Sebastian EVERDING

Policy topics Sebastian EVERDING is active on

What Sebastian EVERDING has said (69)

• 2026-03-11 “E-001019/2026 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The revised Regulation on Detergents and Surfactants 1 , which will enter into force on 23 September 2029, has introduced a general prohibition on the placing on the market of detergents and surfactants that have been subject to animal testing to meet the requirements of the regulation. At the same time, ingredients of cleaning products are subject to the provisions under the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 2 or the Biocidal Product Regulation 3 , which might include animal testing if necessary for assessing risks to human health or the environment. Both regulations permit testing on vertebrates only as a last resort. REACH registrants are bound by the principle of last resort when submitting data to the European Chemicals Agency, which is taking this principle into account when evaluating testing proposals or the compliance of dossiers. The principle of last resort aligns these regulations with Directive 2010/63/EU 4 , which requires that animal testing be replaced, reduced, or refined, if scientifically possible. The Commission roadmap towards phasing out animal testing for chemical safety assessments, planned to be published in the second quarter of 2026, will outline the steps necessary to reach the goal of phasing out animal testing for chemical safety assessments under all relevant pieces of legislation. Legislative changes, if necessary to reach the goal, will be introduced in line with the rules of the relevant pieces of legislation. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202600405. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02006R1907-20251023. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02012R0528-20240611. 4 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02010L0063-20190626.”
  Chemicals regulation · Use of animal testing
• 2026-03-03 “E-000879/2026 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Food Information to Consumers Regulation 1 sets out the principles and requirements governing food information, ensuring consumers can make informed choices. Voluntary information, like ‘vegan’ or ‘vegetarian’, must be accurate, clear, scientifically based where appropriate, and not misleading as to the food’s nature, identity, properties, or composition. Allergens 2 (e.g. milk) must be declared and emphasised in the ingredients list, when they are intentionally present in the finished food, even in an altered form. Food business operators bear the primary responsibility for compliance with applicable rules, including preventing cross-contamination by allergens via robust food safety practices 3 . Unintentional and possible presence of allergens (e.g. due to cross-contamination) may be indicated voluntarily, in accordance with the above rules on voluntary information. Under the General Food Law 4 , unsafe food, including that lacking proper consumer information on the label, must not be placed on the market. Member States must enforce food law, monitor and verify that the relevant requirements are fulfilled by food business operators at all stages of production, processing and distribution. While the Regulation mandates an implementing act on voluntary ‘vegan’/‘vegetarian’ information, no legal deadline has been set, and the Commission has currently prioritised pursuing work to harmonise rules on the provision of information on the unintentional and possible allergen presence. This prioritisation is aligned with the recommendations in the recent report of the European Court of Auditors 5 . 1 OJ L 304 22.11.2011, p. 18. 2 Listed in Annex II to the Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011. 3 Commission Notice on the implementation of food safety management systems covering Good Hygiene Practices and procedures based on the HACCP principles, including the facilitation/flexibility of the implementation in certain food businesses (2022/C 355/01). 4 OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1. 5 Special report 23/2024: Food labelling in the EU – Consumers can get lost in the maze of labels. Accessible at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/publications/SR-2024-23.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level · Nutrition
• 2026-02-04 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 19.5.2026 Written question Since 21 January 2026, over 40 000 comments relating to the topic mentioned were received on the Instagram channel of the Commission’s Representation in Germany under posts across all EU topics. In most cases, users only used hashtags without any additional text or questions. They also often posted similar or similarly sounding hashtags multiple times in a row under posts on any topic. The Commission welcomes open debate and participation on its social media channels. In engaging on those channels, some basic rules need to be respected. With the objective of allowing for a genuine dialogue with users wanting to engage in a purposeful conversation, the Representation’s social media team filtered out the repetitive comments that only used hashtags. Some accounts engaging in the most repetitive posting of only hashtags were temporarily blocked and later unblocked. All this is in line with the Commission’s moderation policy [1] , which ensures open and engaging debate on its social media channels, while guaranteeing mutual respect. [1] https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved/social-media-connect-european-commission_en.”
  EU engagement with civil society · Disinformation & online freedoms · Transparency requirements of EU institutions
• 2026-01-21 “Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission 16.4.2026 Written question The Commission is aware of the reports referred to by the Honourable Member. In the context of Serbia’s EU accession negotiations, Serbia is expected to align with the EU acquis for animal welfare and comply with the EU animal welfare standards. As noted in the 2025 Enlargement Package [1] , the alignment with the EU acquis on animal welfare is work in progress. For example, Serbia still needs to adopt framework legislation, including on animal welfare, which is a prerequisite for opening Chapter 12 on Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, as well as legislation related to Chapter 27 to ensure full alignment with Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes [2] . In this context, Serbia is preparing to adopt new laws on animal welfare and animal health. Alignment with the EU acquis will be necessary for accession negotiations and the achievement of the relevant step [3] in Serbia’s Reform Agenda under the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans [4] . The Commission will continue to closely follow developments in Serbia, including as regards animal welfare. [1] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6e68ce26-b95b-48e1-921a-c60c12da8f00_en?filename=serbia-report-2025.pdf . [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/63/oj/eng . [3] https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/510d7159-e485-48cf-b49e-6b52164b74c3_en?filename=7.1.%20ANNEX%20VII%20-%20Reform%20Agenda%20Serbia%20-%20annex%201.pdf . [4] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1449/oj/eng .”
  EU enlargement · EU-Serbia relations
• 2025-11-19 “E-004621/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/361 1 (hereafter ‘the Regulation’), is in the process of being amended after extensive discussion in the relevant expert group. The Regulation will continue to allow emergency vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), either as suppressive vaccination or as protective vaccination, under the conditions defined in the Regulation. The envisaged deletion of the reference to the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2 will not remove the possibility to ‘vaccinate to live’, and it had never been a way to derogate from the requirements of the Regulation or provide for alternative recovery options. Its deletion ensures that the applicable conditions derive directly from EU legislation, which must operate independently of external standards, that in addition have been modified since the Regulation was first adopted. When emergency protective vaccination is applied for FMD, the Regulation already provides that movement restrictions in the vaccination zone remain in place for at least three months after the killing or slaughter of the last vaccinated animals. The use of vaccination, and the duration and territorial scope of the vaccination zone is decided by individual Member States. The Commission takes into account scientific and technical input from Member States, including from the German authorities. The Commission also follows developments in FMD vaccines, including in new generation products. 1 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, pp. 1–42; ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/361/oj. 2 https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/.”
  GMOs
• 2025-11-12 “E-004482/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission EU legislation 1 does not foresee labelling of health risks stemming from a high consumption of processed meat. Horizon Europe 2 supports research on health impact of additives in food and beverage 3 . The Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism started working on ultra-processed foods 4 . The Commission also provides funding opportunities to address research and innovation on the causes and prevention of cancer under the EU Cancer Mission 5 . A carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substance may only be used in cosmetic products if it has been granted a derogation from the general ban after having been assessed by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety and found safe for use in cosmetic products. For CMR category 1 substances, additional derogation criteria must be fulfilled. The derogation applies exclusively to the particular use and only up to very low concentrations in a final cosmetic product. Moreover, the Cosmetic Products Regulation 6 requires cosmetic products containing CMR substances to carry specific precautionary statements. 1 In particular ANNEX III to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-andopen-calls/horizon-europe_en. 3 ADDITIVES, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864219; SugarBiomarker, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101158398. and the Commission’s reply to E-004753/2025 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/-ASW_EN.html. 4 As called for in the Vision for Agriculture and Food, the Strategy for European Life Sciences and the EU cardiovascular health plan. 5 For example, see call topics HORIZON-MISS-2021-CANCER-02-03: https://ec.europa.eu/info/fundingtenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/HORIZON-MISS-2021-CANCER-0203?keywords=cancer&isExactMatch=true&status=31094503&frameworkProgramme=43108390&order=DESC &pageNumber=1&pageSize=50&sortBy=relevance , HORIZON-MISS-2025-02-CANCER-02: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/HORIZONMISS-2025-02-CANCER02?keywords=cancer&isExactMatch=true&status=31094503&frameworkProgramme=43108390&order=DESC &pageNumber=1&pageSize=50&sortBy=relevance. 6 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1223/oj.”
