioning purposes. The anti-dumping duties imposed on biodiesel from China cover all biodiesel apart from sustainable aviation fuel. The aim of these measures is to restore a level playing field with the EU industry in terms of pricing of the imported goods. A robust global sustainability certification and traceability system is important for ensuring that only sustainable fuels are counted for our decarbonisation targets. The relevant sustainability rules are set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 1 . The Commission is currently working with the Member States on means to strengthen the sustainability rules, including the necessary provisions for the roll-out of the Union database for biofuels as a global traceability tool. Currently, there is no evidence about the cultivation of perennial crops on land previously used for annual crops to protect the aquatic environment. The Commission may assess the matter in the future. Many perennial crops are, however, already included under the existing scope of Annex IX of the Renewable Energy Directive 2 . Point (p) of Part A of the Annex covers for instance ‘Other non-food cellulosic material’. Non-food cellulosic material is defined in Article 2 (42) of the Directive and includes food and feed crop residues, such as straw, stover, husks and shells; grassy energy crops with a low starch content, such as ryegrass, switchgrass, miscanthus, giant cane as well as other material. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/996/oj/eng. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32018L2001#anx_IX.”
  Biofuels (RED II) · Road transport environmental policy
• 2025-03-24 “E-001230/2025 Answer given by Mr Jørgensen on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has not proposed new requirements for solid fuel local space heaters and has not taken any final position on this matter. All ecodesign measures are established in a transparent process with extensive stakeholder participation including the discussion of working documents. The current review started in 2023 with a Consultation Forum meeting. Since then, the Commission has engaged with stakeholders to gather information and their opinions. Meetings are still ongoing with relevant associations, manufacturers and certification laboratories. The Commission is preparing an impact assessment for possible ecodesign measures for solid fuel local space heaters. This is assessing the technical and economic aspects as well as the environmental ones. The ecodesign Directive requires that ecodesign measures do not have a significant negative impact on the affordability or the life cycle cost of the products. Concerns over technical feasibility and cost will therefore be discussed and addressed in future consultations. The Commission will also carefully assess any implications for consumers, notably regarding the affordability or the life-cycle cost of such products. In addition, as for all ecodesign measures, any requirements will only concern new appliances, not those already installed in citizens’ homes. While recognising the value of sustainable biomass as an affordable and secure energy source, Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1185 1 requires the Commission to review the measures for solid fuel local space heaters, including an assessment of air pollutant emissions. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/1185/oj/eng”
  Energy efficiency · Ecodesign & durability
• 2024-09-06 “P-001641/2024 Answer given by Ms Simson on behalf of the European Commission The implementing decision on the NUTS2 level greenhouse gas (GHG) emission values for extraction and cultivation of feedstock for Denmark is in the adoption process. Once the necessary steps have been carried out, the act will be published in the Official Journal. The Renewable Energy Directive 1 does not provide a provisional approval of the new NUTS2 values. The fastest and the only legally valid process is the one applied. However, the Commission is working closely with the Member States during the evaluation process and is supporting the Member States in finalising their reports as quickly as possible. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202302413”
  Climate efforts · Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner, we must ensure that the European agricultural policy of the future is common. The Cap should remain one policy with financing at EU level, with a level playing field that protects the single market and prevents a dangerous renationalisation. We must also ensure a realistic green transition where climate and environment go hand in hand with food production and competitiveness, and we should make new technology accessible to all farmers. It's really important for young and active farmers. We should move towards more result oriented payments as a supplement, and we should remember that food supply is a security policy. Europe needs stable supply chains, even more so in an unstable world. So we should simplify rules so it's easy to be a farmer. And just as important it is to ensure a strong generational renewing. So we have a future for our farmers with access to capital and a belief in the future, we should remember who we are working for. Farmers and the wellies, consumers out shopping and future generations who need Europe with a robust food security.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much. This is such a serious subject both for farmers and for consumers, because fertilisers are essential if we're going to keep stable food prices. And it's not just a question of agriculture, but it's about security policies and supplies. If we have an explosion of prices, as is the case now, then the same impact is going to be felt in fertilisers as well. The price of fertiliser has gone so high that a lot of people are under a great deal of pressure. Everything is more expensive throughout Europe for families and so on. And if we don't take action now, then the risk is higher prices, greater uncertainty about security of supply in Europe. It's important when we talk about prices of fertilizers, that we think of new methods for production and and using renewable energy. Of course, as well, we need to be secure in our production and something that will not be harming the environment. Can I just remind you that we're not supposed to be making symbolic or political statements in this? You know, there was a mention of wearing wearing Wellington boots, but it's unlikely to rain in here, so I wouldn't worry about that.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you for the presentation and thank you very much for enlightening us on the situation in the Baltic. This is a really serious situation. There's absolutely no doubt about that. And I'm glad that if I'm not wrong, there's going to be a conference related to this matter later in the year in Stockholm. So it seems that the commission has also understood the seriousness of this matter. So we really need to get to the bottom of what is basically a collapse of the situation, the ecosystem. Now, we had 300 fishing vessels in Bornholm who were fishing in the Baltic Sea, and now there's none because there simply are no fish to fish anymore. So this is an issue that also relates why is all this happening? It relates to climate. It's also due to the sins of the past, the mistakes of the past that we continue to carry on with. It's also due to environmental pollution. There's also biological interaction between species, uh, the cormorants, the seals. I think those two predators have gone up in numbers. And of course, that must have a an impact. Then, as my colleague Emma has just referred to, you know the quite high tax have had an impact. So there's so many different factors at play. And which is the most important do you think?”
