Valérie DELOGE

Policy topics Valérie DELOGE is active on

What Valérie DELOGE has said (39)

• 2026-01-21 “Answer given by Mr Micallef on behalf of the European Commission 16.3.2026 Written question The EU action in the field of culture aims to encourage cooperation between Member States, and to support and supplement their actions, including on the conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage, in line with Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Management of cultural heritage remains primarily a national responsibility. In the 2021-2027 programming period, the restoration, preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage, including religious, is eligible for support under the European Regional Development Fund. The Fund has already supported religious heritage restoration projects, when linked with local development, social cohesion or the attractiveness of rural areas. The responsibility for the selection of operations lies with the managing authorities, such as the Regional Councils in the case of France. The Commission's proposal for the Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 is built on an integrated and flexible delivery model centred on national and regional partnership plans, where Member States and regions have greater flexibility in allocating resources to address local development needs, including religious heritage.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• 2025-10-08 “E-003957/2025 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Ensuring that farmers receive a fair revenue is a priority for the Commission, as outlined in the Vision for Agriculture and Food (‘the Vision’) 1 and the President of the Commission’s 2025 State of the Union Address 2 . The proposed ringfenced allocations under the National and Regional Partnership (NRP) Plans are a minimum of the funds that must be allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Member States can increase this amount by tapping into the rest of their NRP Fund, to design the CAP approach that responds best to the needs of their farmers and rural areas. With its proposal of 10 December 2024 to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain 3 , the Commission took an important step to enhance farmers’ bargaining power through, for instance, enhanced cooperation and transparent and reliable transaction conditions via mandatory written contracts that include certain essential elements, such as clear and transparent price formulas or a mandatory review clause. These measures help ensure that farmers are not merely price takers and can negotiate better terms, thus resisting external pressures to sell below their production costs. In addition, the Commission will publish end of 2025 its report on the first evaluation of the Unfair Trading Practices (UTP) Directive, together with a study on fair remuneration assessing the impact of certain national measures on farmers’ revenues. As announced in the Vision, the Commission will propose further initiatives, including a revision of the UTP Directive, to address, the principle that that farmers should not be forced to systematically sell below their production costs. The consultation process will be organised until Spring 2026. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0075. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/state-union/state-union-2025_en#the-speech. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52024PC0577.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain · Agricultural funding
• 2025-10-03 “E-003898/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The EU vaccination plan against Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) is regulated, in alignment with the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) standards, by Regulation (EU) 2016/429 1 (‘Animal Health Law’) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/361 2 . A vaccination plan deemed compliant with these rules does not lead to undermining the trade in live animals or their products between the Member States, although there are some specific conditions for movements and derogations provided for in the above referred EU legislation which must be respected. Under EU legislation, veterinary medicinal products including vaccines receive marketing authorisations further to applications submitted by pharmaceutical companies. If a company submits an application for a marketing authorisation for a differentiating infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA) vaccine, the relevant Competent Authority will assess the vaccine’s safety, efficacy, and quality. The EU legal framework on Veterinary Medicinal Products - Regulation (EU) 2019/6 3 - allows for accelerated assessments and marketing authorisations in exceptional circumstances related to animal or public health. 1 OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/429/oj. 2 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/361 of 28 November 2022 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council as regards rules for the use of certain veterinary medicinal products for the purpose of prevention and control of certain listed diseases (OJ L 52, 20.2.2023, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/361/oj). 3 Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43-167, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/6/oj).”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2025-05-15 “E-001966/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is not planning a revision of the labelling rules for soya-based products at this stage. The Commission is aware of the opinion on health risks associated to the consumption of foods containing isoflavones issued by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety to which the Honourable Members refers. In this respect, the Commission would like to point out that , while the opinion recommends that soya-based food should not be used in mass catering to avoid over-consumption and that food producers and manufacturers should review soya production and processing techniques in order to reduce isoflavone levels in food, it does not recommend establishing any specific labelling for soya-based foods. Considering the above, there is currently no basis for seeking to address the issue with third countries at EU level.”