  Nutrition · EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• 2025-10-21 “E-004134/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The primary responsibility of enforcing the EU animal welfare legislation lies with the Member States. The Commission remains always ready to support the Member States in this endeavour and to ensure a proper implementation of the rules in the Honourable Member’s question, including the provisions of Council Directive 98/58/EC 1 . 2. The Commission regularly reminds the Member States of their obligations as regards the EU animal welfare legislation. For instance, in 2024 all Member States were asked to submit detailed information on the actions they have taken to implement Point 21 of Council Directive 98/58/EC. A dedicated discussion on the breeding of broilers, in relation to Point 21, took place at the EU Animal Welfare Working Group meeting on 16 September 2024. The matter is currently being followed up by the Commission. 3. No policy decision has yet been taken as regards the scope and content of the Commission’s upcoming legislative proposal to modernise the EU legislation for on-farm animal welfare. 1 Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, pp. 23–27 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1998/58/oj.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-09-26 “E-003760/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission services discussed the action plan for the conservation of the brown bear in Romania with the Romanian authorities in July 2025. EU funding is used to implement some of the actions of the action plan, including electric fences, video cameras, bear relocation cages and tranquilising equipment. Romania is planning a follow-up project that would cover purchasing ‘smart bins’ in areas with large bear populations and completing the works on a facility for temporarily keeping bears in Timișu de Jos in the Carpathians. The genetic monitoring of Romania’s bear population is still ongoing and the final results, along with the methodology of the monitoring, will only be published by the end of 2025. Romania is home to a stable brown bear population which is in a favourable conservation status and represents around 40% of Europe’s total. The brown bear is a strictly protected species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive 1 . Thus, the killing of bear specimens is prohibited under Article 12 of the Directive. However, Member States may derogate from the provisions of this Article for reasons such as public health and safety, provided that the conditions set in Article 16 are fulfilled. The national authorities, including judicial ones, are primarily responsible for the correct implementation of derogations. 1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Large Carnivores
• 2025-09-05 “E-003434/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission The Commission's ‘Roadmap Towards Phasing Out Animal Testing for Chemical Safety Assessments’ 1 serves as a guiding plan for accelerating the path towards replacing, reducing and refining animal testing for the safety assessments of chemicals in all sectors. For medicinal products, this approach is already included in the pharmaceutical reform 2 . The reform requires that marketing authorisation applicants do not carry out animal tests, if scientifically satisfactory non-animal testing methods are available. The European Research Area (ERA) action will coordinate EU efforts to accelerate non-animal methods in biomedical research and regulatory testing of medicinal products and medical devices. It will partly synergize with the roadmap, when it comes to safety testing of chemical medical products. The reform also foresees the cooperation between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other agencies as regards scientific development and methodologies for assessment of relevant substances, including on replacing, reducing or refining animal testing. The EMA through its working party on the use of animals in the regulatory testing of medicines 3 has already initiated the work, taking into account the specificities of the assessment of medicinal products. The roadmap and the ERA action will reflect this cooperation and work that has already been initiated will continue through their implementation. The recommendations coming forward from the Roadmap and the ERA action should accelerate the availability of non-animal methods which the competent authorities for pharmaceuticals can then evaluate as to their suitability within the regulatory framework. 1 Roadmap towards phasing out animal testing: https://single-marketeconomy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/chemicals/reach/roadmap-towards-phasing-out-animal-testing_en. 2 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human use and establishing rules governing the European Medicines Agency, amending Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, COM/2023/193 final. 3 3Rs Working Party https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/committees/working-parties-other-groups/chmp/3rsworking-party.”
  Medical devices · Pharmaceuticals regulation in EU
• 2025-09-03 “E-003399/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission Rodenticides are primarily regulated under Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 1 on biocidal products (the BPR). However, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 2 applies when rodenticides are used to protect crops. The BPR provides for a stringent procedure for authorisation of rodenticides in the EU, building on a strict risk assessment and an evaluation of possible alternatives. The marketing and use of rodenticides in the EU is subject to strict risk mitigation measures, including in some cases the restriction to use only by trained professionals. Approvals of active substances and authorisations of products can be further restricted or even withdrawn in case there are indications of secondary poisoning of wildlife. Most active substances used in rodenticides are currently candidates for substitution, meaning they can only be authorised by Member States when they are essential to prevent or control a danger to human health, animal health or the environment or not approving the substance would have a disproportionate negative impact on society. The availability of alternatives is a key consideration before Member States can grant product authorisations. Therefore, the Commission is not planning additional initiatives in this regard. Enforcement of the BPR is in the remit of Member States, including public campaigns for raising awareness on the impact of rodenticides in wildlife. The Commission is committed to supporting research to better understand the causes of the rapid decline of species such as hedgehogs and to explore actionable solutions. This is proposed to be addressed in the upcoming Horizon Europe work programme (2026-2027). 1 Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, pp. 1–123. 2 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, pp. 1–50.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-08-28 “E-003331/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Virkkunen on behalf of the European Commission Protection and empowerment of children online is a key priority for the Commission. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) 1 , Digital Services Act (DSA) 2 and Better Internet for Kids+ strategy (BIK+) 3 are at the core of the EU toolbox for a safer internet. Under the DSA the Commission has opened proceedings against TikTok and Meta as well as four adult content platforms. The DSA guidelines on protection of minors 4 set recommendations to help online platforms ensure a high level of privacy, safety and security of minors, including on parental control tools which should contribute to protecting minors and be user-friendly, interoperable and age appropriate. In July, the Commission released a blueprint for an EU age verification solution 5 . Based on the technical specifications of the EU Digital Identity Wallets 6 , this privacy-preserving solution includes an app allowing users to prove they are over 18 to access adult services. Several Member States and platforms are piloting the solution. Citizens are also involved in the testing. When published in app stores and implemented by online platforms, it would be difficult for children to circumvent it. The Commission continues to implement the EU Strategy to combat child sexual abuse 7 online and offline, both through non-legislative and legislative initiatives. In addition, the Commission is preparing an Action Plan against Cyberbullying 8 , an inquiry on the impacts of social media on health, the evaluation of the AVMSD and will by 2027 present an Action Plan on the Protection of Children Against Crime 9 . . The President of the Commission stressed in the State of the Union address the need to support parents and consider potential social media restrictions for minors. A panel of experts will be set to advise the President by the end of the year on the best approach for Europe. 1 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/audiovisual-and-media-services. 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-servicesact_en. 3 https://better-internet-for-kids.europa.eu/en/news/new-better-internet-kids-strategy-out-introducing-bik. 4 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-publishes-guidelines-protection-minors. 5 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-makes-available-age-verification-blueprint. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-buildingblocks/sites/display/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home. 7 COM/2020/607 final. 8 Action plan against cyberbullying - https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-yoursay/initiatives/14791-Action-plan-against-cyberbullying_en. 9 As announced in the ProtectEU - Internal Security Strategy COM/2025/148 final.”
  Privacy & detection of online child abuse · Safety features & content control for child protection online
• 2025-06-10 “E-002317/2025 Answer given by Executive Vice-President Séjourné on behalf of the European Commission The Commission aims to maintain high standards of protection for consumers and the environment while making it easier for businesses to operate, innovate, and grow. The Commission acknowledges the importance of paper-based communication for consumer protection and user safety. This is why the proposal regarding digitalisation and common specifications 1 entails that safety information will continue to be provided on paper or marked on the product for consumers, while instructions accompanying products may be provided in electronic form and, upon request, in paper as well. Digital information can be helpful for consumers, as it allows them to easily access important details without needing to search for paper manuals. The 2022 evaluation of the New Legislative Framework 2 highlighted that the burden of providing hard-copy instructions to accompany the product was rated high or very high. At the same time, in 2024, 94% of EU households had access to the internet 3 . The Commission’s proposal highlights the need for flexibility. The initiative allows to reduce administrative burden, supports the digital transition and brings cost-savings and environmental benefits while protecting consumers. 1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52025PC0503. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=SWD(2022)364&lang=en. 3 Eurostat (online data code: isoc_ci_in_h): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=Digital_economy_and_society_statistics_-_households_and_individuals.”
  EU policy on accessibility of digital infrastructure · Means of payment (cash vs digital) · Digitalization of public governance & administration
• 2025-05-21 “E-002041/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In response to the Honourable Member’s questions 1 and 3, in March 2024, the Commission sent a mandate to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to request a scientific opinion on the welfare of Equidae. This opinion will cover horse welfare in the context of pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG)/ equine chorionic gonadotropin (eCG) production and is expected to be delivered in 2026. Based on the EFSA opinion and recommendations, appropriate follow-up on the matter will be considered by the Commission. As regards question 2, it is noted that the Good Manufacturing Practice for medicinal products applicable in the Union is based on international standards and sets requirements of general nature. It follows that it is not possible to fix specific requirements for individual substances or components, such as PMSG, that may be used in the manufacture of medicinal products.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2025-05-15 “E-001959/2025 Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Kallas on behalf of the European Commission Under Article 355(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, EU law does not apply to the Faroe Islands. The EU cannot directly propose legislation and in that way intervene in the grindadráp. Nonetheless, the EU continues to raise related concerns with Danish and Faroese authorities in the context of consultation meetings under the Memorandum of Understanding on enhanced cooperation between the European Union and the Government of the Faroe Islands 1 . The Commission is committed to ensuring transparency and fairness in the market for fishery and aquaculture products; these objectives are reflected in the ongoing evaluation of the Common Fisheries Policy 2 and Common Market Organisation (CMO) 3 Regulations. As regards consumer information, the aim is, among others, to assess whether the existing labelling rules under the CMO provide consumers with adequate information for their purchasing decisions or whether additional requirements are needed. While the outcome of the evaluation of the CMO Regulation cannot be prejudged, the Commission remains committed to ensuring that the labelling rules are effective and fit for purpose. 1 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024/20240321%20Signed%20MoU.pdf. 2 https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-opens-public-consultation-common-fisheriespolicy-regulation-2025-0127_en#:~:text=Building%20on%20the%20call%20for%20evidence%2C%20which%20opened,is%20meeting% 20its%20objectives%20and%20addressing. 3 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj/eng.”
