Stefano BONACCINI

Policy topics Stefano BONACCINI is active on

What Stefano BONACCINI has said (29)

• 2026-02-16 “P-000663/2026 Answer given by Mr Hansen on behalf of the European Commission The EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement 1 and the Interim Trade Agreement 2 will provide comprehensive protection of 344 EU geographical indications and will thus significantly improve the position for EU producers. The timely application of the agreements is the best and only insurance policy against abuse of EU geographical indications in Argentina and Mercosur in general. If the EU considers that Argentina failed to comply with obligations under the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the Interim Trade Agreement regarding protection of EU geographical indications, it will be able to resort to the dispute settlement mechanism established by the Dispute Settlement Chapter of these agreements. The Commission will ensure that the relevant provisions on geographical indications are effectively applied and respected and will not hesitate to take legal action. The Commission is further assessing all the implications of the recently announced US– Argentina agreement for EU trade interests, in constructive cooperation with the Argentinian authorities. 1 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12450-2025-INIT/en/pdf. 2 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12419-2025-INIT/en/pdf.”
  Trade relations with Mercosur · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2025-10-06 “P-003915/2025 Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the European Commission The Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by Italian pasta producers. In coordination with Italy and the producers concerned, on 6 October 2025 the Commission filed comments with the Department of Commerce in the framework of the investigation to recall the World Trade Organisation (WTO) criteria for correctly determining dumping margins for companies under investigation. In addition, the Commission’s concerns were raised with the United States (U.S.) at the WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices meeting held in Geneva on 28 and 29 October 2025, as well as through bilateral contacts at both technical and political level. Both the EU and the U.S. are taking steps to implement the commitments outlined in the 21 August 2025 Joint Statement. 1 . On the EU side, the Commission adopted on 28 August 2025 two legislative proposals, COM(2025)471 2 and COM(2025)472) 3 , to reduce EU tariffs, which are now under consideration by the co-legislators, the Council and the European Parliament. In addition to this, the Commission continues to engage with the U.S. both at political and technical level, aiming for concrete and balanced outcomes. To this end, the Commission is proposing and discussing concrete steps to take this work forward. This will allow targeted and constructive discussions in line with the scope and objectives of the Joint Statement. The Commission is closely following the situation and supports the competitiveness of the EU agri-food sector. The Commission will continue to defend EU producers and ensure that EU agri-food exports can compete fairly in global markets. 1 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/joint-statement-united-states-european-union-framework-agreementreciprocal-fair-and-balanced-trade-2025-08-21_en. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2025)471&lang=en. 3 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2025)472&lang=en.”
  EU-US trade relations · Export of EU agri-food products
• 2025-06-10 “E-002327/2025 Answer given by Ms Roswall on behalf of the European Commission The Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference for the ceramics industry (CER BREF) is 18 years old. Its review incorporates the technical progresses achieved since its initial publication and elements of the revised Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) 1 , e.g. circular economy or decarbonisation. IED Article 3(10) defines BAT and highlights that the economic and technical viability of a technique is a fundamental element. To establish BAT, the Commission employs a rigorous evaluation process involving comprehensive data collection and analysis of environmental, technical as well as economic aspects, also considering the various production processes. Key considerations 2 include environmental benefits, performance data, cross-media effects, economics, technical applicability, and implementation drivers. For reviewing the CER BREF, the Commission is assisted by a technical working group (TWG) of nearly 200 experts from Member States, industry, and environmental nongovernmental organisations promoting environmental protection and human health. This TWG provides crucial input on the economic and technical viability of proposed BAT and is currently helping the Commission reviewing and analysing the data underpinning the draft BAT conclusions for the ceramic industry. The November 2024 draft of the BREF aimed at collecting comments from the TWG with the objective of improving it. A data assessment workshop took place from 24 to 26 June 2025 with all involved stakeholders. Based on the outcomes of this workshop and further discussions with the various parties, a new version of the draft will be published, as part of the normal process and before the final TWG meeting (tentatively scheduled for November 2025). 1 Directive (EU) 2024/1785 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 amending Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) and Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, OJ L, 2024/1785, 15.7.2024. 2 Commission implementing decision laying down rules concerning guidance on the drawing up of BAT reference documents, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32012D0119.”