  Nutrition
• 2024-12-19 “P-003045/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission As pointed in P-002460/24 1 , further to the audit 2024-8087 2 , Brazil committed to suspend exports of meat from female bovine animals pending the implementation of additional guarantees to ensure that beef for export to the EU comes only from animals that were not treated with oestradiol 17beta (17β). The Commission is monitoring the progress made by Brazil in implementing these guarantees. Recently, Brazil’s Minister of Agriculture and Livestock reaffirmed their commitment to comply with these requirements. 1. All food on the EU market, whether domestic or imported, must comply with EU food safety rules. These are not negotiable, even when trade agreements are concluded with third countries, including the EU-Mercosur. Beef from Brazil, like all imported meat, is subject to sanitary checks in the EU and there is no evidence that meat of animals treated with 17β has at any stage been placed on the EU market. 2. Third countries wishing to export food to the EU must establish control systems to ensure compliance with EU food safety rules. Brazil’s system concerning different food products intended for export to the EU has been regularly audited by the Commission to check its fitness for this purpose. When audits resulted in recommendations, these were followed up by the Commission. Reports of audits, together with action plans from Brazil, are publicly available 3 . In addition, the Commission works closely with Member States’ veterinary authorities that perform controls on food imported into the EU. Where warranted, the Commission takes necessary measures in agreement with Member States. The Commission considers that checks on imported food ensure a satisfactory level of health risk prevention, including for food imported from Mercosur countries. 1 Answer for question P-002460/24 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-10-2024-002460ASW_EN.html 2 Food Audits and Analysis, Brazil 2024-8087 https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report/details/4804 3 https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report”
  GMOs
• 2024-11-06 “E-002425/2024 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Strengthening farmers’ position within the value chain and protecting them against unfair trading practices is at the heart of Commissioner for Agriculture and Food mandate. The EU has already implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) different measures to reinforce the position of farmers within the food supply chain, such as those under the Common Markets Organisation Regulation 1 and the Unfair Trading Practices Directive 2 . These tools are already working in support of farmers to ensure they continue to play a positive role for our societies. Among others, these tools work to strengthen cooperation opportunities for farmers, ensure certain exclusions from competition rules, protect farmers from the imposition of unfair trading practices and enhance market transparency, including through the newly established EU agri-food chain Observatory (AFCO). In addition, the Commission intends to propose amendments to further strengthen the position of farmers, while continue to reflect on further improvements. The Commission will continue to explain the CAP to the public, inform citizens about the challenges facing the agriculture and food sector and promote a more sustainable Union model of agriculture 3 . Concerted communciation actions will be deployed, also to fight disinformation on the CAP policy. With the future budget, the EU needs to ensure that the CAP support is better targeted and that the right balance between incentives, investments and regulation is established. The Commission is assessing the best options in terms of conditionality for CAP payments and how to further promote positive economic, environmental and social outcomes in the context of preparations for the future CAP. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, OJ L 347/671. 2 Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, OJ L 111/59. 3 Article 46 of Regulation - 2021/2116 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R2116”
  GMOs
• 2024-11-06 “E-002438/2024 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission Outbreaks of infection with bluetongue virus (BTV) and of infection with epizootic haemorrhagic disease virus (EHD) are notifiable through the EU Animal Disease Information System 1 making the Commission and competent authorities of other Member States aware of the disease situation in order to take relevant measures to prevent their spread. The situation is regularly discussed, including in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed 2 . Difficulties caused by those animal diseases for the farming community have also been discussed at the meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, and at the European Parliament plenary session on 8 October 2024. All these actions ensure awareness and coordination between the Commission and the Member States. As replied to questions E-002019/2024, E-001850/2024, E-001845/2024, no EU funding for veterinary measures under the Single Market Programme is envisaged for the period 2024 to 2027. For possible support to farmers, the Commission refers to replies to questions E-001819/2024 and E-002019/2024. 1 https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-diseases/animal-disease-information-system-adis_en 2 https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/committees/paff-committees_en”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Commissioner, thank you very much indeed for taking us through this revision of the Regulation on Medical Advice devices, which was presented last December. So it's been highly awaited, and there are a number of very positive points of which you've reminded us and which we very much welcome, because it will make it possible for thousands of European patients to have more rapid access to innovative technologies which have been unduly hampered by excessive red tape and overburdensome regulations. The commissioner responsible has also carried out online consultations in order to get feedback from patients, organisations as well as companies and various organisations. And they are worth considering. But allow me to put a number of questions to you. First of all, how can you remedy the lack of harmonisation in the certification files for similar medical devices, which can be dealt with in a variety of different fashions depending on the notified organization. Secondly, are you planning to introduce mandatory timelines depending on different risk categories in order to provide greater planning certainty to stakeholders? Thirdly, are you going to shift the burden of risk to the industry? Because that would turn the precautionary principle on its head and would therefore extend the timelines. Is the Commission planning to bring in other delegated acts in order to provide these further clarifications? Thank you very much.”