  EU-Norway relations
• 2025-04-27 “E-001682/2025 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission The welfare and management of stray dogs are not regulated at EU level. The Commission provides financial support to the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) for the implementation of the platform on animal welfare for Europe 1 and its fourth action plan (2024-2026), which aims to improve animal welfare, through priority topics, including stray dog population control. Türkiye, as a member of WOAH and of the platform, participates in training and capacity-building activities related to dog population management, all of which are supported by the Commission. The goal of the platform is to help member countries progressively comply with WOAH standards on animal welfare. The Commission also supports WOAH’s work to adopt and revise the existing standards, such as those related to dog population management. As a WOAH member, Türkiye should implement international animal welfare standards, including those on stray dog population management 2 . 1 https://rr-europe.woah.org/en/Projects/animal-welfare-platform-europe/. 2 i.e. chapter 7.7: Dog population management of WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code.”
  EU-Turkey relations
• 2025-04-17 “E-001570/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The provisions under Article 15 and Annex VI of the Habitats Directive 1 establish certain restrictions for the means of capture and killing of species protected by the Directive. The Commission does not have evidence that burrow hunting with dogs is used to hunt species protected by the Habitats Directive nor is it currently aware of any negative impact of this practice on the conservation status of the populations of the species listed in Annex IV and V of the Directive. 1 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.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2025-04-13 “E-001516/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. The Commission is consistently working to identify tools that can help farmers transit to rearing undocked pigs. In parallel, the Commission is engaging in discussions with Member States to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices to rear undocked pigs. The Commission has established an animal welfare working group under the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed - Section on Animal Health and Welfare, which met in September 2024 and in May 2025, with the topic of tail docking on the agenda of both meetings 1 . 2. The results of the assessment of each Member State’s action plan will be addressed to their respective competent authorities. 3. The Commission has a range of options as regards its enforcement efforts and has certain discretion in deciding on launching infringement procedures against Member States. In the case of tail docking, enforcement options are currently being examined in the context of the new Commission mandate. 1 https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-expert-group_en.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2025-03-11 “E-001038/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission Albania and North Macedonia, as EU candidate countries, and Kosovo* 1 , as a potential candidate, are all expected to gradually align with the EU environmental acquis, including EU nature protection legislation such as the Birds 2 and Habitats 3 Directives. Both Albania and North Macedonia are also Contracting Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 4 and must comply with its requirements, particularly the strict protection provisions benefiting the Balkan Lynx, since the species is listed in its Appendix II. The Commission closely monitors the efforts of enlargement countries and regularly discusses the proper alignment with the EU nature protection acquis with national authorities. The Commission further provides guidance and recommendations to ensure a swift and efficient alignment, among others by means of the annual enlargement reports. In the nature protection section of these reports, the Commission repeatedly stresses that it remains essential for the countries to advance quickly with the identification and predesignation of sites that will be covered by the Natura 2000 network. The Commission will continue to monitor and push for sufficient implementation and enforcement capacities at central level in all candidate countries and potential candidates. 1 *This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 2 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. 3 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. 4 Bern Convention: https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU · Large Carnivores
• 2025-03-04 “E-000897/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 1 , the use of a leghold trap, defined as a device designed to restrain or capture an animal by means of jaws which close tightly upon one or more of the animal's limbs, thereby preventing withdrawal of the limb or limbs from the traps, is prohibited in the EU. Additionally, Annex VI to Council Directive 92/43/EEC 2 lists the means of capture and killing prohibited under Article 15 of the Directive, which include traps which are nonselective according to their principle or their conditions of use. If a trap is designed to kill only certain animal species, it can be considered as selective according to its principle of use. However, its conditions of use must ensure selectivity, i.e. it must be set in a manner which does not allow non-target species to be trapped. The Commission has sent a letter to the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the EU on 14 April 2025 to remind them of their obligation to implement and enforce these legal requirements. The Commission will also encourage Member States to take measures to limit the possibility of purchasing such traps, for example through controls in specialised shops, and to empower forest guards to confiscate and destroy any illegal traps. This is without prejudice to any infringement action to be taken by the Commission in case of noncompliance with the Regulation and to remedies in national law, including bringing the matter to the competent national authorities and/or before national courts, where appropriate. 1 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91 of 4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards, OJ L 308, 9.11.1991, p. 1. 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• 2025-01-13 “E-000102/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The decision of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention 1 on the protection status of the wolf will come into effect on 7 March 2025 after the 3-month objection period elapses, at which point it will be possible for the EU to reflect that change at EU level. In the EU, this change would require the wolf to be moved from Annex IV (strict protection) to Annex V (protection) of the Habitats Directive 2 . The Commission will put forward a legislative proposal amending the protection status of the wolf while ensuring that the integrity and ambition of the Directive are maintained. A change of the protection status of the wolf in the Habitats Directive 3 would not remove the obligation for Member States to reach or maintain good conservation status of wolf populations. It will provide additional flexibility to the Member States that need it, without obliging other Member States, to change the protection status of the wolf at national level. 1 https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention/institutions 2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 3 i.e. moving the species to Annex V of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50.”
  Large Carnivores
• 2024-12-23 “E-003083/2024 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission According to EU’s animal health legislation, consignments of animals which are refused entry by a third country of destination are not allowed to re-enter the EU, if the third country is not authorised to export live animals to the EU due to its animal disease situation. This has led the concerned consignment of animals to be retained between the two borders and the animals to be exposed to negative animal welfare consequences. Following the two incidents in the autumn of 2024, the Commission reminded Member States authorities of their obligations in ensuring compliance with the animal health import requirements of countries of destination. While the current transport legislation 1 and the new Commission proposal on the protection of animals during transport 2 do not foresee a prohibition of export of live animals to non-EU countries, the competent authorities of Member States shall ensure that that the contingency plans of the transporters address such situations, where they are known to represent a risk, and shall not approve journeys for exports of live animals if the planning of the journey by the operator fails to indicate that EU rules on protection of animals can be complied until they reach the place of destination in the non-EU country. In addition, the Commission is currently working closely with the Member States and the Turkish authorities with the objective of establishing a procedure to limit the risk of reoccurrence of such incidents in the future. 1 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1. 2 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, COM/2023/770 final.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• 2024-12-13 “E-002927/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. Invasive alien species (IAS) of Union concern are subject to the restrictions mentioned in Article 7 of the IAS Regulation 1 . This includes Article 7(h), releasing into the environment. Releasing an IAS after containment is not permissible. 2. To support the implementation of IAS Regulation, the Commission has published a manual on humane treatment of vertebrate IAS 2 helping competent authorities in making management choices, including an assessment of animal welfare implications. Competent authorities can use this manual but are held nevertheless to the requirements of the legislation itself which, in its Article 1, states that the Regulation sets out rules to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse impact on biodiversity of the introduction and spread within the Union, both intentional and unintentional, of invasive alien species. 3. The EU programme for the environment and climate action (LIFE) 3 allows funding for developing, testing and implementing innovative humane management methods. 1 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species, OJ L 317, 4.11.2014, p. 35– 55. 2 https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin/Document/Final-deliverableshumane/Manual_management_vertebrate_IAS_incl_welfare_medres.pdf 3 https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/life_en”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2024-12-12 “E-002918/2024 Answer given by Ms Kos on behalf of the European Commission The Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the construction of the Vlora Airport in the Vjosa-Narta Protected Area in its annual reports on Albania 1 . As a candidate country, Albania is required to align its legislation with the EU environmental acquis and progressively adopt EU environmental standards. This includes ensuring that a scientifically sound Environmental Impact Assessment is conducted before the approval of any project with potential environmental impacts. The Commission will continue to follow developments in this area closely and to address these matters with the Albanian authorities in the context of the EU-Albania Stabilisation and Association Agreement 2 and of the EU accession negotiation process, including by continuing to raise the issue of the implementation of the Bern Convention’s recommendation 3 . 1 SWD(2020) 354 final, SWD(2021) 289 final, SWD(2022) 332 final, SWD (2023) 690 final and SWD (2024) 690 final. 2 Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other part – Protocols – Declarations, OJ L 107, 28.4.2009, p. 166– 502. 3 https://rm.coe.int/0900001680ac7963 and https://rm.coe.int/misc-e-44-standing-committee-finaldraft/1680b2bbbb, p. 13.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-12-11 “E-002875/2024 Answer given by Mr Serafin on behalf of the European Commission The Commission does not collect systematic data on the religious affiliations of the staff of the Commission and its agencies. In 2021 it did conduct a voluntary and anonymous diversity and inclusion survey 1 including a question on religious affiliation. No respondent indicated an affiliation to the Church of Scientology. The Commission has no evidence of potential activities of Scientology within the EU institutions. The official recognition of religious groups is a national competence. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 17 (1), the Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States. 1 https://commission.europa.eu/about/service-standards-and-principles/modernising-europeancommission/diversity-and-inclusion_en#factsheet-on-diversity-inclusion-and-respect-at-the-workplace-survey”
  Transparency requirements for interest groups · EU policy on integration and ethnic, racial and religious discrimination