  Industrial emissions directive (IED)
• 2024-09-19 “E-001761/2024 Answer given by Mr Wojciechowski on behalf of the European Commission As indicated by the Honourable Members, the newly adopted Geographical Indications (GIs) Regulation (EU)2024/1143 1 is expected to foster the harmonious development of GIs in the EU, reinforce the role played by producers’ groups with an increased focus on sustainability while enhancing enforcement and controls to fight against counterfeit. The Commission will monitor the implementation of the above-mentioned GIs Regulation, analyse the results and assess the need for further action to address possible areas for improvement. As indicated in the question raised by the Honourable Members, if necessary the actions could inter alia include measures in the areas of outreach activities (to favour GIs uptake in Member States with fewer GIs registered), raising awareness and understanding of the EU GI system and its benefits and improve the knowledge of the GIs logo. These measures will complement other ongoing actions supporting the development of a robust, viable and sustainable EU quality agrifood system, fit to face globalisation and climate change challenges. 1 OJ L 23.4.2024, page 1: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/HIS/?uri=OJ:L_202401143”
  EU framework for voluntary quality and sustainability terms in food marketing
• “Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the commission for their presentation of the impact on pollinators and the problems that we are facing, and also for telling us about the production, prices, price volatility and the impact that it has had in the sector. The market analysis reflects, in part, the climate change driven decline in pollinators and very unsustainable practices with pesticides. We're at the risk of seeing some irreversible consequences on levels of farm output. Could you comment on this? Unless we take some action, we could lose €5 billion worth of agricultural output annually in Europe. Obviously, we're going in the right direction, but I think we're not doing it fast enough. We need to make sure that we stop imports of adulterated or counterfeit honey. We need to impose these provisions of the breakfast Directive absolutely rigorously throughout the whole EU. We must have rigorous labelling, and we need to make sure that we manage our landscape and our rural environment so as to tackle climate change. Do you think that the MFF is going to have enough funding to address these goals? I led the region of Emilia-Romagna for a number of years, and we invested extensively in food security and strategic investment.”
  EU policy on pesticides
• “Commissioner, we agree that the current cap should be simplified and improved. But if the result is to cut 20% of of resources and to go to national, regional levels, it's not going to work. In the report that we won a very large cross-cutting majority a few months ago in the Parliament as a whole, and in the Committee, we put forward a proposal to, uh, and uh, because I agree with Mr. Fidanza say we need Indexation, which would help greatly to hold on to part of the resources and how. As von der Leyen said in the state of the Union speech, we need a lot of promotion of our excellence immediately. To respond to tariffs, Trump's tariffs and to diversify markets.”
