Jessika VAN LEEUWEN

Policy topics Jessika VAN LEEUWEN is active on

What Jessika VAN LEEUWEN has said (50)

• 2026-02-08 “Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 29.5.2026 Written question 1. Under the revised Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) [1] , the EU may impose safeguard measures if duty-reduced or duty-free imports cause persistent economic, societal or environmental difficulties. The revised DCFTA also requires Ukraine to adopt certain EU production standards, such as animal welfare rules for laying hens by the end of 2028. Eggs from non-EU countries without equivalence with EU egg marketing standards [2] must be marked with the ISO 3166 country code and labelled as ‘non-EU standard’ (farming method) on packaging. The Commission will ensure that the future animal welfare legislation establishes EU standards for non-EU products compliant with World Trade Organisation rules [3] .The Commission is preparing a modernised animal welfare proposal that includes phasing out cages for certain sectors. 2. The Commission takes food safety risks associated with Ukrainian egg imports very seriously and implements a risk-based approach to address any identified concerns. When a non-compliance is detected through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, contacts are systematically established with Ukrainian authorities to implement corrective actions. For recurring issues, measures including increased intensified testing, suspension of imports, or temporary bans may be introduced. 3. Origin labelling is required for processed products only if omitting it would mislead consumers [4] . If the final food's origin differs from its primary ingredient, that ingredient's origin must be indicated [5] . Farming method is not mandatory for processed food ingredients. The consumer's ‘right-to-know’ must be balanced against tracking complexities and potential increased production costs for EU SMEs [6] . The Commission doesn't plan to extend mandatory origin labelling to these products. [1] The revised DCFTA with Ukraine entered into force on 29 October 2025. [2] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2465 of 17 August 2023 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards marketing standards for eggs, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008; C/2023/5509; OJ L, 2023/2465, 08.11.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2465/2024-10-14. [3] A s announced in the Vision on Agriculture and Food: COM/2025/75 final. [4] See Article 26(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, pp. 18. [5] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/775 of 28 May 2018 laying down rules for the application of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers, as regards the rules for indicating the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient of a food OJ?, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj. [6] Small and Medium Enterprises.”
  EU policy on country of origin food labelling · Import of agri-food products in the EU · Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• 2025-05-28 “E-002143/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission In the period 2021 to date, the Commission carried out 18 audits on food safety and animal health in Mercosur countries. The objective of these audits was to assess how the competent authorities implement official controls and whether they provide the necessary guarantees for exports to the EU. The Commission publishes all audit reports on its website 1 . During audits, the Commission experts visit establishments approved for export to the EU, including farms, slaughterhouses and processing plants. These visits serve to check the functioning of official controls and to verify that the guarantees of compliance with EU rules are effectively implemented. However, the Commission does not approve or suspend individual establishments or producers. This responsibility lies with the competent authorities of the exporting country, under the EU framework rules. Third countries can only approve and list for export to the EU those establishments that comply with EU public health requirements and are subject to regular official controls. When a third country’s competent authority identifies that an establishment no longer fulfils the requirements for listing, it must update its lists and remove the establishment. Whilst the two audit reports of 2024 referred to by the Honourable Member did identify certain shortcomings in the Brazilian official control system put in place to ensure compliance of food for EU market with EU rules, these deficiencies did not concern individual slaughterhouses. The complete lists of third country establishments, including slaughterhouses, producing food of animal origin intended for export to the EU are publicly available through the TRACES platform 2 . 1 https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit-report. 2 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tracesnt/directory/listing/establishment/publication/index#!/search.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• 2025-05-08 “E-001859/2025 Answer given by Mr Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission 1. Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 1 enables consumers to make informed food choices and provides that as any pre-packed foods, mixture of ingredients including meat products as well as plant-based ingredients must contain in their label a nutrition declaration providing consumers information on energy value; and the amounts of fat, saturates, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and salt. 2. Moreover, in Case C‑438/23 2 , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided guidance on the labelling of foods normally composed of meat products, where meat ingredients were substituted by plant ones. The CJEU clarified that the labelling of such foods must clearly indicate this substitution. This information must appear near the name of the product, in a font sufficiently large against the name of products. The CJEU further confirmed that such positioning and clarity are sufficient to ensure consumers are not misled about the nature of the product. 3. Indication of any ingredient or processing aid causing allergies or intolerances used in the manufacture or preparation of a food and still present in the finished product, even if in an altered form is mandatory in accordance with Article 9(1)(c) of the Regulation No 1169/2011 in the list of ingredients. 1 http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/1169/oj. 2 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62023CJ0438.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level · EU policy on novel foods
• “I would like to thank the rapporteur for his overview and the numerous amendments that we have received on this initiative. Report shows that there's very different visions across our commission on the Future of Livestock Farming. And as a shadow rapporteur for the EPP, I would like to underline that my group takes a clear line. We defend livestock as an integral part of Europe's food security, our rural identity and our economic strength. We stand for fair prices for farmers, for strong crisis tools, and for fair trade agreements that respect our standards. And I would like to highlight one of my own amendments that, for me, sends a key message when it comes to livestock and their sustainability. What this amendment proposed is a fundamental shift in how we regulate in agriculture instead of today's system, which is mainly based on top down requirements. I would like to see an output oriented framework. This means setting binding but realistic emission targets for farmers with real time monitoring results. But leave the choice on how to do this and how to reach these targets up to the farmer. This restores entrepreneurial freedom in agriculture because a farmer knows best how to run his farm, but at the same time the responsibility remains clear. Targets must be met and non-compliance has consequences. Together with the amendments of my EPP colleagues, I believe we have made a valuable contribution to the draft report and I'm looking forward to the outcome of the first technical meetings that we will be held in October, and I hope we'll find good compromises that defend our farmers, strengthen food security, and ensure that livestock farming in Europe has a sustainable and competitive future. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Presentation of this report. I find it very interesting. So I very much welcome this state of world's animal health. Um, there's been a lot of things said about, uh, Amr, which I'm very pleased about because this is a topic I'm addressing in most of our meetings, and I'm afraid I'm becoming the antibiotics lady here inside this commission. But I do believe that it is very important to address this. So I'm happy to see this also well addressed in the report. But despite the reduction in the use of antibiotics, reduced project an increase in human deaths due to antimicrobial resistance. So reduction alone is not enough. And if we're looking at, um, what we can do besides reducing the report focuses very strongly on vaccination and I wonder what your thoughts are if vaccination alone is is is enough, because I would recommend to double up our efforts in developing new antibiotics and the use of bacteriophages for that matter. Um, because if we compare to cancer research, there's very little research being done on new antibiotics. So my question to you is, how are we expecting to address the expected 38.5 million human deaths without this type of research? And my last question, chair, how do you see the risk of antimicrobial resistance increasing in Europe due to the introduction of resistant bacteria coming from other countries, especially now in the sight of new trade agreements that we're making? Thank you very much.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “Thank you very much, chair. Well, of course, you all know that I welcome very much when we talk with the stakeholders like farmers and not about them. So in essence, this initiative is good, but it's not very clear to me what output we can expect from this observatory. What will they deliver that we actually can work with? And this output is also very dependent on who is part of this group. Who? How are the 80 individuals selected? We must be very careful here because otherwise we will get what happened to the Strategic Dialogue. However, a good initiative in in essence, it ended up not being broadly supported by the farmers due to the partly ideological content. So how will this observatory help us to strengthen the position of farmers in the value chain? Farmers do not need a large talking group that talk for five years about how to strengthen them. Farmers need concrete action, which starts with prioritizing food production over anything else in every decision that we take here in the Parliament. So I would very much like to have the answer of the commission of how this will contribute to that precise matter. Prioritizing food production over anything else. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Commissioner. This Thursday. This Thursday, farmers associations have announced a massive protest in the streets of Brussels. Thousands of farmers will protest against the new plans for the Cap after 2027. And they have all the reasons to be concerned. But today we discuss the outcome of the negotiations on the simplification of the current cap. And I think it is important to bring a positive message to all the concerned farmers. Your vote matters. Thanks for your vote. We are here as farmer Citizens movement right in the center of decision making. We have taken the current cap and made it better and easier than the way it is right now. And the same thing we will do with the new Cap post 2027 proposal. We will fight to make it better for European farmers, but we achieved now is a step in the right direction, cutting red tape and lowering administrative costs so farmers can focus on producing food. Fewer controls. Let's work from trust and bring less stress. Exempting farms under 30 hectares from seven. Crop rotation and diversification a new 75 000 rural development payment going well beyond the commission's proposal. But simplification must remain practical and not create new uncertainty. This agreement is not the end point, but the start. The next cap should be built on trust, realism and simplicity with farmers at the centre and should dedicate sufficient funds to show food security is our strategic priority. So to all the farmers that will protest this week and all the ones supporting them from home, be assured that there are some people here in Parliament that will not rest until we have a better deal for European farmers. I say let's reform Europe. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Dear Commissioner, I requested an emergency debate on this topic on September 10th, 2025. So eight months have gone by since we requested immediate action on the Chinese duties on EU pork. And now you tell us nothing has happened since. I find it quite disturbing that we need eight months to react. Meanwhile, the EU pork industry with Spain and the Netherlands especially are subject to unfair duties. So we want more action to ensure that not once again, agriculture becomes collateral damage in broader EU trade politics. And there's something else that I find disturbing here. If I understood correctly, Mr. Dorfmann of the EPP just said that swine production has nothing to do with agriculture. And that's disturbing, because that means that EPP thinks that some farmers are better than others and forgets the huge role the swine industry plays in our bioeconomy to upgrade our waste streams. I have a question. A couple of questions to the commission. I'll be quick. Chair, um, is the Commission considering WTO action or will it continue? Small talk for another eight months. How will the Commission ensure that China does not use agricultural sectors as leverage in UN related trade disputes? What support is available for affected pork producers and exporters, and how will the Commission help diversify export markets for fifth quarter products? Thank you very much.”
  Trade relations with China
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you to the European Court of Auditors for this very concise opinion. And as many of my colleagues already pointed out, it clearly shows that this proposal is just a bureaucratic exercise to check the boxes of the green ideology. But this is a very serious matter. Colleagues, we're talking public expenditure here. The European Court of Auditors shows that there is no link between spending and achieved results, and 25% of the budget spent does not even have a performance indicator. So we just spend without checking if it has any effect at all. The simplification procedure results in more bureaucracy on a national level. How is that simplification? It's only undermining the internal EU market. So what we need to do, colleagues, is we need to take the Cup and bring it back to article 39. And we use the criteria set in article 39 to see if the money is well spent. The cup is here to produce our food, not to fulfil a green ideology. So my question to the European Court of Auditors is, was there anything positive that you find in this proposal? Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair, and thank you also to the Commission for providing this this information. Um, of course, it's very important that we, we, we stand behind Ukraine. But I'm deeply concerned for the agricultural sector here because it's good to hear that we're going into a process where Ukraine starts to comply with EU standards. But is the Commission aware that the production standards currently in the Ukraine are very, very far away from our standards? If I only take the, the, the, uh, example of the use of antibiotics in Ukraine, it is common practice to use tetracyclines, fluoroquinolones, penicillins and macrolides in animal feed, so these can be found in eggs and meat. Some of those antibiotics are critically important or highly important for public health. So this poses a serious threat to antimicrobial resistance in the EU, which is considered by the World Health Organization as the number one cause of death by 2050. So if we're getting a transition period for the for Ukraine to comply, how long will this transition period be and what do we do to compensate our farmers that cannot use these products just justly? Um, but they have a very unfair competition here because it increases their production costs because they cannot use these products. Um, at the same time, I know there is a law in the making in Ukraine to, uh, start banning the use of antibiotics for prevention of infection, not for growth promotion by 2026. But sorry, but we're talking about a country in war. How much priority will be given to this transition period. That's what I want to know. And one last question. And there's a small increase in sensitive products I heard. But which products are they and how small is this small increase.