  Medical devices
• “Vice president. Commissioner. Colleagues. The commission is presenting its stockpiling strategy today in the face of the threats looming over the people of Europe. This is necessary, but will require stringent political vigilance. The stockpiles cannot be a technical solution because what is at stake is our food sovereignty. We should try and reduce our dependency and beef up our resilience, ensure our supplies and protect our old continent. That is what should be at the heart of this strategy, because stockpile will be the guarantor of the security of our food security. It is not by dealing with Mercosur that we will build a sustainable future, and we should be relying on our own producers, not producers on the other side of the Atlantic. We don't have a mandate to defend them. Europe should be feeding its people. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you. Colleagues with the opinion from the Court of Auditors on the future of the cap should cause us concern because there are legal and technical terms used. But there is a simple issue behind those. How can we ensure clear, fair and effective support to our farmers? The European Commission is presenting its reform as a simplification, but the Court of Auditors is telling us exactly the opposite. The risk is that the system will become more complex, more uncertain, and more difficult to monitor. The first and foremost, the reduction in the cap is utterly unacceptable, and having a kind of package of budgets without clear plans means we're completely unaware of what's intended. I mean, farmers want to know how much they're going to get. Under which conditions and when. If this new organisation delays or makes the makes payments more complicated, will farms that are already struggling as a result of the increase in costs, climate problems and international consequences are going to be even more affected. Another subject of concern relates to the flexibility that's being given to member states. If each member state implements different rules, well, farmers will no longer be on a level playing field, which will produce unfair competition at the European level. The Cap is a common agricultural policy and there need to be fair rules for everyone. And then, as I say, the amounts dedicated to agriculture won't be fully known until the approval of the national plan. So there's a lack of visibility here. Simplification shouldn't mean less transparency and less control of public funding. We need a clear, fair, stable cap that protects the revenues of those who feed us. That is what we should be defending at all costs. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Madam president. Commissioner, this simplification text for the cap confirms what we've been speaking out against for some time. The accumulation of standards, of rules, of moving the cap away from the realities on the ground and the needs of French farmers. Having a one off control at Christmas per farm is positive, something we've wanted for some time, and this can help to build a minimum of trust between farmers and the administration. This is still a limited step forward. Simplification is not just about technical measures that come too late. This has to be a long term change in the C8 cap. Based on a more pragmatic national approach, the European Commission has direct responsibility for the administrative burden that farmers are suffering with. They've multiplied rules, conditionality, penalties in place and has caused a lot of damage. Farmers do not need a commission that monitors them. They need one that allows them to work. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. The flames from the Gulf are engulfing our fields. The Straits of Hormuz is a strategic passage where 30% of fertiliser trade goes through. And that is a choke point for us. It's getting worse from week to week. We're already. Captured by not being able to get the gas from where we want. And the price of urea going up hurts even more. And we're seeing this problem occurring at a time when we need to plant new seeds for this year. The fields are disappearing, crops will disappear. And this is affecting French exports as well. It's not the first time that fertilisers have been hit by this sort of crisis. We've seen this coming back again and again. And bad things come in threes. We're getting the food crisis that's also going to affect us following on from this war. We're seeing this coming back again and again. So where's the strategy at European level. There need to be measures taken to protect our farmers. How does the commission intend to stimulate fertiliser production within the European Union in order to protect our agricultural independence? Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you chairman. Today, the eeaS is presenting its opinion on regenerative agriculture to us in the context of overhauling the cap. We see a 20% decrease in budgets and we see protests across the world by farmers. With all of that in mind, it seems that this opinion has come at a bad time. We want to be able to defend the productivity in this sphere. We want to cut red tape that makes when you say this, it makes us feel like we're going in the right direction. But these are just words. And behind these words we have a hidden Green deal restoring biodiversity, KPIs, complex flows, all of this that cannot really be fully understood moving forward in the future. We're talking about rules upon rules. I want to make three points. Rapporteur, how are you going to regulate the quality of our soils? Because, uh, territories might be mountainous. We might be talking about different crops and different land plots. How are you taking into account all these different differences across the board? Second point in France, bio farming is seeing two high costs and that's why it is decreasing. Regenerative farming is a long term investment and not just a fashionable trend. How are you going to make that clear? And third, how are you going to apply equal conditionality while we're seeing farmers out on the streets protesting because they are asphyxiated by red tape. The European Parliament here is representing farmers. That's what you're not doing. We are helping them to change their, uh, their mentality. Thank you for your report. We want real action and we don't see the content there.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. The Court of Auditors report reminds us that the measures taken to, um to boost agriculture in outermost regions look at their competitiveness, but long term developments remain uncertain, especially given the lack of clear budgetary visibility in the programmes. Especially in the cap post 2027, farmers are very worried because in the outermost regions, agriculture is not just one sector of many. It is essentially a pillar of the local economy. It enables farmers to make a living, but also just the whole the whole chain. There's a processing transport, um, to trade and lots of local, um, jobs are dependent upon it. Without strong local agriculture, then it's the, um, it's the whole fabric of society which is um, put into jeopardy. We need to ensure that the autonomous regions can retain their, their know how. And of course, the far away means that there is the greater danger of unfair competition. So what can we do to support agriculture in the outermost regions? One way of doing this is ensuring stable financing for POC. We should lock in funding with a clearly identified budget, which is a future looking as part of a future MFS to ensure that there is a future for the local economy and agriculture in outermost regions. Thank you very much.”