  Agricultural funding
• “I don't think there's anything to worry about. We have had a very far reaching discussion with the political side and the technical side, and the reply is very simple. If all the members of the Agriculture Committee, which represent from the left to the Patriots, uh, liberals, socialists, Greens, ECR and the liberals and so on, they all all agreed with the proposal. And obviously they have to answer to their voters But so that means that they believe this represents progress in combating unfair trade practices. And this hadn't been envisaged completely in 2019. Uh, I think having spoken to the minister, Mr. Jensen, the Danish minister, I think we can see that those who are behaving properly have nothing to fear, uh, from this proposal that we're putting forward. And it can only be an advantage.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you, Minister Johnson, for presenting the presidency priorities. I share your focus on innovation and speeding up negotiations on the LGT regulation with regard to this regulation on cross-border cooperation concerning unfair trading practices, which we will be voting on this afternoon. It could serve as a step forward to protect farmers and consumers. Now the negotiating mandate is very ambitious, but we ask for greater flexibility. And in September, we will be concluding the legislative process. Now, as rapporteur of the Agri Committee's position on the future MFF, I can only express my strong concern about the future proposal for a single fund. The Parliament has repeatedly reiterated our opposition to this model, and in view of the statements made by many of the colleagues in here, do you expect that it will be possible for agri fish to take the lead in the council to change the configuration that the Commission wants to impose?”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Chair. Commissioner. On the Unfair Trade Practices Directive, which I'm the rapporteur for, I really appreciate this basis that we've got to address unfair practices. Every day there are delays in payments changes or cancellations of food products and farming products, which means that farmers have to try and enforce their rights. There is an impact on consumers too, and there's an impact on quality as well. There's exploitation of labor and unfair, unsustainable practices, and added costs of virtually €5 billion a year and a further €10 million damage a year as well. There are difficulties in dealing with and implementing practices and legislation at the cross-border level, but we have to protect our food producers, our agricultural producers, from unfair practices. The ways that authorities can cooperate are not just limited to the proposed. There has to be a European model. We have the ex officio process within the single market. The member states have to remove any counterfeit IGP or PGI products from the market to end any kind of unfair practices. We need to work on this as soon as possible. I and my office are unwilling to do this, and we have to do this in an ambitious way, as ambitious a way as possible, so that the agri food sector and consumers and, um, food supplies to make sure that everyone behaves properly and tackle the dramatic problem of unfair practices. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Chair. I think we're faced with a situation which is likely to become structural rather than sort of a short term cyclical when it comes to sort of pigmeat situation. I think, um, this is a trade dispute that has nothing to do with the agricultural sector. More electric vehicles. There's the problem of swine fever. It hampers access to the market with particular problems or impact in countries such as Italy. But not only, but it has to be seen in part of our overall context. Given the tariffs imposed by the US and Pigmeat imports into the US. That's a sort of dissymmetry which hits hard. Our farmers downward pressure on prices and are jeopardizing a whole sector. I think we need to act at various levels at a diplomatic level. First and foremost, I think we need to open channels, a structured channels of communication with Beijing to avoid any escalation. We need to safeguard access to the market as far as our producers are concerned. Secondly, at a commercial level, we need to activate trade defence instruments and, if necessary, have recourse to the WTO in terms of litigation. And thirdly, at the strategic level, I think we need a new policy to the agri food sector promotion. I think we need some kind of structured plan. We need adequate resources. We need to diversify and ensure our presence in terms of excellence on the global market. This is something we've been calling for for months. The commission, through van der Leyen, had called for a three fold increase in the funds in the sector. And we're at last moving from words to deeds. The more we promote European produce, open up markets, those are our priorities. Facebook giants such as the US and China, and the geopolitical weight of the EU. We need to coordinate with other strategic sectors Mercosur. Australia. Mexico. India. Bring them on.”
  Export of EU agri-food products
• “The second is major transparency along the agri food network, with a rapid alert system enabling commissioner national authorities to share information on cross-border unfair trading practices. Intervening in a coordinated manner in order to put an end to such practices and impose sanctions. The third is effective protection at international level to avoid some buyers or purchasing centers to get round the rules merely by moving their own seat outside the European Union. Colleagues, the text that we're about to vote upon, which has already received unanimous vote of all 27 governments in Council and the unanimity of all the political groups in agri contributes to restoring a better balance in terms of forces along the agri food network, guaranteeing a fairer pay for the work of farmers and the value of their products. At a moment when the primary sector is facing major challenges global competition, our own food safety, we need fair and certain rules. I'd like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Danish presidents of the council, the Cypriot Presidency, Commissioner Hansen, DG agri and last but not least, our own secretariats. The result that we've obtained today is the fruit of teamwork. We've managed to bring together different sensitivities, different points of view, but we've struck a balance between all those involved, from farmers to consumers. The day I think we can say that the single market is strong when it is fair and that European policies are credible when we can take decisions quickly, but in particular when it protects those who work and creates value.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “I myself am in favor, of course, of the generational renewal. But the problem is, is that the budget from, uh, Mrs. von der Leyen goes in the opposite direction. Uh, cap cuts, the cancellation of rural development programs. Grams. It really. I mean, I come from a region in Italy, Emilia-Romagna, that in the last few years invested €30 billion in Europe to create new jobs for young people. And unfortunately, the this means that there has been improvements and there have been more young people going in. So we can do things we need to keep on this path. What about pensions? I mean, this is often they are just not enough, and that's why they have to continue working in the first place. Let's ensure that we really do get this intergenerational cooperation off the ground.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “Well, the report clearly indicated the challenges of the European Union. Therefore, we need an MFF that finances the policies. So an ambitious transition for productive models which are more competitive and more productive. But over the last seven years have dropped by 85 billion because of inflation in the Agriculture Committee. We asked for an increase in funding for the cap to adjust inflation and better, more efficient direct payments, Ailments and also to face up to crisis situations. We need European interventions. Commissioner. Not new national plans managed by the capitals in Brussels and excluding the regional bodies. The vote on all of these points tomorrow will be very important if we want to continue having food independence and autonomy. Sustainable management of the land which would otherwise be abandoned.”