• 2024-12-02 “E-002717/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. Member States are bound by the obligation to achieve and maintain a favourable conservation status for all protected species, irrespective of their listing under Annex IV or V of the Habitats Directive 1 . Furthermore, for species listed under Annex V, if the surveillance of the species reveals it is necessary, Member States may also implement temporary or local prohibition of hunting, regulation of the periods and methods of hunting, or the establishment of a system of licences or of quotas. In addition to strengthening the financing and implementation of prevention measures to ensure coexistence, for wide-ranging species as the wolf, it is essential for Member States also to enhance coordination on monitoring, conservation and management of cross-border wolf populations, including with non-EU countries. 2. The Commission does not intend to propose amendments to the international or EU legal protection status of species other than the wolf. 3. The in-depth analysis study of December 2023 contains the most up-to-date scientific data on the wolf 2 . This includes the data published by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. The Commission proposal to amend the species’ protection status under the Bern Convention 3 carefully considered all available data against the criteria contained in Recommendation No. 56 (1997) 4 . The Commission consistently promotes a science-based approach in its policy on coexistence with large carnivores. 1 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. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/env/items/813295/en 3 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-council-decision-position-be-taken-eu-bernconvention_en 4 Recommendation No. 56 (1997) concerning guidelines to be taken into account while making proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II of the Convention and while adopting amendments, adopted by the Standing Committee on 5 December 1997: https://rm.coe.int/168074680c”
  Large Carnivores
• 2024-11-14 “E-002540/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission closely follows the international developments concerning the definition of and possible responses to what is called ecocide in relevant debates. Regarding the recognition of ecocide as an international crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, it is to be noted that the EU is not a party to the Rome Statute and any amendment thereto would be a matter for the Member States as States Parties to the Rome Statute. Through the adoption of the new Environmental Crime Directive (ECD) 1 , the EU has shown a growing attention to the issue of environmental crimes and an increasing understanding that a strong harmonised legal framework of criminal offences in this field is needed for effectively combatting them. This new Directive addresses the need to tackle the most severe and devastating environmental crimes effectively. It includes a comprehensive and up-to-date list of offences, which will need to be established as criminal offences in all Member States. It also requires Member States to ensure that these offences are considered qualified offences if they cause destruction of or particularly serious damage to the environment. These qualified offences will need to be punished with more severe penalties. As indicated in Recital 21 ECD, those qualified offences can encompass conduct comparable to ‘ecocide’, which is already covered by the law of certain Member States and which is being discussed at international fora. 1 Directive (EU) 2024/1203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC, OJ L, 2024/1203, 30.4.2024.”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-11-08 “E-002477/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the CEE Bankwatch Network report mentioned by the Honourable Members. 1. All the five countries concerned by the report have the status of EU candidate or potential candidate and are therefore expected to gradually align with the EU environmental acquis, including in the sectors of air quality and industrial pollution control. Considering that EU legislation is not binding for the five countries before their accession to the EU, infringement procedures cannot be initiated. However, their compliance with the relevant EU acquis is evaluated as part of their progress assessment. The Commission attaches great importance to environmental issues in the context of the accession negotiations and will continue to raise 1 with the authorities of the five concerned countries the proper alignment with EU air quality and industrial pollution control acquis, including in the framework of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements 2 concluded between the EU and those countries. 2. The Western Balkan countries are also Contracting Parties of the Energy Community Treaty 3 and bound by its rules, including as regards emissions and decarbonisation. The Energy Community Secretariat assists these countries in the implementation of these rules. Non-compliance is followed up by means of dispute settlement procedures which are usually launched by the Energy Community Secretariat. The region is also bound by the 2030 Climate and Energy targets 4 , and the obligation to adopt and update National Energy and Climate Plans 5 , using the same template as EU Member States, setting out their actions to reach the targets, including gradual phasing out of coal from electricity production. 1 For example, issues of compliance with the EU air quality and industrial pollution control acquis were raised in the Commission’s 2024 Enlargement Reports for Bosnia and Herzegovina (p. 84): https://neighbourhoodenlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/451db011-6779-40ea-b34ba0eeda451746_en?filename=Bosnia%20and%20Herzegovina%20Report%202024.pdf Kosovo (p.82-83): https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c790738e-4cf6-4a43a8a9-43c1b6f01e10_en?filename=Kosovo%20Report%202024.pdf Montenegro (p. 83): https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a41cf419-5473-4659a3f3-af4bc8ed243b_en?filename=Montenegro%20Report%202024.pdf North Macedonia (p.82): https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/5f0c9185-ce4646fc-bf44-82318ab47e88_en?filename=North%20Macedonia%20Report%202024.pdf 2 https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/enlargement-policy/glossary_en 3 https://www.energy-community.org/legal/treaty.html 4 https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2030-climate-targets_en 5 https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/implementation-eu-countries/energy-andclimate-governance-and-reporting/national-energy-and-climate-plans_en”
  Energy (green transition)
• 2024-10-23 “E-002233/2024 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission 1. The new Nature Restoration Regulation 1 , and in particular the timeline and the provisions laid down therein for restoring landscape elements in agricultural areas, and for improving urban ecosystems, entails a significant potential for restoring habitats and populations of the European hedgehog. 2. It is not for the Commission but for the scientific community to propose changes to the conservation status of a species. A first European Red list of Mammals was published in 2007 2 . An update of this Red list is currently being finalised in the frame of a service contract with the Commission and will be published in early 2025. This Red list will also provide a scientific update of the status of all native European hedgehog species. 3. Whereas it is for the competent national authorities to ensure that protected species are not kept as pets, available information indicates that domesticated hedgehogs commonly available in the pet-trade in general belong to other African and Asian hedgehog species not legally protected by either the Bern Convention 3 or the Habitats Directive 4 , namely the African pygmy hedgehog, the Long-eared hedgehog and the Indian long-eared hedgehog. Nevertheless, judging by the ecological characteristics of these species, negative biodiversity impacts, including on native European hedgehog species, cannot be excluded if these species were to become established in the wild in the EU. The Commission recently launched a ‘Study on the need for, added value of, and feasibility of introducing a ‘positive list of pets’ across the EU’ 5 , whereby, if a positive list were to be established, only pets on that list would be allowed for import. The results of that study are expected to become available by June 2025. 1 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, OJ L, 2024/1991, 29.7.2024. 2 https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9047 3 https://www.coe.int/en/web/bern-convention 4 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7–50. 5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/tender-details/14864”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• 2024-10-15 “E-002079/2024 Answer given by Ms Kyriakides on behalf of the European Commission The Commission President-elect announced in the Political Guidelines that the new Commission will present a Vision for Agriculture and Food in its first 100 days 1 . This will look at how to ensure the long-term competitiveness and sustainability of the EU farming and food sector within the boundaries of the planet. The Vision will build on the report of the Strategic Dialogue on the future of agriculture in the EU 2 . The Strategic dialogue recommended that keeping a holistic approach is increasingly needed to preserve the long-term competitiveness and sustainability of the EU food system. The dialogue called for a new approach to deliver on sustainability with a benchmarking system based on common objectives, principles and criteria 3 . 1 Page 21 https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf 2 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/agriculture-andgreen-deal/strategic-dialogue-future-eu-agriculture_en 3 Page 11.”
  GMOs
• “Thank you very much. If the main objective of Cbam is to reduce CO2 emissions, then why doesn't this apply to food and agricultural production? We just have to make sure that our citizens consume more food than steel. So the import of foodstuffs from third countries with the inherent dangers there, because the the hygiene standards and food standards are much lower. There are things we're running and animal standards outside the EU are worse as well. They're not high enough in the EU either, as it happens. The environmental issues play a role. The the taxes are meant to prevent a shift here in carbon leakage. But at the same time we're looking at 13 to 21% increase in agricultural emissions. And that's adding to global heating. We can't introduce this tax to help the environment when the biggest climate killers left untouched. We know that it's still cheaper to get cheap products from outside the EU. Even with this tax. And this is actually harming European agriculture. Thank you.”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German from my side. I'd also like to thank our experts for their presentations. I'm also one of those people who might drink an energy drink on a long drive, and I'll probably drop that habit now. So thank you for what you've said. Let me just come back on what Mr. Hyder has said. I think that the health of children and young people should not be called taking a decision away from them and comparing it to tea, coffee and Coke is just not appropriate. It's the combination of sugar and caffeine that is unique to these drinks and is therefore that dangerous. That's why we can't compare them. And we have this scientific evidence that palpitations, sleep disruption and what have you concentration difference, difficulties, exhaustion. Teachers in Germany are saying that you can really see who's had an energy drink in the break, and that it really has an impact on students behaviour. So it's great if you haven't had any problems in your family. Um, but I think we can see the billions that are being spent on adverts to focus those adverts towards children and young people. That's a huge threat, and I think it would be negligent of us to ignore that. I mean, I don't have an alcohol problem myself, but alcohol is a problem for our society, so we have to do something. It's not healthy for adults either to drink energy drinks. And so I think there have to be health warnings. At the very least, people have the right to know what sort of dangers are linked to energy drinks. There's another thing that we mustn't overlook. That's the combination of energy drinks with alcohol. People like to drink a vodka with their energy drink, for example. This mix, then. I mean, you don't feel you're so drunk, you still have in a good mood. That's a huge health risk. Let me wrap up by saying that Children should be protected, particularly when it comes to energy drinks, and we should fight against the billions of advertising in order to protect young people and adolescents and their health. Thank you. Okay.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you. Chair. I will continue in German. I would like to continue an exchange that we had already started last year. I had said at the time that WHO and the International Cancer Research Agency have confirmed that consumption of meat is carcinogenic. And you had said that food stuffs in Europe are safe and there are no products in the trade on the market that are category one. And you said that saying that meat is carcinogenic might discredit the food legislation and provisions that apply in the EU. So this is a smaller group, but perhaps you can say what you actually meant. Are you rejecting the opinions from the scientific circles? I don't know. Are you going to take meat out of the out of circulation to protect EU You consumers. What about meat and its impact on health in the EU over the next few years?”