  Funding for OCTs and outermost regions
• “Will this free trade agreement between the EU and South America is actually a threat for our farmers, our environment and our economic sovereignty? This agreement pits our farmers in direct competition with an area where sanitary standards are lower. You're sacrificing our farmers to sell German cars. Latin America is based bases its trade on intense exploitation, environmental degradation. We are going to see our producers weakened to the benefit of large multinationals. This is an environmental disaster. We need to defend local, sustainable and sustainable agriculture. Did you know that every two days a farmer in France commits suicide? Commissioner von der Leyen and any members of the European Parliament who signed this agreement will be banging the last nail into their coffin card.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Commissioner, the question of fertilizer is becoming a major strategic issue for Europe because behind fertilizers, you've got other aspects of food security, energy dependency in the future of agriculture, the tensions in the Straits of Hormuz being blocked, and the Middle East recalls a very important issue dependency equals reliance. We have seen prices skyrocketing across the the board, and this is happening for farmers today because of choices that have been made. There are solutions um mechanisms, for example, can be used to produce digestate, which is a local and renewable fertilizer. Some European countries are resisting. Still, they managed to get their fertilisers despite the regular regulation that is trying to take it away from them. So let's strengthen these people because if they disappear, we'll have nothing more to save. But Europe is adding error upon error. We need to look at viable alternatives. Mercosur is now opening our markets to projects that products that don't respect labour or environmental standards. The commission knows this. They're setting up omnibuses to correct its own mistakes on nuclear power. It's decided that finally, yes, we do need it. Maybe we'll have an agricultural omnibus to correct the errors that we are seeing produced in the fertiliser action plan.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Madam president. Commissioner, the cap is in our DNA. It is a spirit. The spirit of the cap is that of the First Nations of Europe that wanted to create an area of peace. Their spirit is the spirit of the cap. Since 1962, this has been the spirit that has accompanied farmers in their lives with the guarantee of a fair standard of living in exchange for feeding the European people so as not to depend on third countries. Now the cap choice is the Commission's choice is not to increase the cap budget. That is against the spirit of the cap. Instead, they're going to be financing the direct competitors of our farmers, with the €15 million being paid to South African wine farmers, that goes totally against the spirit of the cap. You have revealed that your Cap policy is just making time and not moving forward.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Commissioner, you're talking about simplification. Yes, that sounds well and good, but we want, um. In in farming, we really hope that things will get more simple. But every time there's more controls, more confusion. We have 27 systems for checks, different conditions, conditionality systems. And we still have to prove that rules are being respected. So there's still bureaucracy. And when you talk about flexibility for member states, we know that that means more, um, civil servants and more money spent at the EU level. That's not simplification. It's a technocratic reorganisation. Brussels, um, Is being resisted already by farmers. They want a dignified wage. You might simplify your PowerPoint slides, but you are not simplifying farmers expectations. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Commissioner. The von der Leyen Commission has gotten us used to betrayal. But you really are doing. Her Parliament and farmers for months have been asking for something clear. They want a clear cap. Two pillars that are distinct. Alleviate the midst of burden. Fight unfair practices. And we want decent income for our farmers. What are you now announcing to us? Nothing. It's the end of the cap. Diluted into one single fund. An obscure percentage targeted at certain objectives under certain conditions. For only 300 billion, which is a 22% drop. Now, no surprise, then, that your promises are worthless. You know, for months, I think you've known about what your boss wanted. Or if you didn't, then you've been hoodwinked in presenting a new framework to us. But you're not a reliable interlocutor as we see it, and we will remind you of it, too. Best of luck, then, to continue pretending that you support farmers in Europe. You've basically stuck a dagger in their back.”