  Agricultural funding
• “Pending the revision of the directive, and bearing in mind how almost a quarter of food trade in the Union has a cross-border dimension, we felt it was necessary to have this proposal, since countermeasures such as the establishment of a violation or the imposition of sanctions by national authorities are extremely complicated when the buyer is located in a different member state. As the Agricultural Committee with a view to protecting agricultural or food producers wherever they are, from abuse and unfair practices, we have decided to intervene on three points in particular without adding any bureaucratic burden on suppliers or buyers. The first is to strengthen cooperation between individual member states by requiring national authorities to put an end immediately to any unfair cross-border practice imposed by a purchaser in the territory of the member state. In fact, we want to replicate the very successful European model, that of the protection of the PDO and PGI. We have also increased the constraints on cooperation by identifying specific cases in which they're also extended to more stringent national rules. The second is more transparency along the supply chain. With the creation of an early warning system open to third countries, through which the commission and national authorities can share the information they have on the existence or risk of unfair cross-border commercial practices and any measures taken. The system would have a significant deterrent force and would guarantee quick and coordinated reactions to stop these unfair practices and apply sanctions.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “One year on from the proposal, Commissioner Hansen, this Parliament has managed to transform a technical regulation into a real act of economic and social justice. We said clearly that Europe cannot accept the fact that farmers have to bow to the diktat of major buyers and major distribution channels with the text we're about to vote upon, Europe is showing that it can listen, can take decisions and do that very quickly indeed. Each year, unfair trading practices lead to losses to the tune of some €5 billion for farmers and producers in Europe. It's a whittling down of margins that affects not only those who produce, because it fuels a race to the bottom in terms of prices. It has an impact on the quality of our food, on production processes and in some cases, the worst. It feeds into exploitation of work and the work of gangmasters. That is why we are intervening in a single market where a quarter of agri food exchanges are cross-border in nature. What we need are effective European tools. The regulation will oblige the 27 member states to cooperate, to share information, to launch investigations on their own motion in order to put an end to unfair trading practices. Thanks to the very strong negotiating mandate voted with a large majority in this chamber. Negotiations conducted in recent months have introduced three major innovations without adding to the red tape, either for producers or for buyers. The first is the strengthening of cooperation between member states. Countries that have more advanced rules can indeed use this European framework in order, in a coordinated manner, to end banned practices at national level, below cost price, avoiding grey areas and inequality in terms of protection.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “The information collected would then flow into the annual report prepared by each member State to monitor the most widespread unfair behavior and evaluate the effectiveness of this regulation three years after entry into force. Thirdly, protection also at the international level, providing for the same methods of cooperation. If the request refers to practices suffered by third country producers or imposed by third country buyers. This is a necessary addition in order to ensure adequate levels of protection against unfair commercial practices applied by central purchasing offices that are often located outside of the territory of the Union. An additional element, also on the basis of the opinion voted by the Committee on the Internal Market, which I thank for its cooperation, is the obligation for buyers from outside of the union to designate a person responsible for the EU who meets the obligations established by this regulation. This is a concept already provided for in various regulations, such as those on e-commerce or medical devices, and which aims to prevent some operators from circumventing European rules by moving their registered office outside the union while continuing to main intra European commercial relations. These are the main innovations compared to the text proposed by the Commission. All changes that do not affect the structure of the directive, which will continue to be applied and respected in the same way throughout the Union. The work of these weeks, for which I would like to thank all my fellow rapporteurs and the Secretariat of the Agri Commission for their essential support, aims to build a position for Parliament that is as ambitious as possible by protecting the quality and competitiveness of our agrifood sector, agricultural workers, consumers and all those on the distribution chains that behave correctly, finding themselves in a situation of unfair competition with respect to those who exploit their suppliers.”