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you very much, chair. Well, this is not the first, nor will be the last time we discussed the future Cup. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Healy, for his courageous deposition today. The EEOC report clearly shows that the commission proposal for the future Cup undermines productivity, reduces farmer income, disturbs internal market, reduces European food security, and, very importantly, increases global greenhouse gas emissions. But it's not too late. It's not too late because we can still act. And I would like to highlight what my colleague pointed out, because if we take amendment one from this report and we start working with amendment one and we can uncouple funding from the NPF, we have a very good start to make and deliver a cup that delivers for farmers and has food security as main priority. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. And I'd like to congratulate the commission on on on this free trade deal with Australia. At first hand, it looks quite interesting. As a farmer citizens movement we welcome free trade. Um, but as many of my colleagues also have mentioned, um, the cumulative effect of all these trade deals start to really add up for our agricultural sector. So we need to get a clear picture on this. Um, I have to say also that the commission resisted the managed to resist the pressure from Australia and the farming sector because the Australian farming sector definitely is not happy. They want it to do more. And so I'm happy that they were able to resist because we cannot rely on other continents for our food production. I have a concern, though, when it comes to equal standards because even though in a lot of things were similar, Australia allows the usage of estradiol beta 17, both for growth hormone purposes and for estrus synchronization. Of course, on paper, treated animals cannot be slaughtered for the EU. But the same is true for Brazil and we see the controlling mechanism failing on both sides. So we have estradiol containing meat reaching the EU market, exposing our citizens to compounds that danger their health, not to mention the unequal playing field for our farmers. So my question is, how does the Commission plan on ensuring that this Australia deal will not result in a Brazil 2.0? And we do not consume what we cannot produce ourselves. Thank you very much.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you very much, Commissioner. The current form of the Common Agricultural Policy was started by a Dutch visionary that reformed agriculture in Europe. And now we are at a crossroad for agriculture in Europe again. On Monday evening, with the vote in the Agricultural Committee, we send a very strong signal to you, Commissioner, a clear signal for an independent, separate agricultural policy and the responsibility of the Agri Committee for simplification and reduction of bureaucracy, for strengthening agriculture as a strategic sector, for food security, for empowering farmers within the supply chain, for ensuring future for our young farmers, because those were the reasons that farmers took the streets and we have taken their concerns very seriously. We listened to them, we stood up for them. But this is all now at stake. Losing a separate Cop budget threatens the survival of thousands of European family farms and puts European food sovereignty at risk. So, Commissioner, you are our only hope. Don't let this happen. The cop is the very heart of the European Union. So let's reform Europe together. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. I would like to thank all the speakers for their contribution here. And I would like to respond to the ambassador. That made a good introduction. So thank you very much for that. And indeed, certain aspects of your agriculture have a smaller environmental footprint than ours. But that is not what we're questioning here. The big question on the table is basically consisting of two things. First of all, our fear for risk to public health and second, equal playing field for our farmers public health. Because of the extensive usage of antibiotics, which still is standard practice in Brazil. Brazil is one of the largest users of antibiotic units per animal worldwide. The usage is expected to double by 2030. And this poses a serious threat to public health in the European Union, where we have worked very hard in the agricultural sector to reduce the antibiotic usage by 70% reduction to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance in humans. So we're concerned about public health when it when we're talking about Mercosur. Secondly, we are concerned about equal playing field. And the Commission has until now not given correct answers to our questions. As correctly pointed out, we have an unequal playing field for our farmers, and this is not a fair deal for them because they have to comply with stricter standards than their counterparts. So we do understand the importance of this deal, but we cannot do this at the expense of our farmers and the public health of our European citizens. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for being here and answering our questions. My party stands for Food Sovereignty for Europe. And the Mercosur treaty undermines this. So we will oppose to this agreement till the end. And I will tell you why farmers were used as bargaining chips for the interests of other sectors. I worked for more than ten years in the livestock industry, in Mercosur, in South America in general, and just come back from a three week study trip talking to people in the industry. We can simply not compete with the Mercosur agri food industry. We have such strict regulations in Europe that we actually can never compete with any country for that matter, unless we deregulate. So I urge you to discuss this with your fellow commissioners in order to increase our competitivity. There is no way we can control all the products coming in. You keep mentioning beef as one of the examples, and beef, of course is of great concern. But quality control in beef is relatively easy. Have you any idea how poultry is being produced in Brazil or pork in Paraguay for that matter? There is no way we can actually check animal welfare or the use of antibiotic growth promoters for the products arriving in the slaughterhouse. It's just simply impossible. So we should be honest to our farmers. We cannot guarantee an equal playing field. You mentioned Italy and France, luxury agri food products being exported, but the Netherlands is the number two exporter of agri food in the world. So what do I tell my voters back home? We have no any benefit. We just been overflown with with bulk products of inferior quality coming from South America. So I want to ask you and that's my final question. Have you looked into the regional effects of this Mercosur deal for the farmers in Europe? Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much and thank you very much for your explanation. You've said many interesting things, and I'm going to pick out two, because a lot was already mentioned by my colleagues. You mentioned you want to lead us on an innovation friendly base. And that's very good. But my question is what does it mean if we do not reduce the approval time for innovation? And should we really approve top down, or should we move to an output oriented, oriented approach where farmers are responsible themselves for their emissions and can choose housing styles and emission reducing measures to achieve those goals without having EU approval? So making the farmer a real entrepreneur again instead of top down putting measures on top of them. And then I would also like to echo what colleagues and evidence already said. If we really want to move forward with the bioeconomy, we need to push forward the use of renewable and digested. We have a nitrate directive that is 34 years old, and you would like to lead this presidency science based to drive innovation. But science has advanced over the last 34 years. We can turn manure into gold, but then we really need to update this very outdated nitrate directive. So my question to you is, would you help us to push this forward and reduce our dependency on chemical fertilizers? Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “(12:00:59 – 12:02:07): Thank you very much, chair. Dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and shadows for the good work. And as an SCR member representing the Farmer Citizens movement, I welcome the increase of the ring fenced cap from $2.95 to 436,000,000,000. Nevertheless, I express again our concern that a single fund will be leading to a phasing out of the cap budget. Our fear is that it will increase the internal market buyer barriers. I disagree though with the rapporteurs that 35% of the ring fence budget should be used for environment and climate actions. European Court of Auditors showed us this week that is money not well spent as there are no measurable results. Furthermore, it goes against article 39 of the functioning of the union and should therefore come from a different budget. I also challenge the allocation of the COP to member states. If food security is really of concern, why are we not rewarding productivity? My country, The Netherlands, is 1 of the most productive but ranks only sixteenth when it comes to cap allocation. Finally, I would like to advocate to maintain a separate funding for the sectorial interventions as currently is the case and not include them within the national cap allocations. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. Commissioner Hensen, very good to have you with us. Indeed. And I'm very happy to be able to exchange views. I've heard a lot of interesting things here, and after years of focusing on how to go back in time, I'm very happy to see that you want to look ahead together. With agriculture and livestock intensive areas, jointly seeking innovative solutions to reduce environmental impact without compromising production production capacity. Sorry. We need to make sure that our farmers have the tools to be competitive. When we talk about making sure that we strengthen their position in the value chain and in the food supply chain and unfair trading practices, we need to make sure that they are competitive. I've heard many things that are interesting today, and I have a specific one that that I have not seen in the proposals. When it comes to unfair trading practices from the large supply chains, there's very little acceptance of innovative new practices. So my question to you is, what would you do to make sure those are faster accepted down the food supply chain? And another question with regards to this. There's too many labels today. So every specific chain has a specific label with slightly different requirements with their own auditing system, which basically in daily practice comes down to 70 or 80% the same requirements, but they want slightly something different. And this is a big administrative burden up on our farmers. So we need to need to be able to simplify this number of labels I think. So my question to you is what are you going to do about this. So our farmers can do what they do best which is producing food.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you very much. Thank you very much, chair. Commissioner, thank you for being here again with us. I must say that even I am disappointed. And the budget, of course, is way too low. But you've changed the spending rules, which I think made sense with capping direct payments and only paying to active farmers. But you have not changed the rules when it comes to the allocation of the budget. So you follow the old rules and it doesn't make any sense, because given that my home country, the Netherlands, has relatively few large farms, few retired farmers and a high proportion of active farmers, should Netherlands therefore not be entitled to a proportionally larger part of the Cap budget? Now we get 5.1 billion ranking as place 16 of all member states, while in productivity we ranked number five. And if we really think that food security is important, shouldn't we then not reward productivity when we allocate our cap budget? Thank you.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “Yes. Thank you very much. More than a question, I actually have a suggestion. There are a few countries mentioned in the Court of Auditors report that have 0% residual errors, like for instance, the Netherlands, Denmark. And there also seems and this was also mentioned in the answer that we just heard recently, there seems to be a correlation between a low residual error and low absorption capacity. So what I would propose is that we stimulate the absorption capacities in these countries by lowering the co-funding demands for countries that have shown impeccable track records in the past for the new MMF in 2028. Thank you.”
  Conditions to access EU budget
• “Thank you very much, chair. Very much. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for being again with us. And I saw in the introduction that it's an advantage that you're an MEP because you speak very fast. Um, I have some questions. I very much welcome this proposal for generational renewal, but I'm a bit worried it doesn't go far enough because the 6% is not an obligation, but a recommendation to member states. And one of the big hurdles for young farmers is the access to land. You expressed that also very well, and you expressed in your report that there's going to be EU co-financed instruments. So which ones are they going to be? And do you take into consideration that on average a hectare of land costs around €12,000 in the European Union, but in the Netherlands this is on average €180,000. So this 6% that a member state can use has a huge has a tremendous different impact in different member states. So how are you going to support young farmers in member States, which have extraordinary land prices? Thank you very much. Oh, and one last point I want to make, please. When you talk to your colleagues from DG env, please tell them to stop the nature credits plan that they have. Thank you.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, Director Chris. Let me begin by recognizing the excellent work of the Efsa and the Feed and Food Omnibus presents Efsa as an indispensable pillar of the welfare of a well-functioning system. It highlights Efsa's role as a center of expertise and a guarantor of high protection standards. But at the same time, it points to structural constraints, including limited resources, heavy workload from renewables, fragmented implementation across member states, and the need to use efsa's capacity more efficiently to support innovation and faster decision making. A recent OECD study comparing Efsa in the EU and FDA, EPA in the US describes Efsa as the scientific backbone of EU risk assessment. However, it also identifies lengthy procedures, extensive data requirements, limited pre-submission engagement and complex multi-level decision making that delay market access. The OECD comparison with the US is instructive. Our objective in Europe should not be to lower standards, but to make our system more efficient, predictable and innovation friendly while learning from our US counterparts. So I have three questions. How can Efsa further strengthen early scientific advice and dialogue with applicants to reduce delays and data uncertainty? Where does Efsa see the greatest potential to free capacity for new assessments, and what support from legislators would most help Efsa deliver faster, more harmonised decisions while maintaining the EU's high level of protection? Thank you.”