  Environmental regulation of fisheries
• “(18:00:31 – 18:02:05): Thank you, madam chair. Now this food and feed omnibus really needs to be a success. It's something we badly need, and authorizations take too long. So we need to speed that up and then investments disappear from the You know, and Herbert Doffman is is right. 27 authorization procedures in the EU. We need to do things differently. You know, we need approval within 18 months. But of paramount importance is that we have good rules in the EU, but, of course, we need to get this right. And we cannot lower the level of protection. But I have a question for the commission. How will the commission ensure that we protect small investors? And how are you going to make sure that we will also be investing in new products on the market? I think biopesticides, the future on the market, but not everyone benefits from these solutions that are available. So how can the commission then make sure that there is access to this biopesticides and that farmers do have access. Now temporary authorizations for swift market access, how is that going to operate in practice? What's the commission's view on that?”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Um. Thank you. Chair. For decades, the condition was that we said that free trade was what was needed to be protected. And we still believe in free trade. We still believe that free trade agreements will reinforce our economy and create prosperity. For a couple of generations, we've been working on a raft of agreements. And things have come to a bit of a standstill, and we need to acknowledge how brittle the system is when it comes to the WTO as well. We see the political tensions exacerbating, and we can no longer presume that we will automatically have access to the necessary raw materials and inputs. Things are very unpredictable now. We can no longer presume that it's business as has been done for the past decades. So we need to be able to be self-reliant, especially when it comes to food supply. That needs to be an absolute priority. Self-reliance. And in the EU and its member states, we need to ensure our own food supply across Europe, and the Commission needs to play its role when it comes to when it comes to its tariff negotiations with the US. But self-reliance is the goal. Thank you.”
  Free trade agreements (FTAs)
• “I'd like to thank you very much and thank all of the colleagues who've contributed with amendments. I think there are a lot of points that we do agree on, but we have to also bear in mind that digitalization is a real priority here. We want to make swift progress. So I think it's important for us to also take into account how we can make vehicle owners lives easier. On the one hand, we've got digitalization, but on the other hand, we also need to still ensure that people do have paper copies of these documents. So I'm very much looking forward to our cooperation on this, and I hope we'll get some good results.”