  Nutrition
• “(09:41:17 – 09:42:46): Thank you very much, madam chair. I have to talk about animals and the climate. And in this respect, the that part of the draft is a disaster because animals are seen as a resource to be exploited, even though article 13 of the EU treaties sees animals as sentient beings. And it's also problematic that we have a whole list of meat products being protected, for example, fillet. And this parliament, we the parliament in some areas wanted to limit plant products. We could have we don't want to promote a transition to plant alternatives. Should have coexistence, for example. However, that's also industry and agricultural policy. Think of that, colleagues. And on the school scheme, it's not enough to think of animal welfare or a climate footprint being voluntary. Plant protein alternatives must be a priority. Anything else is a is letting down young people who for whom these principles are important. And annual welfare duties missing in many areas, and we'll be putting down some amendments in that regard.”
  Plant-based diet
• “Thank you. Chair. I will continue in German. Commissioner, we're in the year 2024. We began together here in 2024. Uh, you for animal protection in charge? Uh, now for ten. For decades, we've fought for protection of animals. And this is something that fortunately is in your portfolio right now, but unfortunately, nothing has really changed, although, uh, and we've heard about harmonization of border controls, but in actuality, actually nothing has been done whatsoever as far as the protection of animals. We are experiencing major suffering of animals with animals, encaged with animals in livestock situations, which are totally unacceptable. So also with ducks, geese being force fed. So there are there are still in Romania, a death or killing stations. These are terrible things. The list goes on and on. So I don't want I don't want to do you injustice, but I'd like to ask, where has change taken place? What is being done? Hundreds of thousands of Europeans are waiting for you as commissioner in charge of animal protection to do something. We've been waiting for months now and really right now, who, if who is to take over this particular issue? If it's something that you neglect, who's going to take care of the issue of animal protection. So I personally would like to express my lack of any trust whatsoever in your office on this particular front. Uh. There are very few here in the Parliament which are fighting for this particular issue. But there are hundreds of thousands of Europeans that are interested in this. So I think indeed something has to be done because it is extremely important for, once again, hundreds of thousands of Europeans. **Esther HERRANZ GARCÍA @Chair We don't have any representative from s n so we can move to the first round of. For answers from the Commissioner. Mr.. Commissioner, ten minutes.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you very much for that important question. Progress in medicine and protection of people throughout the world is something that can be guaranteed and the same and at the same time do away with animal testing, as has been mentioned repeatedly. 80 or 90% of animal experiments cannot be directly applied to humans. We're not rats or apes. And despite that, these tests are being carried out without any effect. There are many cases of research which shows that AI can be used in different approaches can be used different cell cultures. There are many, many different possibilities.”
  EU non-animal testing methods in pharma research
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German. Well, I'd also like to thank you for the exchange. I have two important issues. The first relates to reach, which was already discussed because for years the EU has promised to deal with some of the chemical problems there, and we're talking about testing on animals. The fact is that this damages the trust of citizens in what we're doing. 1.2 million people signed the safe Cruelty Free Cosmetics petition. They signed up to that. And I think the commission has to show leadership here. Animal free testing should be made standard. And if there is going to be testing on animals carried out, then we need strict conditions to do it. And we really need consistency with the cosmetics regulation and reach so that we close any loopholes that might exist. And then if we added the support of an independent body. Then we could ensure that we had progressive approaches to testing. So my question to you, how can you ensure that this, uh, relooking at reach, uh, really means the end of testing on animals and ensures a modern testing system. And then I'd also like to talk about the plant based transition.”
  Use of animal testing
• “Thank you. Chair. I will continue in German. Dear Commissioner, you've been speaking about the battle against cancer. And so my first question would have to be about cancer risk, especially in relation to animal based products. For example, with processed meat, red meat. And the science is quite clear that that is a group one cancer causing such as asbestos or tobacco and red meat is in group two A as possibly cancer causing. Therefore our citizens are not receiving sufficient find information about that. And so we need updated health policy guidelines based on W.H.O. data, including an evaluation of the recommendations that come about foodstuffs. And so, is the Commission going to require itself to come up with goals and objectives that involve meat as well, when fighting against cancer, as a clear, clear communication about risk, or do they want to continue to support the meat industry and therefore put profit before people's health? Second question is about an issue that is quite controversial when talked about and has to do about the connection between meat alternatives and public health. And if meat has been proven to be dangerous to health, as we've just mentioned, why do we not invest even more in a more ethical and more health healthy plant alternatives in the EU? There would need also to also offer for an evaluation and about that in schools, in hospitals, for example. And we also have to stop those different regulations that when, for example, when they don't like the fact that the words such as veggie burger are actually used, those types of terms. So my question was like, how would you deal with this essential issue about animal protection and public health and deal with it in a comprehensive way to make sure that we can actually offer a truly healthy food policy based on scientific evidence.”
  Plant-based diet
• “Thank you very much. I need to raise the subject of wolves. Wolves are key predators to maintain the environment and to fight against diseases. Because if you have too big a population of certain animals, then you spread diseases. We need. There's been a scientific, a political decision without scientific backing, because it's been said that you can't guarantee genetic diversity if you're hunting. And we need to find ways forward. Supported by farmers for peaceful coexistence. Weakening the population of wolves is a very dangerous precedent, because we also have lynxes and bears that we need to look at. So an issue this is an important issue. So will you be exerting pressure in favor of the wolves in the council. And this is in the context of the habitat directive.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Yeah. I'd also like to say a big thank you to the rapporteur and the colleagues that have worked on this. We're talking, after all, about a very important topic. Cardiovascular disease is one of the biggest causes of death, deathbed. It's about 80% avoidable. So prevention ought to be the top of the list when it comes to what we're doing in the EU. In our group, we see an important approach via food. If people are consuming red meat too much, maybe we could move to plant based foods that help to prevent these diseases. And therefore, the promotion of plant based foods is not just an ideological matter, it's based upon solid science. At the same time, it's all the more worrying that the right leaning groups on nicotine, alcohol, energy groups are trying to make them appear harmless and are saying that there should be protections for industry. That's extremely worrying. And yet the scientific evidence is perfectly clear. This. These things damage the health of the citizens of the EU. Prevention. This is very important. Requires children to find out about this, to be educated about. And this needs to be happening across the board in different geographies. It often depends on whether you grew up in the countryside or a city as to whether you have this information. So it needs to be made available to all. And then sex specific aspects are important, shouldn't be ignored. Women are often diagnosed too late when it comes to cardiovascular disease. And there's late and inadequate treatment. And then stress, um, air pollution. Let's not leave noise out of it. All of these play an important role in cardiovascular disease development. So the facts are on the table. Colleagues, if anybody is hesitating then and not looking at these facts and this is a risk to all of our health.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German. Dear Commissioner Roosevelt, you are responsible for dealing with sustainable products on, Um. The single market and environmental legislation. Sorry to say this so bluntly, but I think, uh, your, um, achievements in these two fields have not been so stellar. We have not seen things being implemented. And my colleagues from the EPP and other, uh, right wing parties seem to always, uh, postpone or weaken environmental legislation. If we look at the Green Claims Directive that's already been mentioned, it shows once again that a large part of our Parliament has unfortunately decided to protect industry before it protects consumers and citizens. When we talk about the whole package of legislation, uh, it's disappeared. The neutral score, for example. I think it's important we have a labelling for vegan products across Europe. I've, uh, mentioned this a number of times. Is there anything new there? And on the back. Can we expect anything on, uh, labeling and on, uh, consumer protection? Thank you.”
  Green claims
• “From this.Und Bürger in the EU for. Over 1.2 million EU citizens demanded with safety, cruelty free cosmetics and an end to animal testing. Did you know that rats have to consume detergents for weeks on end just to check tumor and carcinogenic safety? Do you know that fish have to die in poisonous substances just to test their tolerance? Well, that data is available. That means that these tests are no longer necessary with the approach. One substance, one assessment, we can use data platforms to establish greater transparency. In practice. That's not working because data is not being exchanged. And this reform constitutes an important step forward. And it can only be the beginning. The application of the chemical legislation package and the focus on reducing the burden on industry not only has to have consequences, but it also needs means that animal tests need to be replaced where possible and consumers duly protected.”