  Agricultural funding
• “(15:24:24 – 15:24:27): it? This study is not about wool or leather, but it asks what role all products will play. So wool and leather shouldn't be considered a secondary product, but a strategic material, they're also a source of income and they're important in the bioeconomy. Now I've seen that the wool sector and the leather sector are invisible. They are penalized by green policies that ignore them because they present so-called green alternatives. But these alternatives are often derivatives of fossil fuel. Vegan leather is fossil fuels. Vegetable leather is 50% fossil fuels, whereas leather only has a 4% of fossil fuels as origin. So we need to look at the composition of materials, their sustainability, their reuse, the whole cycle and therefore the end of life. Otherwise, environmental policy is greenwashing and it's not real progress. We also have to remember that livestock does not only offer material, but also services for the ecosystem, carbon storage, biodiversity. We take care of the environment and we have to consider all these aspects and not only consider it a source of emissions. If we look at wool, we see that it's renewable, biodegradable, no eco plastics, so it should be better used as for insulation or as a luxury product like leather. We know that there is a lot of bureaucracy in these sectors and this discourages producers. We have to stop opposing green policies to farmers. Farmers are part of the solution. Thank you.”
  Sustainable fashion
• “Chair. Colleagues. Seja. President. The future of farming depends on young people. But it's so difficult for you to set up in the sector. Land is too expensive, difficult to get credit. A lot of work and society doesn't recognize what you do, so we have to send a clear signal. Land access must be a priority. Young people must be able to develop their farms without being condemned to long term indebtedness. And of course, we have to look at banks. They're less and less likely to lend to you. So we need more set up aid. We need a cap which really focuses on wages and doesn't just create more rules because that makes things more difficult. But there's another thing here. It's about the hectares available to farms. New hectares should go to young farmers, not to multinationals who are buying up this land as an asset. So we must protect our farming, not isolate it. Europe must protect its agricultural land because it belongs to those who plough that land. Sara CJ. Cj. You know it better than everyone else. Young people want access to land. They want to own their own farm. They want to have prospects. How do you intend to strengthen these prospects, speaker.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you, Mr. Rainier, for focusing on our future cap. 27 member states, 27 people talking hot air and not actually producing anything. We have the law and the spirit of the law. But here the new cap is set aside, the new spirit of the cap. So how do you think we can work this out? And how can we understand what is being proposed? Because there are going to be genuine problems with the future prospects of support that could be proffered. I get the impression that this new cap is not going to work. It's going to run to ground and our farmers will suffer. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Colleagues, first of all, I would like to wish all of you Happy New Year. Now, as a breeder of sheep myself, I'd like to talk about the problems of livestock breeding. We've seen extremists say that we should reduce the number of livestock because of the climate and the environment, and they also say we shouldn't eat meat and they blame farmers for polluting. But meat products will not disappear. No, they will simply shift to products from outside Europe which are of lower quality. The underlying condition is opening up our borders to unfair competition, particularly from Mercosur countries. These products come from countries where the environmental and health norms and animal welfare norms are lower than in the EU, so it's anti-environment unfair and irresponsible. Extensive livestock breeding stores carbon, it preserves biodiversity and the threats are are impacting rural regions. And it's it's completely unacceptable that our independence is being jeopardized here. We need to protect our livestock breeders at all costs. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Excusez moi.My apologies. First of all, we need to think. Is there a need for this? Perhaps this could also be produced in Europe. This lengthening until the 31st of December, for the equivalence for certain third countries raises a fundamental question of reciprocity. If we're talking about equivalence, this isn't enough. If, in fact, the rules and the controls are standards are not as high up as the ones imposed on European producers, organic products respect the most demanding standards in the world. They are investing, they're adapting, and they're subject to administrative burdens. And so it would be, therefore, for unacceptable for products arriving into the European Union to have the same label, even though they are subject to more lax conditions. The consumer also deserves full transparency. Labeling needs to be clear and unambiguous to ensure that the product they are purchasing corresponds to the requirements of organic products. We cannot threaten our food security Or the quality of our label. And this is why we really want to have equal rules across the board when it comes to imports, as well as effective production of our producers. Ultimately, the question is simple if the European organic label is demanding for our European producers, it needs to be for all players in the field.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you Commissioner. Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. The animal welfare standards that we protect are fundamental, but we have to be realistic. How? Together with the Env Committee, do you plan to ensure that these standards don't lead to a loss of competitiveness for our farmers? They have to respect very demanding European standards, particularly in comparison with the imports that don't respect the same environmental and healthcare standards as we have.