  EU policy on novel foods
• “Thank you very much, chair. And I would like to wish you best of luck in your next, next stage of life. I find it very worrying. What you. What you just told us. This is in line with what you also mentioned on April 8th, in the Energy Committee, where you said Efsa struggles to stay at the forefront of science and it struggles to deliver outputs as they should be delivered to meet your own standards. And it doesn't mean that quality is reduced, but the time of delivery is very much reduced. Um, in particular, of course, the Efsa's crop protection team has only 60 people. And as you say, we have 250 substances lined up waiting to be approved, but it may take up to seven years. Meanwhile, we keep taking away crop protection from our farmers and we're not approving anything. So one of the things that I would like to ask you, if you can consider to have to keep an emergency toolbox of available substances that can be used in times of crisis, but not regular regularly throughout the year. Well, we don't have the newly approved substances, and we also both know, and this is going to try to be short, but it's an important point. You're asking for more money and I completely understand. But at the same time, I'm coming from business. We also know that we can free up capacity if we look at what tasks are priority and what tasks are less relevant. So can you provide us with a budget and implementation timeline, which includes prioritization of tasks so we can really fight for you for what you need? Thank you.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “(15:26:50 – 15:28:50): very much, Chair. And I'd like to thank the authors for this report that clearly points out where are the weak points for us to have a thriving bioeconomy. A well-designed bioeconomy should transform agricultural byproducts into valuable resources, so manure into gold. Waste should no longer be seen as a problem, but as a continuous stream of energy, fertilizers, and raw material of which the potential can be unlocked through innovation. But Europe has focused on less emissions, fewer animals, less use of chemicals, whereas the future should be based on innovation-driven sustainability. Sustainability and economic progress are not contradictory, and technology should be regarded as part of the solution rather than merely a quick fix. As the report also states, priority should be given to waste streams to avoid competition with food production. Therefore, livestock farming is a key enabler of circularity. Livestock farming is not a problem to phase out, but an innovation driver and a key pillar of the European bioeconomy. However, innovation is often held back by regulation rather than by the technology itself. So what we need is legal certainty for investors and farmers, faster approval procedures, and technology-neutral policies that set the goals but don't tell us how to get there. Acceleration of approvals for products such as renewed digested biocontrol agents and other bio-based innovations. Europe needs a more enabling regulatory culture that actively supports innovation. A major policy priority is the development of regional bioeconomy ecosystems that support regional bioeconomy clusters, strengthen integrated value chains, and learn from successful examples such as The Netherlands. However, to do so, the EU should encourage member states to value these bioeconomic clusters, including the livestock clusters that we have in certain countries. Innovation only succeeds when farmers, processors, technology providers and researchers operate within connected regional ecosystems. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Um, what I've heard here and what my colleagues have said, I support fully, but I want to I want to use an example. Yesterday I talked to a Polish farmer that actually has a that actually has a farm in Ukraine, and he told me how he's fighting to obtain good results and they deliver 40 pigs per per year, which is fantastic. But they have lost already seven workers that were killed in combat. We are expecting that Ukraine, a country in war. Farmers that are struggling under these circumstances will adapt to European rules. The amount of antibiotics that are used in Ukraine are tremendous. And this is an immediate threat for EU public health, and it's not an equal playing field. So our producers are complying with the highest standards and we're telling them, no, don't worry, Ukraine is going to comply with the same standards. That is wishful thinking of the commission. Uh, chair, this is not going to happen. So my question is, first of all, stop saying that we're going to have an equal playing field because we will not have an equal playing field. It's impossible to trace the use of antibiotics, for instance. And what are we going to do? Are we going to give our EU producers a production bonus in the transition period that Ukraine has to comply? Or how else are we going to ensure that there is some sort of compensation for these high quality standards that our EU producers are delivering? Thank you.”
  Agricultural trade: Ukraine imports
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for the rapporteur for providing us with an update of the state of play. And we can see that with 704 amendments, the opinion within this House is quite divided. We just heard from the European Court of Auditors that we are missing a link between spending and results. So I strongly disagree with the rapporteur that we should increase our target in the general expenditure for climate measures. We are already spending 35% of which the vast majority of the of the public money we spend. We have no possibility to check whether it has any result at all.”
  Climate efforts
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um. It's amazing. You know, we've been talking about this deal for 25 years. And in the end, we're in a rush. So much rush as chair of agri committee says that we don't, as an agri committee, have enough time to investigate in detail the safeguard clauses. So next time I would give a recommendation to miss von der Leyen that she buys a changeable flight ticket, you know, so we're not in a rush because she has to be there the 20th of December. That would be very nice. But we seem to forget that we cannot eat cars and we really depend on food. So when we have a serious complaint from the agricultural sector, we need to take this seriously. And yes, the safeguards make it a little bit better, but it's not sufficient because it doesn't turn it into a good deal. So I tabled amendments, and I do recommend that we look into those amendments and that we take the agri letter very seriously as an inter committee, because there is a lot in the safeguards which is not covered. It's not timely. There's no protection for public health. Um, and that's the reason why we need to look at those amendments. But I also want to highlight my final question, chair, I would really like to ask the commission for a timeline, because we hear rumours that the council will vote on the 18th. That means that we will not vote until January. But still we hear that Mrs. von der Leyen is going to go on the 20th to Mercosur. So what's going to happen? She's going to sign the deal without consent of parliament. That's a big concern.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, chair. Dear Commissioner Varhelyi colleagues, who wants firefighters that require you to fill out ten different forms before they save your burning house? The Covid pandemic showed us that Brussels is not the place for a quick response to an urgent crisis. On the contrary, the interventions from the commission during Covid 19 led to more complexity and less transparency. According to the European Court of Auditors, the World Health Organization repeatedly stated that there is a global health crisis that is systematically overlooked and that is antimicrobial resistance. They predicted to be the number one cause of death by 2050. Yet the development of new and better antibiotics remains critically underfunded to combat antimicrobial resistance. European farmers and doctors limited the usage of antibiotics, so resistance declines. But what has the commission done? It concluded a trade deal with Mercosur, allowing tons and tons of meat with potentially resistant bacteria to enter our food chain. As an animal scientist, I can tell you this is a train wreck waiting to happen. So, dear Commissioner, we need to step up our efforts to develop new antibiotics before it's too late. So let's make sure that the Critical Medicines Act delivers on this as well. Thank you.”
  Antimicrobial resistance
• “(11:52:18 – 11:54:27): Thank you very much, chair. ECR requested this exchange of view because even though we welcome the commission proposal, we believe that it will not really lead to harmonization in practice. And the main concern that we have is that vaccination is not a viable solution in many cases. Blue tongue has 24 serotypes, and vaccines are not available for all of them. Young calves cannot be vaccinated, and this makes compliance heavily dependent on derogations, which already exist under the current system. As a result, the new rules would effectively reproduce the current fragmented situation rather than simplify it. A key practical problem arises when a nonvaccinable serotype is detected in a region because animal movements become highly restricted for up to 2 years. Movement is only possible via derogation or costly and limited vector protected establishments or short and not universally available vector free periods. So this creates significant logistical and economic burdens. To give you an example, to make it easier, in The Netherlands, serotype 12 is present, which currently no vaccine exists for. Once the new rules apply, this will also impact parts of Germany and Belgium. And because of these limitations, ECR proposes to add an alternative option, which is movement based on a negative PCR test combined with preventive insecticide treatment. But, therefore, the European Commission need to consider to amend its delegated regulation. The amendments that we need require movement of listed susceptible animals, using a negative PCR, movement of animals under 90 days of age on the base of a negative PCR, allowing PCR testing combined with preventive insecticide treatment to allow for the movement of animals, ensure that movement requirements remain proportionate and risk based, to take into account that vaccination doesn't fully prevent viremia or transmission and preserve the functioning of the internal market and maintain a level playing field inside Europe. So we would like to request the commission to amend its delegated regulation. Thank you very much.”