  Use of animal testing
• “During recent years, Denmark has shown itself to be exemplary. Uh, here, when it comes to sustainable producing, sustainable food. And the Danish presidency has also promised to lead the EU in this transition. But leadership means more than just being exemplary. It would be helpful if Denmark could help other member states to follow along its path. So what we need is to have more affordable plant based food, for example, in to make it more available. And also in schools, we could have a meat free alternative available in other countries, uh, in the US. Plant meat based meat substitutes already available now. I think here we're talking about ethics, but, uh, I think, uh, regulatory hesitancy is causing an issue here. So this brings me to my question on this. Do you believe that, uh, plant based food and plant based meat alternatives can create an appropriate and safe and healthy food system? And how can we urge other member states to go for these alternatives and, uh, ensure that there is more plant based, there are more plant based animal alternative foods available for consumers. Thank you.”
  Plant-based diet
• “How is it possible that a butterfly, which is only found in a village in North Macedonia, can actually be sold legally online? Its habitat is merely 1.5m², and it is very significant for local biodiversity. There are only some 1000 butterflies of this species left. Macedonia itself has actually banned trade, catching and export. But because of a loophole in EU legislation, it is legal in the EU. In Cop 20, a number of states actually made suggestions about protection for indigenous and endemic species. So my question is whether the Commission will support these endeavours and initiatives and recognise that international cooperation beyond the confines of the EU is absolutely vital in order to get a grip on the trade in rare species, which is so damaging to biodiversity. We simply cannot allow the current situation to continue. Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German. Commissioners Roosevelt and Hoekstra. The objective of having 35% of the funds earmarked for environment and biodiversity is clearly to be welcomed. Resilient, sustainable growth. Those are very good points. But let's be clear here. If our climate and energy goals are to be achieved, then we're going to have to invest more and we're going to have to address root causes. And here agriculture is a clear issue. Animal husbandry remains one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions and doesn't fall within the ETS system either. How long will the agricultural lobby be able to avoid contributing to costs that other sectors have to cover, because they're good at lobbying? When are we going to make sure that we're not leaving? Those who are creating problems aren't being punished for that and causing others to have to shoulder that burden? When are we going to move on to other forms of protein? Plant based sources, for example, of course, we defend a competitive Europe. Yes, we can support farmers as well, but our support must go to those goals which help modern, sustainable forms of conversion in the agricultural sector. And plant based agriculture has to be developed and alongside maybe lab meat as well, because that is environmentally friendly and sustainable.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, colleagues. I'm speaking on behalf of Catarina martins, our shadow rapporteur, who unfortunately couldn't be here today. Now we're talking about here. We're talking here about something that is fundamental. It's not just a technical issue. How seriously will Europe take its responsibilities in the climate crisis? And to what extent do we have responsibility for future generations? I mean, clearly, in order not to fail the 2050 target, we need to be climate neutral by 2040. I mean, we're talking about a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions by 1990, but the Commission has been ignoring targets so far, I think. And that's a poor, uh, that's really it's a poor example. And we need, uh, targets for land use and forestry use, transport and other sectors as well, because that's the only way to really ensure that emissions are genuinely reduced and that industry has clear guidelines. I mean, we don't want to see flexibility from the commission. We don't believe that, uh, in addition, uh, carbon credit certificates are a way of doing this. They're it's a cheap way of doing it, but it doesn't actually really help. We need to be exemplary when it comes to climate change. The goals also would have a positive effects for people as well cleaner air, cleaner water, etc., etc. climate policy must always be aimed at the wellbeing of citizens, because it is only thus that we can get support. We have to be honest. The Commission has come with this proposal far too late. It was supposed to act six months after the global stocktake, and this weakens our credibility vis a vis other partners. We're always calling on them to be more ambitious. But the message from Cop 28 was clear. The fossil fuels era is ending, and we need a clear plan to move away from fossil fuels, i.e. oil and gas. We need to ensure that we act by 2040. I would say, because it's only thus that we can continue to have leadership on climate issues. Thank you.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Dear coordinator, when you look at the news, you basically hear about bad economic, state inflation and economic decline in many countries, and often this is used as an argument to not reach ambitious climate goals. U2 said that the EU is not on track when if we were to stay in the maritime vocabulary, what sort of course changes should we make? What? How should we change tack? I think our planet is dying. Our planet, our many animals are dying as well because they are not able to adapt to this new reality. And still we continue mass animal rearing practices. The outlook is quite grim and it's not good for the environment, but still we press on. So how exactly should we do this? We can either focus on particulars or look at the overarching reality. Because at the end of the day, we as human beings are suffering. So we've made good progress when it comes to air pollution through industry, transport and households as well. In this way, we have been able to also address the fact that air pollution leads to deaths. However, 70% of premature deaths in the world occurred due to air pollution, and there are more and more indices that indicate that PFAS, for example, are harmful chemicals harming citizens across the world. So all of this news is very unsettling, and we would like to know how exactly can we react to these challenges, how can we achieve our climate goals and in these economically difficult times, how do we achieve all of this? I would look forward to your response on this. Thank you.”
  Air quality policy
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German. Madam director, I would also like to expand the range of topics. I would like to talk about animal testing. 90% of medicines that are safe in animal testing then lead to some issues in terms of safety as well as effectiveness in human beings. Now, uh, animal testing is something that is supported by, uh, science as well as, uh, public at large. And in fact, now we've seen that when it comes to clinical security and ensuring the same, that there are many calls to stop animal testing and to replace them with other protocols that are better. And in 3 to 4 years, animal testing will be the exception rather than the rule. For example, when you're talking about monoclonal antibodies, these are very promising when it comes to testing. And then you have organoid testing as well. These are tests where you have seen, uh, livers that have taken up 70% of medicines, that there's a 78%, 70% effectiveness when it comes to dealing with liver illnesses. So what sort of initiatives do you have in place to reduce animal testing of medicines in Europe? Thank you.”
  EU non-animal testing methods in pharma research
• “I will continue in German. And in principle, I would support the claim that agriculture by economy needs more funding. However, it's important to point out that the current regulation as well as agri position fails to mention one issue. If we really want to focus on food sovereignty as well as healthcare and sustainability, we need to also include species protection and animal welfare. We need innovation when it comes to protein. We need to focus more on plant based solutions because that's the only way forward in innovation. We need to move away from animal based foods because they have negative impacts on people's health. At the same time, they also need to pandemics. Industrial livestock leads to a number of problems we're aware of, so we shouldn't waste our funding. We should not increase our dependency when it comes to, uh, feed or fertilisers. And this is why we should amend our position and mention that horizon needs to move in this direction. So we should stop using taxpayers money to fund a sector that is detrimental to the environment. And instead we should focus on innovation that actually helps people, and that includes farmers as well as the environment and the animals. And then that is something I believe we could all work on together. Thank you very much.”
  Agricultural funding
• “If we walk through any number of European cities, we'll see something that really should worry us. On playgrounds, in parks, in front of schools, all over the place. You see these empty metal cartridges. They look harmless at first sight, but they're actually representative of a growing problem the consumption of laughing gas as a drug. The substance is used in medicine. Rightly so. But it's also ever more accessible for young people who get a quick high from this substance. And that's why we have to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions why is this happening? Why is it that more and more young people are on the lookout for laughing gas? Is it because it's been trivialized by social media, or is it because they think it's legal or because it's so readily available? Or is it actually pointing towards a deeper underlying problem? The fact that there's a generation that's looking for moments of intoxication because they lack guidance, certainty, perspectives. What we know is that the health consequences are real and they are serious. Doctors are saying that it can lead to lasting neurological problems, and yet many people still think it's a harmless substance. So as politicians in Europe, we can't just stand idly by. We need to, first of all, have clear rules for the sale and marketing of laughing gas. Secondly, we need to have a youth protection scheme for the whole of Europe when it comes to selling the substance. Thirdly, we need awareness raising campaigns that actually speak to young people with honesty, understandably without trivialization. And fourthly, we also need to be mindful of the ecological consequences. Millions of empty cartridges in our parks, in our fields, in our waters, pollute the environment and endanger other animals. Therefore, Commissioner, we need to do something for our young people and for our environment. Thank you.”
  Cannabis consumption
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German. The commissioner in the report is very clear that we're talking about EU, which is responsible for biological diversity. I just want to raise three points. Where I think we can move forward. First of all is wolf wolves. You're reducing its status because you're looking at issues with farmers. And that's the big question. What sort of statistics do you have? How many wolves are being killed? Is that really a solution, a solution to that conflict with the farmers? You know, monitoring is important, but we just we're just seeing animals killed just to deal the way we deal with conflicts. Can you exclude that the protection status won't be denigrated, reduced any further? And then on invasive species. Well, there are lots of problems throughout Europe currently. I mean, these are all species that have been brought by people. It wasn't just a. It can be irresponsible pet. Carers or. These animals have escaped, though. So the central question is, can you ensure that in. Whatever you do, you will use non-lethal protection measures that you prefer them to lethal measures, because there's no scientific justification for that. And then a very topical point. Unfortunately, it's always in the headlines every year. It's been there. This is the massacre of whales and dolphins and the Faroe Islands. I know it's not the EU, but still EU. You know, it's a region in our neighborhood. I get thousands of emails from people who are just they are disgusted by this massacre of these whales and dolphins. We can't accept this. And as the EU, we do need to do something against this. Big question is what is the Commission doing diplomatically? Can you do a bit more? Please please please. Thank you.”