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Ladies and gentlemen, chairs of the committees. Commissioners. The establishment of this European fund for the next period raises a simple question. Does Europe want to continue to defend those who feed them and those who live in our territory? Social, economic and territorial cohesion starts with fishing, Of farms and maritime areas. They give structure to our countries and at the same time, they are the ones that have the biggest constraints and decisions made farthest away from them. This decision, the cap, should be the same as it has been in the past, with an uptick for inflation. With less, you are trying to make us believe that you will do more. You must have a magic wand. We know that food sovereignty and strong sectors is the backbone for our society, and in fact, we all depend on that. Farmers who are coming to Strasbourg are not naive. We should not treat them as if they were idiots. We they are not able to make ends meet with their work and ten farmers per week commit suicide. Simple figure. It seems that we're digging the grave for them. Three commissioners for the armed forces of von der Leyen to impose this new plan on us. But we, as members of Parliament and farmers do not want your. Therefore, there is no doubt a problem, and I'd like to understand better why you're not able to hear what we have to say. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Colleague. Farmers have become our scapegoats. They're accused of creating antimicrobial resistance, whereas 80% of human use is not controlled. I'm responsible for the health of my animals, and antibiotics, whether we like it or not, are essential for our animals survival. When we are struck by a disease, when animals are injured, what would we do without these treatments? We are asked to use them in a sensible way, following vet's instructions respecting animal welfare. But as my colleague has already said, there are a lot of reductions in antibiotic use and we must not work towards a ban where that doesn't make sense. We must investigate new products and new treatments, diversify our approaches, prevent the creation of resistance, which would lead to increasing doses Disease and one health includes the health of our animals as consumers and producers. It is to our benefit.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “We mustn't forget people in rural areas. Politicians must think of them, and we have to make sure that we have a balanced and effective approach when it comes to prevention. If we want there to be consistency, there have to be safeguards. Let's take tobacco. We have to be pragmatic. Let us protect young people from the dangers of tobacco. There are. So many tobacco products are being promoted and young people are being targeted. And we have to make sure that we don't, uh, have overregulation. And when it comes to health, we need a balanced diet. We need to promote that and make sure that we don't, uh, make eating meat or give it any stigma. Now on the, let me say that the beating cancer plan has to be a plan for life that provides better information and accompanies those who have it. Prevention is better than cure because we all know that prevention is cheaper than treating cancer. So in this battle, we shoulder an immense responsibility individually. Every amendment, every change can make a difference. So we have to help those and make sure that we don't leave them alone facing this disease. Mr. Moreno from the green.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Commissioner, we're talking about industry, but also European farming. Paying the price of European decision tax on Europe on Chinese vehicles. And as a result, there's a trade war on cognac and pork. There is a threat of job losses, millions of jobs lost in rural areas. Despite Mrs. von der Leyen's negotiations. No derogation, no safety net for our farmers and producers. A simple question for you how can the Commission claim to champion the interests of our farmers if they are being sacrificed in a trade war. Can you not recognize how powerless Europe is to defend our farmers, producers and those exporting French cognac and pork? Thank you.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Commissioner. Since you took up office, that's the only certitude that we have is that we're going to be in an uncertain situation. You've presented the cap and our uncertainty is now confirmed. You are no longer trying to bring in simplification, but you're trying to actually sell out agriculture. You're offering €2 million every year for French farmers. This is really selling them off. And you're supporting other. Sectors. You have gotten rid of the specificity of the farming community, making sure that the credit packs are now being decided by Brussels and Paris means that the farmers no longer have any foreseeable guarantees. This is a masquerade. You're not proposing any simplification, but you're actually selling off our agricultural sector. Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Madam Vice president, madam. Vice president, Commissioner, dear colleagues. The European Commission is today presenting a new pact for pollinators. Everyone supports this. It's good. Well, we're seeing a huge rate of disappearance of these useful insects. Food sovereignty and biodiversity in Europe are at stake. But let's take a closer look at everything. This reflects the usual technocratic approach from Brussels, removed from the agricultural reality, an avalanche of directives and shifting responsibility from member states to the EU. Certain forms of a certain practices have to be done away with. New approaches are proposed, and that's a good thing. But at the same time, we're importing agricultural products from countries where they use things that are banned here. How is that fair? We need to protect pollinators, but that also means protecting the future of our farmers. We shouldn't have to choose between bees and farmers. We should move away from this logic of hypocrisy. The threat for pollinators doesn't just come from our fields, also from microplastics, from the air we breathe and from a cocktail of chemical substances. The EU isn't aware of all the implications. There are a number of actors that are harming pollinators as well as human health, and the commission is very reluctant in this aspect. They'd hardly comment on major industrial areas, Air pollution or chemical pollution in general. Farmers shouldn't be the scapegoat of a globalization approach that goes unbridled. France is a good example that should be followed. You should rethink your approach when it comes to invisible pollutants. Our air quality is key. Farmers have already taken things into their hands and they're already protecting pollinators. We need research into inputs and pollution. Farmers need to have solutions. We need realistic and consistent policy measures to protect biodiversity.