  Animal diseases prevention and management in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. Um, the commission is is selling us a fairy tale. But this is not a fairy tale with a happy end. We haven't learned anything from the Water Framework Directive. This is probably the most ridiculous and dangerous idea I've heard so far being in Parliament. The Commission does not understand the basic principles of biology. How can we define biodiversity in. This has shown to be a complete disaster. Um, the water framework directive. There are so many factors influencing it that the farmer has no influence on that and is able to control it. Then the question that some of my colleagues asked, who is going to buy those credits? Banks. And what happens when farmers do not comply with the agreement? The bank keeps the farmers land. Now it's voluntary. But what is next? It's going to be an obligation. It's a slippery slope. Colleagues. So sold as an additional income. But actually it's an extra controlling mechanism on our food production in disguise. So please, colleagues, let's stop this before it's too late. This is ridiculous.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “(18:29:08 – 18:30:15): Thank you very much, chair. The Farmer Citizens Movement welcomes Commissioner Vahili's effort to simplify existing legislation to boost our innovative and competitive power. The streamlining of reporting obligations on animal health are a good example, which reduces the administrative burden for farmers. In the area of feed additives, moving towards unlimited authorizations and reducing renew and reducing renewal procedures stimulate innovation. But it does not go far enough. Could the commission look into providing more flexibilities for companies to use their own r and d trials for FSA registration purposes to speed up the process and also to reduce the cost? No company will bring something on the market if it's not well tested because it will simply not sell. We welcome the new possibilities for the use of drones. And as we are in the era of precision farming, it is the high-tech that protects our environment, but also attracts young farmers to the profession. So can the commission clarify whether this is the first step of the digital strategy announced in division of agriculture and also whether there's a possibility to stimulate the use of drones for precision farming under CAP. Thank you very much.”
  Digital and precision farming
• “Thank you very much, chair. I appreciate the the statement by the rapporteur, Gabriel, but 6% of the deal is only 6% is the agriculture, but that 6% is really the sector that provides our food and delivers our food security. So I don't think we should think lightly light about this. We've been talking about this deal for 25 years and it doesn't become any better for agriculture. Agriculture. Sorry. The safeguards make it a little better, but some tweaks do not help with magically turning a bad deal into a good deal. The protection for sensitive areas for sectors is not sufficient. No timely intervention and the triggers do not seem to be realistic. There are no automatic mechanisms and above all, the safeguards do not protect farmers against the difference in production standards, not to mention the risk for public health due to the routine use of antibiotics in the Mercosur countries. So, chair to conclude, the EU Mercosur deal continues to be a nightmare for European agriculture and thus for our food security. So tomorrow we vote on the letter for Inter, and let's make sure we send a very strong message to to Inter. This is a bad deal for European agriculture. Thank you.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for coming here and explaining this new situation to us. To be honest, I'm sitting here with mixed feelings. Contrary to many of my colleagues here, I do believe you did listen to many of our wishes because many of our requests can be found in your proposal. 80% ring fence means the direct income support for farmers. And today we know that we spend more than 30% of cap on climate measures that do not end up in the pockets of our farmers. So we really have to sit down and do the math to see where we are with this direct income support. The problem is, and as an overall problem is that you have received too little budget to really realize your plans. But the mistake I think you're making here is to leave that responsibility with the member states to top it up, because we all know what is going to happen. It's not going to happen or it's not going to happen in an equal way. And when I started, I believed we were fighting an equal playing field outside of Europe. And now we're creating a very unequal playing field inside of. So that's a big, big concern.”
  Direct payments to farmers (pillar 1)
• “In the Netherlands we have the water boards, 21 organisms that control water flow and quality, along with flooding protection. The first water board started in 155. It is the oldest democratically chosen organism in the world. Thanks to these organizations, the Netherlands have been able to keep dry feed over the last centuries. So yes, we need to harmonize certain things in Europe. It is, for instance, completely crazy that member states don't have harmonised criteria for water quality, which leads to the situation that a small river in the border region between Germany and the Netherlands that is green in terms of quality in Germany, turns red as soon as it enters the Netherlands and then turns green when it enters Germany again. Doesn't make any sense. But other aspects are better left to the member states alone. I would therefore recommend that the recommendation for water use remain non-legislative. And to my colleague Flanagan, the biggest threat to water quality in the Netherlands for the Dutch water boards are not livestock, but are drugs and medication entering the sewer system in urban regions? Thank you very much.”
  Water pollution
• “Thank you very much, chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I will continue in Dutch. Thank you. Well, we need to look at the situation of farmers in Netherlands. And in fact, it's well known. We complain because our farmers have to meet to much higher standards than those applied in South America. We know that, uh, um, standards are not being met when it comes to sanitary and phytosanitary, uh, measures. We want healthy, uh, produce healthy products on our tables. Uh, farming is strategically important, and it doesn't take this into account. Our requirements.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur
• “Thank you very much, chair. Commissioner, thank you for being with us today. I have two topics for you. First is very quick regarding MDH cage, how do you plan to reward member states that are already compliant? Because we talked about punishing, not punishing them. But I want to know how you're going to reward them. And then I have a question regarding level playing field, which most of my colleagues here have rightfully questioned already. But I have a question about a scandalous situation, about the import of Chinese poultry that has been rising in recent years to approximately 60,000 tons a year, and more than half of that is actually being received in my home country, the Netherlands. The commission's audit from November last year revealed that in China there's no regard for animal welfare whatsoever. A disgrace and a blow in the face for the European poultry producers. Insufficient, stunning or no stunning at all in slaughterhouses. Can you imagine the suffering? Self certification by operators. There's no rejection of fecally contaminated carcasses, and there's no traceability to see which farms these animals are coming from and if they're EU certified. So I have two questions for you. But the most important one is why has the Commission not taken action under article 53 of regulation 178 2002, such as temporarily suspending imports? I'll leave it there. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “Thank you very much, chair. While consumers are paying more than ever for their food, our Dutch and European farmers are being squeezed out of business. Let's be clear. The root cause is not a lack of regulation, but too much of it. Combined with sky high energy prices and quality and compliance standards that exceed what is actually necessary for safe and sustainable food production. Lower energy costs, not only for households but also for businesses, are a basic necessity, not a luxury. And while Brussels, with the Green Deal, keeps pushing for more extensive action, what we really need is sustainable intensification. Smarter, more efficient, more productive farming. Intensification only drives up prices and drives farmers out of business. Moreover, it threatens European food security and sovereignty. Europe must choose. Do we want imported food from countries with lower standards, or do we want affordable, high quality food from our own soil? The time to decide is now. I say let's reform Europe. Thank you very much.