  EU restrictions on unfair commercial practices
• “We do not want this regulation to be perceived as a witch hunt. Those who fairly manage their trade relations will have nothing to worry about with this text. After today's vote, which, as I said, was practically unanimous, the text will be announced in plenary during the next session in September, as of September 9th. Immediately afterwards, we will have the Trilogues with the Commission and the Council. And this regulation could in fact, be the only proposal by Commissioner Hansen to be concluded by the end of the year under the Danish presidency. Responding quickly to the demands of our agrifood sector for a more dynamic, sustainable and fair production chain. I met with the Danish Agriculture Minister yesterday following his presence in the committee, and I thanked him because he included in the presidency's programme in the section on the fight against unfair trade practices. He referred to this text. And given that it's been approved with such an extraordinary majority, we both agreed that we would try to ensure that it becomes operable at under the Danish presidency. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. With today's vote, and thanks to an almost unanimous vote, there was only one vote against and no abstention. So all of the represented political groups and those present voted in favor. And I think the only vote against was from someone who was non-aligned with any of the groups in the political party. As the agricultural committee, we tried to provide a specific response to the concerns of farmers and agri food producers with a text that will help to rebalance the balance of power along the supply chain, and to guarantee a fair remuneration for the work of farmers and the value of their products. This new regulation will strengthen the fight against unfair cross border commercial practices, which farmers and small producers Suffer from buyers and large scale retail chains. We're talking about delays in payments. Unilateral changes or cancellations of orders. Refusals of written purchase contracts. All behaviors that those who do business are forced to deal with every day. And the impact affects consumers as well because it's a race to the bottom, which obviously decreases quality of the products, encourages labor exploitation. And unsustainable practices. And obviously, anyone who produces with additional costs of almost a €5 billion per year and the damage at European level of over 10 billion, thanks to this regulation, which adds to the 2019 directive, it reaffirms the agricultural legal basis and confirms the fight against unfair commercial practices as an instrument of the Common Agricultural Policy. All of the countries of the Union will be obliged to cooperate to eradicate these behaviours and ensure that the battle won by the European Parliament seven years ago, with the approval of the directive, is not in vain.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. Two questions. Strategic dialogue with farmers and animal protection. Animal welfare protection. The commission should actually have a universal system of designation, which applies right across the EU to all products. There has to be a much better harmonized system for designating products from an animal welfare point of view. Then the second question about a level playing field for animal welfare. Current experience shows us that there's a huge variation in expectations and standards across the EU. There's a great deal of uncertainty as to how we can stem the increasing disparities. So what do you intend to do to tackle this? How do you intend to ensure that minimum standards even can be properly implemented and enforced? Thank you. Thank you. This week, thousands of communes in Italy are actually demanding that there be a proper labeling for food products across the EU so that all citizens can actually have access to proper information. And yet, the Commission is still not actually agreeing to this request, which would give consumers so much more confidence in the products that they buy and consume. Are we actually doing what we should here in the European Union? We have said that there should be compulsory labelling on all products. And recently the member states rejected that in the context of the Ocean Pact discussions. I would like to ask you what you plan to do to ensure that the interests of the consumers are taken into account so that they can know exactly where their products came from, and so that we're not just talking about transparency and traceability, but properly ensuring that it is a reality and properly guaranteeing that our food is of an excellent standard. Thank you.”