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Animal health crises that we face are no longer exceptional events. Avian influenza, swine fever and so on illustrate this new reality that's connected to climate change and also the intensification of trade. This is a a brutal situation that is disconnected from reality. And this is there is a tragedy for farmers. In Europe, for slightly more than ten years now, we've had one of these diseases on European territory where we should have had a consistent stock of vaccine in order to prevent outbreaks and to to anticipate the crisis that spread throughout our countries to the east, in France, Spain and Italy, those countries, it should have been it should have been understood that it was going to happen and we should have taken the necessary measures. The vaccine is also useful in reducing vinyl viral load and preventing the illness from spreading. Nonetheless, entire herds have been have been vaccinated in France or culled without proper veterinary supervision and without evaluating the animals vaccinating as an emergency measure at the large at the at the last moment and then culling the animals is unsustainable. It is a way of undermining trust among farmers and it's a waste of resources. We should have scientific prevention and proportional prevention, monitoring. Prevention, traceability and research is what we need. We shouldn't just think of farmers as simple executors of of measures. They have to be seen as true partners. Thank you very much.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “(11:04:41 – 11:07:28): Colleagues, we don't have a lack of farmers. We need to have a promotion policy, and this should be simple. Which is to sell and upgrade our agricultural products. That's important for France, in particular, where this is important in France, where farming areas and overseas areas need a clear policy, but this has been attacked and being used to put pressure on certain sectors with an ideological vision, which has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. The report recognizes that the promotion policy is an essential lever for competitiveness in our sector for visibility of European products and for market access. It also points out the requirement of financing is more than the available resources, but it's important to be aware of the actual situation of farmers. European products should be able to be promoted to defend farmers, our winemakers, our cheesemakers and everything that makes up French agriculture. A country like France shouldn't not be producing meat and other agricultural products. What we need is vital living areas producing these products. And there's pressure from unfair competition and low production costs and the trade deals where there's no reciprocity. Mr. Stonquinelli's comments go in the right direction. This is all about a balanced promotion policy and without demonization and agricultural products should be able to be promoted without any discrimination, and that's absolutely essential. But we also have coherence. We shouldn't have more efforts being demanded from our producers and keep standards and demands on them. European production should serve the sector and not weaken it. This should be about the real economy and it should not fragment our agricultural model. And we shouldn't be weakening agriculture. If there's no political courage without defending those who are producing things, it's not a courageous policy. It's actually a policy which is giving up on its real duty.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “Thank you very much. Um, and dear colleagues as well, I'd like to thank the World Organization for Animal Health for the presentation of their 2025 report. Now, beyond the figures, this actually shows a very alarming situation that our farmers are working in an alarming situation, seeing their, uh, their, their stock being decimated by a disease. And we see that this is not an abstract threat. It's actually something which is happening in our farms. That's why animal health has got to be an absolute priority for us. And that's why research on new therapies, therapeutic measures, antibiotics and antiparasitic parasitic measures should actually be a priority for us in our budget. The situation in France, I think, shows very clearly that the for example, in France, we've seen a real problem with the lumpy skin disease in our country. We've seen that farmers have got to see that there's a limited amount of vaccination available, and it's not properly distributed in mountainous areas or in more far flung areas. So what? How can we ensure that we're able to accompany the areas which are farthest away from the city centres, those who are most often forgotten about, those in the more peripheral areas? We also see that a number of professionals talk about the existence of vaccinations that have been actually developed in India, which are seen to be perhaps more effective, and where they're able to identify between the affected and the and the vaccinated animals. And how can we stop blockages of vaccinations? We see this in France that there is a blockage on avian flu vaccinations. These vaccinations are not available on the European market. So how can we support a rapid evaluation and recognition at the international level of these solutions, so that our farmers are not actually being prevented from using tools which can improve their stocks and their competitiveness. Thank you.