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Commissioner Sefcovic. Thank you very much for being here. And the tactic of retaliation is clearly not working. And I appreciate your explanation here today that you are talking to the United States, but it seems rather reactive still to me. Instead of proactive working towards a new approach, we have a €235 billion trade surplus in our trade with the US, so we are not really in a good spot, even though the US may need some of our specialty products. Like you say, our economy is stronger, hit by a trade war, way stronger than theirs. So we're talking European jobs here. For instance, the two the 200% tariff on spirits, a business that for the Netherlands alone equals €650 million in export to us, will jeopardize approximately hundreds of thousand jobs in Europe. So this means we have to negotiate, we have to offer them a good deal. And that's the job of the commission. So what I want to ask you, Commissioner, is why is the commission not preparing a total package deal whereby we listen, also listen to the American grievances while we maintain our current export levels to the US. So we continue our business. Thank you very much.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “And thank you very much chair. Commissioner. Minister. A deal can only be reached when the counterpart accepts your short term. So we need conversation, not confrontation. And behind the deal there's companies. There's workers. There's families depending on it. Those those are our priorities. So we support you very much, Commissioner, in finding a very balanced deal. But we do have a red line and that is an equal playing field for our farmers. And that is non-negotiable. This means no chlorine washed chicken because that only compensates for poor hygiene. While our farmers need to comply with the strictest hygiene and quality rules and no meat from animals raised with growth hormones and antibiotic growth promoters and on countermeasures, let us be very cautious. American terrorists burden Americans, but European countermeasures will hit European jobs. Thank you very much.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “(16:05:56 – 16:07:21): Thank you very much, Chair. The commission proposal amends several pieces of legislation: the water, the waste framework directive, the industrial emissions directive, the medium combustion plants directive, and the 2024 industrial emissions directive revision. The commission correctly argues that environmental legislation has become too complex and administratively burdensome. However, the commission seeks targeted simplification while preserving the revised framework. The rapporteur, Miss Singer, believes this does not go far enough. So she seeks a much broader rollback of the 2024 livestock related IED reform. At ECR, we strongly support Rapporteur's position about reducing regulatory burdens, protecting livestock farmers, defending family farming structures, preventing further industrial style regulation of agriculture, maintaining competitiveness, and ensuring proportionality of environmental legislation. Especially, we support her view to exclude cattle farmers from the IED as farms fundamentally differ from industrial installations. We also support her return to previous thresholds for swine farms, and in our amendments, we will seek to see if those thresholds are sufficient or whether they should be heightened. So I thank the rapporteur for her good work and her line of thinking because this clearly needs a very strong revision. Thank you. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much also to the rapporteur for this report. And just so we have this clear as a committee, this is an own initiative report from the Economic Social Committee. So it's not something we, as the Agriculture Committee asked for. Nevertheless, interesting information. But I would also like to ask the the Economic Social Committee to to reflect on something like high tech agriculture to reflect better the current situation in the European Parliament. But I have also a demand to ask because can we stop, please, to put fashionable labels on agriculture? This is regenerative, this is organic, this is conventional. Let's stop doing that. Let the freedom what works, where and how it works to the farmer themselves so they can use from different methods what works the best for their soil, on their own territory. And that's why I think it's very dangerous to start putting KPIs linked to, for instance, regenerative agriculture, and link those KPIs to the access of EU funds, because then we create a dependency which is not freedom of choice, and that will really kill all entrepreneurship for our farmers. Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Dear Commissioner. Last week I was milking dairy cows together with a young girl named Joanna. She told me I just have one dream and that is to take over my parents farm. We, the young farmers, are the food producers of tomorrow. And young farmers need to know that they can take over a farm, that they can start a family and raise a new generation of farmers. They need security and protection. Are you aware, Commissioner, that there is a judge ruling in the Netherlands that forces the publication of addresses of all animal farms. Farmers don't feel safe anymore as activists can be on their doorstep any time without punishment. Tomorrow we will vote on simplification of Cap and about strengthening the position of farmers. And this is a huge step forward. But it is not enough. We need you, Commissioner, to step forward. The new Cap proposal is too low and creates an unequal playing field within the European Union. It was you who said this morning you cannot build a continent on an empty stomach, Commissioner. But you are allocating the cap budget in a way that punishes productivity. The Netherlands is in the top five of highest producing EU countries, but ranks place 16 when it comes to the amount of cap money it receives. If you really believe that food security is important, then why are you not stimulating this productivity? Because if Dutch agriculture doesn't survive, we will all lose because it will be a big step backwards in terms of access to innovative solutions for all European farmers and ultimately consumers pay the price. So I'm asking you, Commissioner, to have a careful look again at your proposal and make the changes to create certainty and financial stability. So young farmers like Janak can have a future.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Thank you very much, chair. Since the escalation of the Middle East conflict and disruption in the traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices have gone up. We see this ourselves in petrol stations, but farmers are seeing a steep increase in production costs due to the increase of natural gas prices. The production of nitrogen fertilizers are up 70 to 80%. We are now in the seeding process and farmers need to choose for their conventional crops or alternative ones that require less nitrogen. We are at risk of running into shortages for, for instance, maize, but we have a simple solution apply more manure. But we can only do this with a revision of the nitrogen nitrate directive, and we need it now. When will the Commission finally understand that this is the solution to a problem that we have? There was no mentioning of this in your statement, so I would really like to ask you, please go back to Commissioner Roswell and say that we expect action now. A second very concerning situation is about the fact that this whole crisis has on the prices of amino acids like lysine, which is the first limiting amino acid for pigs, and methionine, which is the first limiting one for cows and feed additives. They went up by almost 70%. And as a European Union, we're extremely dependent on amino acid imports. Without these amino acids, our animals cannot produce as efficient and as sustainable and will require more feed resulting in higher greenhouse gas emissions. It also risks an increase in the need for therapeutic antibiotics. So is this really what we want commission? Is this really in line with the sustainable agriculture, the sustainable livestock production that we have in mind? It completely undermines what the EU stands for. So we need also a strategy how to limit the price increases on amino acids and feed additives. And we also need a long term strategy how we think we're going to decrease our dependency on third countries. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “(10:31:48 – 10:33:08): Thank you very much, chair. I would like to congratulate Rapporteur Maria Walsh on this, report because this report clearly states that generational renewal must become a central pillar of future EU agricultural policy. She argues that this requires dedicated COP funding up to 10% ring fence for young farmers, better land access, improved finance, fair succession systems, innovation support, stronger rural serve rural services, sorry, and better quality for farming families. And many of my colleagues stated that women have, not the same access to land and financing. By law, they do have the same access to land and financing. However, they're more less likely to pursue a career in agriculture, as their counterparts. So this report correctly frames that generational renewal is not only an agricultural issue, but it's a demographic challenge. It's a rural development issue and a strategic question of EU food security and resilience. It's a very complete report. I have not very much to add. I only will be tabling 2 types of amendments along the line of tax benefits to stimulate in in member states to have easier access to land, and family raising and stimulation of the use of the newest technologies to attract young people to the innovative precision farming in Europe. Thank you. Madam Herans?”