  Digitalization of public governance & administration
• “Oh dear. Oh dear. Presentation. There are some very interesting to hear the various priorities. Generational change renewable. This is decisive and it's something that we have to really focus on. Young people have to be seen as a major possibility for the future in agriculture. And we have to do whatever necessary to be able to deal with this. Of course, also the issue of national and regional. Uh partnership, uh, animal welfare. Extremely important as well. Uh, this these are important points for the competitiveness of European agriculture. Uh. We have to also make sure that there is, uh, that there is a coordination between the various member states as well, on different fronts. The ban of certain pesticides in Denmark, three types of, uh, potato pesticides were banned. Uh, we're looking for an alternative that we don't have right now. What would you propose now, those particular member states that have, uh, major issues on this particular front, they have to really not experience disadvantages. So we do feel that we need alternatives. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you. It's a it's a bit faster when some of the others do not show up. Thank you to our rapporteur. My group renew support the goal of simplification. Without of course, this impacting security or the environment. We need simple rules that are practical and predictable, especially when we talk about fertilisers and plant production. Plant protection. We need to have the right nutrients We need to find new ways to attaining our goals. Unfortunately, complex rules. Lack of clarity is holding back innovation. Sometimes it takes nine years before we have an approval for a new product, and that makes it really difficult, especially for small enterprises, to find new solutions. We need more clear rules in this area so we know where we stand with the plants, and we hope that we don't need to repeat the scientific assessments. We need more predictable time frames in the US. You only have 18 months to come with this approval, and we need something like that in Europe. Of course we should protect our environment and health, but there should be room for production and innovation in renew. We look forward to a constructive cooperation about what we want here. Quick approval in a maximum of 18 months. That's what we need. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thanks very much. It's a very important topic. And the whole question of energy is crucial because if we have energy, we can keep ourselves safe and feed ourselves. I don't think we should be using good agricultural land for solar panels. However, it's not a priority, certainly not for me. And I also think we need to look at biogas because that's a form of energy which can boost rural economies or provide new sources of income for farmers. And it's also a sustainable form of energy from the point of view of agriculture as well. So I think if we can use this for renewable energy, that would be great progress.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you. You've been telling us that on paper in the EU, we do have a good system to control, uh, our food products. So it exists. However, the problem is that there are gaps in our different countries. So the problem lies in the implementation of the rules. So I think that we must definitely ask the Commission to focus on combating this issue. These. These are the products that we find on the shelves in our shops. And we need to be able to, uh, to know where they're from and what is in them. Now, when it comes to products that come from outside of the EU, from third countries that aren't controlled enough, it's very important that we focus on this issue.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “(16:19:43 – 16:20:47): The MFF has played a very important part for European fishes and thereby for our food security, but too many, really too many fishes see this as being much too heavy, much too bureaucratic. It is a problem if the funds don't reach the people who need it because then the fund is without worth. Many fishers have no time to handle those complicated applications and the many conditions and long waits. I also think it's very sad that the commission in its new budget wants to stop this fund. That sends a completely wrong signal at a time when we want to strengthen the European food security. So my question to the commission is, how will you concretely bring down the administrative burden and ensure that fishers have access to their funds? And how will you ensure that they have these funds in the future? Thank you. Senor Alivin, gracias. Miss Levin?”
  Funding for fisheries and aquaculture
• “Thank you very much. Um, I think that, uh, we need to have confidence in the work that you're doing. Milty was clear for at the moment do so and so it seems that there have been many investigations that has been done in those products that are compounds that have been sent out. So I'm very sad about that, and I very hope that ifsA will take that into account in the work that they do in the future. It's also taking much too long to try to get new products recognised or authorised in the EU, be they bio pesticides or chemical pesticides, no matter what kind they are. It takes too long and so we need to get that speeded up. Otherwise we will lose to lose out to the USA. Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “I'd like to thank you very much and thank all of the colleagues who've contributed with amendments. I think there are a lot of points that we do agree on, but we have to also bear in mind that digitalization is a real priority here. We want to make swift progress. So I think it's important for us to also take into account how we can make vehicle owners lives easier. On the one hand, we've got digitalization, but on the other hand, we also need to still ensure that people do have paper copies of these documents. So I'm very much looking forward to our cooperation on this, and I hope we'll get some good results.”