  Food labelling harmonisation at EU level
• “We need, um, rapid alert systems so that we will get all the information that's necessary as quickly as possible on risks And existing cross border unfair trading practices, and also the measures that have already been adopted to fight against these also deterrents. Very important aspect here, uh, because of course the best thing to do is to prevent these things happening. But when they do happen, we need to ensure that fines and penalties are commensurate and are appropriate and come, come into play quickly. So when we've got large scale widespread, uh, then these also need to be tackled just as much. I would like to thank the Danish Council for, um, supporting us in this. And at the same time, DG agri of the commission, because they've always been very available and have been very willing to agree with us and and be just as ambitious as we are. Um, next Wednesday, the 12th of November. That will be. The next deadline. And it's very quick because it's only a year after the initial thoughts were put on paper. So we can tell people and show that the European Union doesn't always drag its heels. So we're looking forward to the next trilogue. And and hopefully we will be able to wrap up work on this as soon as possible.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “The geopolitical situation which we've been brought into as the result of Netanyahu and Trump's choices, is having an impact on European farmers and on the closing of the Strait of Hormuz has meant nitrogen fertilizer prices have gone through the sky, and they're vital for food security and production. Faced with this scenario, the action plan that's been presented today is a first step. But enough. It's insufficient. We need genuine resources mobilizing the cap reserve. New eco schemes. Ad hoc measures for rural development to support the most affected sectors and to accompany them to more effective use of resources and to increase our strategic autonomy. We have to speed up the use of organic made in Europe fertilisers. This is a request that's been made and is finally on the Commission's agenda as the Parliament. We're ready to play our part, but we need concrete measures ASAP for our farmers. Thank you.”
  Use of fertilisers
• “Thank you very much. I think that young people who choose this sector today have got need three things simplification, dignified income and accessible funding. On the first point, simplification, I think important steps forward have been made and are in progress at the moment. On the second, guaranteeing a dignified income, I have more concerns. The proposal for the budget for the 2028 to 2034 risk cutting the cap by 20%, but also remove the funds over the MFF that are usually organised between the Commission member States and regions. And this was about 30 million in my local region. So some of those projects will find themselves being cut down. I'm particularly thinking of measures that we have applied in the cheese sector in my region. So what are we supposed to do in terms of making plans when less money is available? On the third point, the question is what are the necessary innovations to ensure that the EU can remain competitive and attractive for young people? And as co-legislators, what can we do to speed up the permitting and authorisations?”
  Agricultural funding
• “Well, I'd like to thank everybody. I've already said it, but I'd like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and anyone that's working on this from a technical point of view as well. Uh, we're very hopeful that we'll be able to wrap this up at record speed, because it really is important in order to protect our farmers are the ones that really work so hard, and particularly small and medium sized enterprises and holdings that are faced with these unfair trading practices that really put their whole existence at risk. So thank you very much, and I hope we'll be able to come back with some really good news very soon.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Well, those are things that we could be expanding just now. Thank you. Well, after two years of more positive trends and prices, which actually the producers could live off, the prices are falling consistently. And this is causing a huge difficulty across the whole dairy sector. It's difficult to plan any sort of investment. And expansion is simply a pipe dream. Many operators are wondering how on earth they can possibly make ends meet, and whether they ever can at all. Therefore, we need to look at production patterns, and we need to see what sort of support we could give to, for example, producer cooperatives. It might be that if we can support and increase the number of cooperatives, it would be possible to have a better common market organisation in our next policy period. We've also got to recognise that the situation does differ a bit from one country to the next, but there is a widespread crisis. What we need to do is is address unfair competition and we need to stop people selling below cost price. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “Thank you. President. Colleagues, thank you for your convinced support. Unanimous support for work that lasted almost a year. During that time period, we listened to all of the stakeholders on various occasions with the clear objective of not introducing new requirements for healthy companies. Unfortunately, there are so many of them that comply with the rules and which have proper relationships with their suppliers. What we wanted to do, though, was act with determination against the abuses that we Abuses we've seen, which affects the weakest. Now, after weeks of bad week, today we have good news for European farmers. We don't see this regulation as an end point, but a starting point. It should be the basis for further strengthening the 2009 directive and choosing very clearly to be on the side that those have, those that have less bargaining power, small farmers, small companies that that produce high value products for our communities. Our goal, no matter what our political party has to be to ensure that we have a fairer, more transparent agricultural and food chain which is free of abuse and blackmail. I don't like words, I like measures, I like concrete choices. That's how we strengthen the internal market. That's how we strengthen the trust of citizens in the European project. Thank you.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “We have a directive dating back to 2019, which allows a certain amount of ambition in, uh, the question of commercial practices. Trade practices. And in fact, some member states actually decided to go beyond the level of harmonisation required. I'm thinking of France with the law in France and also in Italy, thanks to the work of the Quality Control and Fraud Prevention Institute. We in the Agriculture Committee were all in agreement and in favour of any national initiative that can actually combat abuse against farmers and producers. And in fact, that's something that they have asked for very strongly from us. We also imagined a different mechanism, for example, when we have countries which have equivalent regulations, which are more ambitious, the obligation of cooperation between the various authorities will be applied in the same way. We, however, decided to allow Member States, those member States concerned the possibility of applying this mechanism on a voluntary basis, and only where there is mutual agreement. There are a few cases where national regulations are actually enshrined in law and they're considered necessary. But just remember that today's vote, which was unanimous in terms of the political groups. And I believe there will be representatives of the governmental majority's. Representatives of political groups. Not necessarily. In the von der Leyen majority, but nevertheless in. Strong majority positions. People who are in government in those countries. So we believe that that being the case, we are along the lite right lines and that member States have every interest in guaranteeing protection against unfair practices. And in any case, they should have a possibility also of doing this on a voluntary basis. And that's why we believe that we've found the right model, we've found the right approach to combat this form of abuse. And on the other hand, we've tried to obtain agreement among the member states. So I don't really believe at this stage that there will be any objections from council.”
  EU policy on farmer–buyer relations in the agri-food supply chain
• “The cuts of 20% to the cap fund, a management structure with a single fund is going to have an impact on business knowledge locally. Cutting rural management funds, in our opinion, are going to have an adverse effect, if anything, on the current practice. Thank you.”
  Cohesion and rural funding
• “These unjustified tariffs are not only putting our trade at risk, but our entire relationship across the Atlantic. We have got a choice. We could just have the European companies and workers pay the price, or we can respond and we can improve the agreement during the negotiations and we can defend our European interests. We need to have a practical response here, and we can do that from the Parliament. And there has been some ambiguous behaviour by some of the parties and some of the governments. But thank you to the new agreement. The agreement could be interrupted or it could just not start. If there is a threat from the United States to the relationships that we've seen here when it comes to the derivatives on steel and aluminum. For us, we have non-negotiable conditions here. And it's a simple point here. Either the EU makes itself respected here and gain credibility, or it just leaves others to decide for us. Thank you.”
  EU-US trade relations
• “The aggressiveness of the Trump presidency is a watershed moment. We need to strengthen Europe today or make it irrelevant tomorrow. Doing away with the right of veto, going from a monetary union to a simple to a more efficient political union, and having strategic choices that will allow Europe to rise to the challenge of fighting with new and old powers, with this menace of protectionist protectionism. We need to defend our interests and those of companies and employees who whose only fault is to know how to do their job. If every state only thinks of themselves, then will be irrelevant. Then the impact of tariffs will affect everyone in Germany, for example. It will also have effects on Italy and vice versa. We need to know where we stand. We need to be reasonable and dialogue in a world that needs to build bridges and not to build walls.”
  EU political integration