  Digital and precision farming
• “Thank you very much. Chair. Miss Weiner, thank you for being with us. Unfortunately, your first sentence already got me into a big shock because you mentioned golden standard of EU farming. Golden standard for sustainability is organic farming. And then I think the Commission has lost connection completely with the reality. Yes, there are certain very good aspects for the environment about organic farming, but also lower yields and more land use needed. So the world is on fire around us, and the Commission continues on this stubborn road to increase our organic farm production. So I think the problem here is that we have to understand that if there is no market, it will not work. In the Netherlands, less than 3.5% or less than 4% actually, of food consumed is organic. And organic producers are converting back to conventional because they lose money. So when you come here to lecture us about the golden standard of sustainability, please go do your homework, visit farms. Really do it because I have the feeling you don't. Organic farming will only work and farmers will make a good living if there is a market demand, not a commission that pushes their ideology top down. Remember how it worked out for Sri Lanka? Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)
• “Thank you very much, chair. Contrary to my colleague Aubry, I do not believe that we are handing over the keys to Europe, to Trump. I think it's very good that we averted a trade war with the US. It's our most important trading partner and the deal is not perfect. That I do agree. But a deal is better than no deal. And EU businesses are very clear in their messages. They can work with this deal. So I would like to congratulate the negotiators who choose for pragmatism and European jobs in this particular negotiation. I'm also very interested to find that agricultural technology will now benefit from a lower tariff rate, but it will be interesting to see what it contains completely. But I'm sure that the innovative European agribusiness will profit from this. It's very important that we take this deal now to phase one, so I hope we can find also more solutions for other sectors in phase two, especially the spirit sector and others, where we would like to see further steps in reducing tariff rates. And we call on the Commission. This is very important because I always insist with every trade deal to ensure that there will be no concessions on phytosanitary rules and EU standards. We cannot consume what we cannot produce. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “Thank you very much, chair. Also, thank you for the commission for presenting these numbers. Quite interesting, worrying that we're not producing enough cereals to meet our own demands. But what I find also interesting, because now we've only looked into the volume of the harvest. But do we know anything about the quality of the cereals that have been produced? So what is the protein content of these cereals? Because we don't base our diets based upon grams of cereals that we eat, but on protein content and other nutrients that we need. So that's one of the questions I have for the commission. Um, so how are we doing quality wise? And also, I would like to continue what Mr. Dorfmann just said. What are the regional effects? So is there a possibility that some other regions can compensate for loss of some of those, um, um, failed harvests? And in that sense, I would also like to give the recommendation that we then provide the optimal conditions for those regions that can perform very well to also actually produce, because if we don't allow them to use enough organic manure, they cannot produce and compensate for failing harvests in other areas. So we really need to put emphasis on creating the most optimal conditions for production. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “(11:21:11 – 11:22:02): Thank you, chair. Thank you, mister DeMeo, for this report. And dear colleagues, the EU promotion policy is an important tool to promote EU produced agricultural products and open new markets. But colleagues, at the same time, we're opening the door for cheap inferior food produced in countries that we have new trade deals with. This is an unfair competition for our farmers, and therefore I believe it's imperative that we protect them, and therefore, I propose the following amendment to this report. The EU Agri Food Promotion Policy should prioritize encouraging the consumption of food produced within the EU. Therefore, a portion of its budget should be allocated to measures that support the affordability of EU produced food, ensuring that it remains more accessible and affordable for citizens than imported products. And I would kindly ask you for your support in this amendment. Thank you.”
  Import of agri-food products in the EU
• “(17:21:05 – 17:22:23): Thank you. Maybe I exceeded my quantum of speaking time, this agricultural saying you that's that's why you skipped me. Thank you, chair. Thank you, madam Werner, also for explaining this to us. I have a problem, though. If the commission understood the severity of this crisis really, then this would have been the moment to revise a 34 years old nonscientific based NITRID directive. How difficult can it be to convince Jessica Roswell that this has to happen now? We have been asking for this since the start of the mandate, and we were hoping for this to happen. Nothing happens. Our farmers have manure that they can use to fertilize their fields, but now we make them pay to remove it from their farms. And we have them buy expensive fertilizers instead. And then we say we have a fertilizer crisis. No. We have a lack of courage crisis. And this lack of courage crisis also reflected by the insistence of the commission to include agricultural products in CBAM and ETS without giving the money back to the farmers. So we have a very easy solution to this problem, and I really don't understand why the commission does not have the courage to take the right decision.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “I can I might not make it into the minute, but but we'll get there. Um, regarding the do no significant harm, our farmers already comply with extensive environmental legislations, so Cup should be excluded from the do no significant harm. Food security and farm viability should have priority. We seem to forget why we have the Cup in the first place. Dear colleagues, please read article 39 of the functioning of the Union. What the cup is supposed to do. The ECR is mentioned by my colleague. Bertrand has tabled various amendments to steer the proposal in a more realistic direction, and I have one additional question for the rapporteur. Has anyone asked the farmers whether they believe that gender disaggregated territorial reporting is necessary, or if they believe this is a Brussels inspired desktop hobby that just increases bureaucracy? Thank you.”
  Agriculture (green)