  Large Carnivores
• “Sorry I was completely wrong. This was my mistake for being late. Sorry. Okay thank you Chair. I will switch over to German. The actual modernization of reviewing environmental policy is long overdue. It's decisive to know how the legislation is being applied in Member States, how it's being implemented when the shortcomings still exist. These laws are binding but more often than not we can see them remaining as paper tigers and that means this legislation is not just a question of helping the environment, it's all about helping also about helping our citizens about their health.”
  Environmental crimes and justice
• “The more helpless a living creature is, the more deserving they should be of protection from human cruelty. That's by Theodor Heuss. And the reason I quote this is because it seems that there is an explicit demand for fewer checks, and that is not simplification as far as I'm concerned. It's actually even quite dangerous in Germany. In Germany we have checks only a few years or so. Quite clearly there aren't enough veterinary surgeons or officials available. But what is what is to be done with the fact that we are constantly seeing scandals in livestock raising, that they're rather regular rather than the exception. They're quite common. Undercover video recordings by animal rights activists have shown us what is going on. So these problems are there because we focus on profit rather than focusing on the standards for animal welfare. What we want is a root and branch reform of the cap. And not just a few tweaks or maintaining the status quo. We must move away from intensive farming to systems that work together with nature, and do not see sentient creatures as commodities.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Colleagues. I think it should be clear to all of us that fuels from crude oil and not the future. But biofuels can't necessarily be that either. We're talking about disappearing forests, habitats being destroyed, animals and species, entire species being driven out of their habitats or killed because their habitat is being used for mono version of fuel production. And sometimes pesticides. Come on top of all that. The German Fraunhofer Institute has concluded, and it's been mentioned by a colleague already, that if you look at one hectare of rape and use that for a diesel combustion engine, that car will go 32,000km. If you put photovoltaic cells on that, then an electric vehicle would go 6,000,000km. That's 190 times more. Let me also say that it's the same sort of nonsense that you have when you feed plants to animals, and then we eat the animals. Let's eat the plants instead. Fuel is not sustainable in this way. Thank you.”
  Biofuels (RED II)
• “Colleagues. Honeybees are absolutely irrelevant for biodiversity, even if we often get a picture of them in textbooks and in the media. Most people think immediately of honeybees when they hear the word bees, and they're not endangered. Even in Germany alone, approximately 100 000 beekeepers looking after them and on the other hand, half of the 561 wild beast species are on the red list, threatened with extinction. When we're talking about pollinators, we have to focus on wild bees, on wasps, butterflies and flies. Honey bees are at most complement them, but they don't replace them. If companies put honeybees on the roof, it's more greenwashing than conservation of species. Lots of people have recognized the problem, and they'd like to help insects in good faith. They purchase insect hotels, which are filled with pine cones and bark. Imitating nature. These are often a case for organic waste. They're not populated by the insects, and in the worst case, they can even damage them. We have to develop comprehensive goals to orient ourselves properly. Let's forget Maya Bean to take care of horned mason bees and dark fringe bees. Let's create habitats and flower strips, nature reserves, nature strips and banned pesticides.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “40:15 – 11:43:47): When we're talking about the future of the CAP, then we have to face two realities. Firstly, the ecological borders of our planet and the crisis from which the agriculture sector is suffering. We've had this. We have only a very small percentage of farmers who are actually younger than forty. We have two hundred and sixty-six thousand holdings in Germany and only seven percent are under thirty-five years of age. We need a change of generation and that's an opportunity because young farmers are very much more in favor of innovation. They're open to innovation, digital technologies, and sustainability of production. If we talk about sustainability of production, that also means that we have to look honestly at the impact of animal farming. There are nine million enterprise holdings in Europe and forty-eight percent are focused on plants, twenty-two percent on animal husbandry. However, this smaller sector, this twenty-two percent, is responsible for the vast majority of environmental impact, primarily because of slurry. So it's very important that we not ignore the impact of animal husbandry holdings. Animal production has a disproportionately large footprint in the environment in the EU and that's why when we distribute the money of the CAP, public money, we have to really support environmentally friendly agriculture. In other words, producing plants and plant proteins. Those holdings which decide to switch from animal production to plant production should be supported. So it's important that the LIFE program, this is the only one which is exclusively focused on the environment and biodiversity of these finance instruments, that this has to be an independent program with its own budget. It has to continue with its own budget line and only this way can we ensure climate protection and biodiversity in the future. In the future, animal welfare has to really play a central role in the policies because citizens rightly expect a very high level of protection for animals. We have to really ensure that the conditions for animals are improved in a long-term way. When we're talking about plant proteins, we have to say, well, can we reduce the environmental impact, especially the environmental impact of animal production? Our farmers and our food system have to be ready for the future. I know many people here in the Parliament want to really keep the status quo at any cost, but we have to be more sustainable, we have to be more ethical, and we have to have more innovation. Thank you very much.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak in German. Dear colleagues. Forests are not just carbon sinks. They are also living ecosystems. Then they house 80% of land based biodiversity. They are sensitive ecosystems. And they also help people, especially indigenous people who have who get their food and protection from them. This is this is why the EU deforestation regulation is so important. Europe needs to make sure that we do not continue to destroy forests in other countries here in the EU. This would be unfair, especially for everyone because the country risk classification with It's implementation regulation is is not going far enough. It's based on old data. It is in transparent. It ignores critical regional differences within countries. We there's neither biodiversity nor animals are protected with these benchmarks. We do not support the objection. But it would be sensible to have a low risk category and a negligible risk category and a fourth category. To recognize countries that have sustainable practices, we need to we need to make sure that we're not punishing people who are trying to do the right thing. We need better protection for forest animals and responsible farmers. Of course, we need that both in Europe and outside of it. Thank you.”
  Trade impact on forests
• “If we want to save lives tomorrow, we have to act today. In this context, I warmly welcome the Commission's action plan. Every year in the EU, around 1.7 million people die of cardiovascular diseases. 80% of these deaths could have been prevented. Prevention is clearly the key and a key element of prevention is nutrition. Healthy plant based food must be affordable and available for everyone everywhere, including public canteens, schools and hospitals. But on the other hand, it's also clear that daily consumption of just one portion of processed meat a sausage, for example, involves around a 20% higher risk of cardiovascular disease. So any prevention strategy of the EU must recognise this reality. Also, transparent information is crucial. It's very disappointing that Nutri scores are comparable. Healthiness rating systems are not mandatory everywhere in the EU because labelling actually works. It creates awareness and also enables informed decision making. We have to have the courage to put health before economic interests.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• “Madam president, colleagues, with the cross-border cooperation, we can really write a success story at the level of the EU. If we learnt one thing, it is that challenges don't stop at the border. And here we have an opportunity to increase standards. When it comes to food production and animal protection. I think we need to establish clear, clear responsibility when it comes to unfair trading practices. But I think this means that, um, animal welfare and a conversion to organic farming has to be promoted. We need to promote sort of small farmers so that they can participate in the agricultural market. But I think we need to realize that we need stronger rules when it comes to animal animal welfare, because this new text won't change that. I think we need to pursue our efforts. Otherwise it's going to be the small holdings, the weakest, who will suffer. Animal welfare.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you. There's something that we haven't talked about enough today. And that is that 9 million animals every year are die because of scientific experiments. And so my question is, how will you change this? How will you integrate this into your work programs to make sure that people will understand that you can have animal free experiments. And so you need to ensure also a synergy between all of these agencies. How are you going to ensure that to to phase out animal experiments for safety evaluations. And then we risk assessments of old pharmaceuticals. So active ingredients that are brought into play before the new legislation, how are you going to ensure that the requirements for old pharmaceuticals are actually complied with?”
  Use of animal testing
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German. The result of Cop 20 clearly leads us to see that the loss of biodiversity is continuing, and the international trade is one of the key reasons for this. Now, situs is more than just a technical instrument, but it's a real audit for the EU. It questions whether or not we are able to put the survival of creatures above our economic interests and my from my party and the entire group. Animal protection and the environment are inextricably linked. So when you're talking about hunting trophies, ivory and rhinoceros horns, we're talking about living creatures which are being made a commodity. Unfortunately, international trade is one of the key drivers of species going extinct. So all of these aspects reflect real animals. So I'm, uh, I commend the fact that the Iran's response and ivory aspect was rejected. But we need to go further. Over 50,000 hunting trophies were imported into the EU recently. And this includes my country of Germany. This shows very clearly that hunting trophies is not a problem far away, but rather here in Europe, animals are still being killed. And people consider any parts of their of their body as, as trophies. And they can be hung on the wall or somewhere else in their house. So when we're talking about the protection of our animals. Then what we cannot do is say we're going to protect animals abroad, but still allow hunting trophies in the EU. So my question is, will the EU implement stricter rules when it comes to hunting trophies? Will we move more in that direction? Will we see more in that regard? Thank you.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “If you look at the figures, they look very impressive. 1200 ports in the EU, 18,000 shipping trips a day, a big part of our economy and pollution for our water's pollutants. Climate change. The oceans are under attack, species are dying out. Whole ecosystems are being disrupted. And as profits rise, decarbonization is progressing too slowly. Even decisions at the. I'm O. Ambition is not enough. We need binding rules. No excuses, no false hopes. But what's behind these figures? We have to say very clearly that at the moment many fishes are dying in the Baltic. I have pictures here. This is one victim of what's going on in our oceans at the moment. Whales have no nationality. It's not a German or a Danish whale. They're not aware of borders. But borders are what is wrong with our protection efforts. Efforts need to be global. Our reaction, our measures are national, fragmented. And that is the big problem. Timmy wasn't the first whale to die. Won't be the last. There will be stranded whales in future. But will we be better prepared next time? And how can we help faster if we go on in the same way? We will not succeed. So my appeal with regard to this meeting of the IMO is that we should have a coordinated emergency plan for whales and other species that can be activated quickly. That requires responsibility so that we can save these mammals. We need more coordination at the European level. We need to take action for whales like Timmy and for others, and to protect our oceans. So please take this point up in your list of priorities. Thank you.”