  Driving licences
• “(17:06:22 – 17:07:43): Thank you very much. It's a real challenge that we're facing in Europe now. For a number of years, we've been struggling to compete on fertilizer production in Europe as simply not being profitable, and it's made us more dependent on the imports from third countries. So I welcome the fertilizer action plan, which focuses on innovation, circularity and new solutions. I think we need to look at the taxation policy we have in the EU, which is an impediment for fertilizer. We've got good experiences of biogas using nutrients in a much more circular way. So my question to the commission is this. How will the commission ensure that new technologies can reduce the undesirable aspects of manure gases, but at the same time benefit fertilizer production? And in the future, therefore, we can use much more natural fertilizer. As Dorfman was saying, we really need to think about this oversupply of energy that we have for solar and wind energy. We have to transform it into something usable instead of stopping our windmills from turning. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Okay, good to speak slowly. We need more funding for research and innovation. If we want to bolster our competitiveness. The Competitiveness Fund and rising Europe must also go in that direction. If Europe is to be strong, we need to invest in agriculture. Bioeconomy, bioeconomy and food. Security is a fundamental sectors which are often overlooked. Food sovereignty is a key strategic part of the EU. We need to produce more and at the same time, in a more sustainable and profitable fashion. We need to focus on resilience. We're struggling when it comes to antimicrobial resistance. This is affecting livestock and we can improve monitoring of animal diseases if we want to improve our competitiveness. We need to invest in innovation in agriculture and bioeconomy. And this affects not just farmers. This affects our competitiveness as well as our security.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you. The cap must be simplified. It is suffering from the tyranny of the calendar. They state exactly when we have to finish our harvest. But it is not just a question of our calculators or our calendar. Nature cannot obey simply by that. Farmers are punished if they go beyond a certain date. This is not a question of farming or production. We must go back to common sense. Reduce bureaucracy, help farmers produce. The EU should set the framework for that for our cap to make sure that we have full food security in production, our cap must be bureaucratized and they should be free. Farmers should be freed from their offices and be able to go to their fields.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much. I've been speaking Danish. Obviously we have to make sure that the biodiesel that is being produced and used in the EU is sustainable. It's important that we Use raw materials with high alcohol value, and it's also important that the first generation diesel plays an important role for the supply, security and our agricultural sector. This contributes to efficient raw materials and good feed for our animals. Every drop of sustainably produced biofuel produced in Europe is strategic autonomy for us. Therefore, there are a lot of sectors which need more than just electricity. So my question to the commission is, how can you make sure that the energy legislation after 2030 gives enough room to sustainable, European produced biofuels, which contributes to our environmental objectives but also strengthens our self-sufficiency.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking Danish. Eu. Has really focused on food security in our food policy. And I'm very concerned about this. Now with the current cap that you're describing that this could really risk have not having this food security which we wish to achieve. So cutting the cap, it's really unacceptable. And and I'm very worried about this. I'm very worried about the nationalization of this as, as Emma was also describing. Do you end up with 27 different views of the cap.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Thank you, chair, and thank you for putting this topic on the agenda. My colleagues and farmers really have their back against the wall. They have suffered huge losses across all countries. This has happened. And now it's time for the commission to to act, to roll out some kind of measure against what China is doing. We will have to apply some other type of a method. And I would ask the commission, are there no tools that can be used in this trade dispute? Because it's always farmers who are at the front line of this trade war.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you very much. I'll be speaking Danish. We've been sleeping simply in too many years in Europe. We've gotten warnings and we've had crises in the 70s and the 80s. And now we've had two crises in the last seven years, all in energy. And I think it can be very serious. This current situation, energy and fertilizer, these are absolutely crucial for our food security. Is it true that the way we actually we actually calculate our CO2 emissions. That's also interfering with this. Of course, what happens in Denmark when when the wind is blowing too much? Well, we can't get rid of all the we produce overproduce energy. Well, what if it's not? However, if we look, it's because there's CO2, CO2 emission system. That means we're at a disadvantage compared to, for example, China, where there's no penalty for producing CO2. So I think we have to look at that as well. Thank you.”
  Energy (green transition)
• “Thank you very much. Thank you for giving me the floor. Food prices are sky high. The rules, documents. All of this generates costs for traders, farmers, merchants. They spend days compiling reports that don't make food safer. And they don't make the production greener. It's silly. It makes it more costly to produce, to produce, transport and consume. So who foots the bill? It's the consumer. This food system generates money, but also a lot of paper. We have to be bold enough to. Separate the wheat from the chaff and to get rid of what doesn't lead to added value. We have to get rid of useless red tape and this will bring costs down. The whole supply chain will benefit and this will happen immediately. This will help us have more resources. It also means that food prices will be more reasonable and people will be able to buy food. This is the best thing to do.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you. I've been working in this sector for over 40 years, and we have all reduced our antibiotic use and in farm to fork, we have agreed on further reductions a further 60%. But what has the Commission done during this time with regard to treatments with poultry, for example? What about resistance there? I think that we can find a solution. So the treatment measures can be carried out to avoid the increase of resistance. But what is the Commission doing in terms of finding new ways, new solutions, so that we can reduce Amr use, as we did under farm to fork?”
  Antimicrobial resistance