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Mr. Tiesen, your report. Speaks of the climate risks linked to livestock farming and agricultural systems. I have some concerns with regards to the consequences for our farmers. They control traceability and emission reduction. Promoted by the FAO in its work on sustainable livestock farming are often the reference for the European Union, especially under the Green Deal and the farm to fork strategy. Even when they are presented as simply recommendations, technical recommendations, these guidelines, concretely for the farmers, lead to greater obligations to for follow up and environmental compliance. The risk is clear that it's through the Green Deal. It's becoming more difficult for our farmers, whereas others don't labor under the same types of rules. And this creates unfair competitiveness and leads to the imports that don't respect our standards and and undermines our food sovereignty. There are about 8 billion people across the world and maybe 10 billion by 2050. And we need more agricultural production and livestock farming, not less. And because of all these rules and unachievable objectives, the European Union runs the risk of reducing our production capacity and increase our dependence on imports. So my question is simple how will the FAA guarantee that reduction of, uh, of greenhouse gas emissions can be shared across the world without us simply being the ones disconnected from the realities on the ground. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “It ensures a livelihood for millions of families and contributes to food security. We share many of the points of your report. We must ensure that livestock producers have a decent income. We must hold up different models in the member states. When there is a danger to harmonize and federalize everything, we must also have reciprocal clauses in free trade agreements, and we must ensure that dealing with animal diseases is a priority. So we support all of those things. But we're tabling amendments to bring clarity and a constructive message. There are three priorities for us one. Stability. We must ensure that livestock farmers have a stable legislative framework instead of having more and more rules, which is suffocating them. Second, protection. We must maintain the cap in real terms. Given that there is so much inflation, we must also ensure that there are miracle mirror clauses and banks and insurers must take responsibility for farmer farmers. Third. Recognition and support. We must recognise that there is a great deal of suicide in farming communities, which we must bring a halt to, and then we must look at the fact that the W.H.O. has recognized the importance of animal proteins. So we want the following. We want a stock taking of the money that is given to NGOs. Ngos are must not denigrate are livestock farmers. Second issue is we must point out that there's a lack of, um, veterinarians in rural areas. There's a danger of the wolf and there's a danger of lab grown meat. Third, we must raise the profile of farmers and give them prospects for the future.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much. Madam chair, colleagues, I'd like to start by speaking on behalf of my delegation and say that we are very grateful. And I'd like to, um, praise my colleague who's not able to be here today for all of her work with, uh, the with livestock breeders and all the crisis that they've been suffering with their herds. We this has happened with, uh, lumpy skin disease. This has been classed as a category A in Europe. And unfortunately, we've seen, uh, a doctrine of systematic culling, and we can no longer defend this. We need a proper policy. Since 2016, the European Food Safety Authority has recommended strategic vaccination programme together with culling. Some countries have shown how to do this and they've eradicated the disease through vaccination without culling their animals. But what's happened today is as follows. We have innovative vaccines which can be used, and where exceptional authorisations can be provided under current regulations. But what we are seeing now is a betrayal of proportionality and respect for living beings. We should abandon systematic culling and focus on a proportionate, scientific based approach. Thank you.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “(17:07:53 – 17:09:16): Disappointment, insufficiency, no specific help. This is the reaction of farmers to this proposal from the commission. Unfortunately, these words fully sum up the situation. Our farmers are faced with an emergency. They're expecting strong measures to face the explosion in the cost of fertilizers and market instability, and what they've had put to them is a totally unambitious plan. So wake up time. In April 2026, nitrogen fertilizer costs were 60% above the average for 2024. That's unacceptable for farmers. The European Commission says they want to support our farmers, but in actual fact, they're still supporting rigid bureaucracy, still refusing to question mechanisms such as CBAM or customs duties. Farmers are calling for lasting amendments, not just temporary suspensions. And in particular, we need to ensure our independence in fertilizer production in Europe. Perfectly feasible because we could support the fertilizer industry economically. Farmers cannot be the only ones to absorb the cost of the international crisis, unfair competition, and the consequence of risky political choices. We need to change policy now and listen to the people who feed us.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Mr.. Colleagues. Colleagues. Under the pretext of protecting the environment, Brussels once again is building a technical labyrinth. And we find ourselves, um, looking at the portfolios of different agencies. But all of this is punitive. All substances will be viewed with suspicion. The European Food Agency has just banned 17 copper based fungicides, which are used in organic farming. And because there's no longer complies with your delusions. And if we are to vote in favour of this text, we will see once again more federalism, a system which in the end protects no one. The commission is destroying our supply chains. It is making life difficult for our farmers. And now coming to strip us of our scientific sovereignty. This is disproportionate. Every time that you try to ban everything, you stop us producing.”
  EU policy on pesticides