  EU ocean policy
• “Thank you. Chair. I will continue in German. The for this report again focuses on the increasing increasing competitiveness and sustainability is only mentioned in economic terms. But I think this is completely the wrong approach. Just to take two examples in paragraph 17, you say that the livestock techniques can be used to increase Efficiency and 14 talks about meat denominations to protect animal products. But in this committee and the plenary in Strasbourg, two, we often talked about mass animal holdings and animal suffering and so on. And Mr. Vice just touched on this, but I gave an example of poultry and pigs. And number three in in the for these animals are turkeys. After Poland, Germany is the biggest turkey producer in the EU, and every year 31 million animals are slaughtered. That's 60 minutes. So, colleagues, which of you knows that wild turkeys in nature can fly up to 60 miles an hour and run 40 miles an hour. So they the industry just wants to fatten up as quickly as possible. So they completely lose the ability to fly. So this focus on on fast and intensive growth has huge impact on the health of the animals. Their internal organs can't keep up with the pace of growth. And they their all their basic animal needs are taken away from them. And they can't satisfy those instincts. So colleagues in this whole discussion think of the fact that we're talking about sentient beings. And other colleagues who wish to take the floor.”
  EU requirements on animal welfare for farmers
• “Thank you chair I will continue in German. Commissioner. It is two and seven were considered the greatest achievements in the last mandate in order to fight climate change, and it's part of the shift. However, Cbam does not cover agricultural production at the moment, and that accounts for 10% or more of greenhouse gases. In order to achieve our goals, we have to reduce agricultural emissions by 2040 by 40 to 60%. Intensive animal husbandry contributes a lot to emissions. It's more than the emissions of cars and lorries taken together. And then if we also look at the processing and transport of foodstuffs, then. The animal husbandry sector is responsible for 81 to 86% of agricultural emissions, according to Greenpeace. We're not seeing a lot of impact of the climate crisis. A lot of people have talked about destruction and human disasters and the economic problems we're seeing as well. Climate change is a big problem for agriculture, and if we pretend it's not happening, then we're not working with the farmers. We're working against them. Do you agree that the cultural sector, particularly the meat sector, should be covered more in cbam and more quickly? And what other ideas do you have so that we can have animal husbandry more in line with other commissioners in the EU?”
  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)
• “Will continue in German for doctor. Mcguinness. Thank you very much for the presentation. And before I reach my question, let me say a couple of words that I think it's really surprising how some MEPs are lobbying for PFAS who are lobbying for lead ammunition, where there are known alternatives and really are looking and say we simply can't have these things because of human health. So turning to animal testing, I think we should remember that 90% of medication, um, which are tested fail and on humans. And so of course, you have fortunately noted that you are very involved in looking for alternatives to animal testing. And that animal free testing is going to be more built in in the future in chemical testing. So I hope you have some broad success there. And we have a significant reduction in animal testing. Let me see. Say quite clearly about the revision of reach and the proposal from the Commission. It's expected by the end of the year. And there is supposed to be proposal that the acute acute toxicity tests are going to be replaced by animal free methods now. But in order to have this succeed, we have to have agreement from the member states. That's crucial. So, doctor McGuinness, how are you and your agency going to involve the Member states in order to generate support from this proposal? Because this would this would end an enormous amount of suffering of animals. Thank you.”
  Use of animal testing
• “Will continue in German. Dr. Mcguinness. Thank you very much for the presentation. And before I reach my question, let me say a couple of words that I think it's really surprising how some MEPs are lobbying for PFAS who are lobbying for lead ammunition, where there are known alternatives and really are looking and say we simply can't have these things because of human health. So turning to animal testing, I think we should remember that 90% of medication, um, which are tested fail and on humans. And so of course, you have fortunately noted that you are very involved in looking for alternatives to animal testing. And that animal free testing is going to be more built in in the future in chemical testing. So I hope you have some broad success there. And we have a significant reduction in animal testing. Let me see. Say quite clearly about the revision of reach and the proposal from the Commission. It's expected by the end of the year. And there is supposed to be proposal that the acute acute toxicity tests are going to be replaced by animal free methods now. But in order to have this succeed, we have to have agreement from the member states. That's crucial. So, doctor McGuinness, how are you and your agency going to involve the Member states in order to generate support from this proposal? Because this would this would end an enormous amount of suffering of animals. Thank you.”
  Use of animal testing
• “Thank you Minister. Thank you to the other colleagues who've already mentioned Amr. Antimicrobial resistance. I'd like to hear how you're going to approach Amr. There are 33,000 people who die due to Amr every year. That's far too many. I'd also like to talk about meat consumption and mass animal husbandry. Many people eat meat, but they're eating an antibiotic cocktail in that meat. So I'm interested in what you're going to do in order to explain to people that meat consumption does have a danger because a lot of, um, antimicrobial drugs, a lot of, uh, antibiotics are used in animal husbandry. And so you'll need to do something about that. So I wonder whether you would agree with me on that issue of animal husbandry. And then you did already mention the one health approach. I'm interested in the role of one health as part of your Hungarian Council presidency. Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “In these laws it's not just a question of protecting the environment, it's also about the health of our citizens and obviously if this priority should be about health then it should be less about economic advantages and I think all colleagues on the right should pay attention to that because the complete implementation of environmental legislation could save the EU EUR 180 billion a year. Think about that figure. This report makes a clear difference between the implementation that differs between Member States. These are shortcomings that have to be filled. Environmental protection is not an option, it is a common obligation in Europe without any borders and losing time is not something that is an option. The study that we have before us comes at a juncture where Europe is faced with a triple planetary crisis. We have climate change, we have a biodiversity loss and we have environmental pollution and this planetary crisis is being worsened by the heat waves that we've been experiencing and this makes it clear how serious the situation is. When it comes to circular economy, air quality, water quality, biodiversity there's a huge need to act there. And at the same time we've heard this on a couple of occasions already, the European Green Deal is coming under more and more political pressure. Important environmental laws are being postponed or even being removed completely. The lack of implementing current legislation is not just unacceptable but it is a direct contradiction to our environmental goals. Unfortunately this report sets out a lot of problems but doesn't come up with any answers as to how to combat these problems. If we need one thing it's transparency and so any complete openness in the legislative processes could improve transparency, improve the rule of law, improve public control monitoring and improve the faith of our citizens once more for this project.”
  Air quality policy
• “Yet again, we have a bay turning red, and whales are having to be slaughtered in an area where they play a crucial ecological role. There's a lack of proper marine protection measures in this document. There's no limitation on offshore offshore oil and gas. And noise pollution underwater is another issue that has to be tackled. The pact is disappointing. No real binding objectives, no real time frame to protect 30% of our marine areas by 2030. No ban on harmful activities in protected areas, just promises of new legislation in two years. This is too little, too unambitious and too unspecific.”
  Nature protection and restoration in the EU
• “Thank you chair. I will continue in German from my side. From my perspective. Thank you very much indeed to the rapporteur for this preliminary draft. Cancer affects virtually all European families. And so the chapter at the beginning, um, makes reference to competitiveness on four occasions. And I find that a bit jarring because we're not talking about a competitive economy. We're talking about people's health. Now we have very alarming prospects because we are expecting an 18% rise in cases and a 26% increase in mortality. And if we look at the resources we have at the knowledge we have, then this really is a wake up call. We have to act as a matter of urgency. First thing to do is work on prevention. And of course, our lifestyles have a huge impact on that. And a plant based diet can have enormous benefits, and I would contradict my colleague from another political group who talked about the not stigmatizing meat eaters. But it's very important that we look at the benefits of a plant based diet. Now, at the same time, I am very worried about a resurgence in tobacco use, particularly amongst young people. Now, how can we countenance such a state of affairs? How can we tolerate that? It's vital that we inform consumers about the salt and sugar content of foods and the danger thereof, if we wish to effectively tackle cancer now. Early detection is most important. Screening saves lives and in the long run, of course, saves money. We also need to target our efforts at risk groups and make sure that people have access to health. And I would perhaps direct a remark to the government of Germany. Mr.. Mads. Now, I think we are headed in the wrong direction. I think we have to invest far more in early detection. That way we could save millions of lives if we detect cancer early. And perhaps just to round off, allow me to say that following on from a survival of cancer, we used to ensure that people are not disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. It's important that we look at what needs to be done and act. And I very much hope that this text is a good start.”
  EU measures on lifestyle-related behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating, etc.)